Stop it with the car/driver license analogies!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Red Wind, sorry for the confusion, 15 is for sport shooting (transport only - closed container, "in a way excluding immediate use" = unloaded). CCW is 21.

Here in the Czech Republic a license is prerequisite not only to carry, but also for possession.

Thanks for the welcome!
 
Love your post. It certainly hits excellent points. Like the old saying goes, you can't compare apples to oranges. Both can harm as well as kill, so in saying that I agree licensing law abiding citizens will never stop unlawful crime of the unlawful criminal.
 
I like comparing cars to guns.... but not in the legal sense.

I like my cars very utilitarian, hence my name is Jeeper because I like Jeeps. To me, an AK47 is like a Jeep, its rough and unrefined, but it was always get the job done.

An AR15 is more like a mustang, it's sex and sporty, and can be customized to no end.

I often use car terms to explain gun types to people who don't know why I own certain guns and like other guns.
 
Because the government is the one doing the regulating, and they don't want the arms used on THEM when/if they try to act like Stalin.
 
Driver's License and CCW do have something in common...

I would agree with most of your points however, one important one may have been missed.

- A diver's license and a carry/conceal (CCW) permit should share one, constitutionally protected thing in common. Unfortunately they don't currently. Under the Full Faith and Credit Act specifically, Article IV, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution states:

“Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.”

What this should mean for us as CCW holders is that if one state permits the issuance of a CCW then the others, where this is a permitted act, should honor those CCW's. Instead we have this insane patchwork of laws and reciprocity that changes with the wind. CCW's are constitutionally protected in almost all 50. Yet my permit isn't recognized in all of those states. That is something we should work on and get fixed. That would be a win in any circle.

Also, our rights have always been trounced upon and a decidedly right leaning Supreme Court has yet to address these issues successfully. Take for instance the new New York state laws concerning magazine size, weapons types etc... 95% of these laws have been allowed to stand. Why. They deprive New Yorker's their constitutionally protected rights, as well as the rights of those that legally transit the state. How many people have been arrested, detained, charged and found guilty of transiting from one plane to another in Laguardia or JFK while never leaving the passenger terminal? I myself was stopped and nearly arrested when I returned from Germany with my weapons. The only thing that got me away from those thugs was the ATF forms that authorized me to transport them into the country.

Sorry for the vent but it felt good. Thanks for the therapy! :cuss:
 
mark.r.turney said:
...- A diver's license and a carry/conceal (CCW) permit should share one, constitutionally protected thing in common. Unfortunately they don't currently. Under the Full Faith and Credit Act specifically, Article IV, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution states:

“Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.”

What this should mean for us as CCW holders is that if one state permits the issuance of a CCW then the others, where this is a permitted act, should honor those CCW's....
Click to expand...
No, that is wrong.

  1. States recognize each others driver's licenses because they have specifically agreed among themselves to do so -- not because of the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution.

  2. In fact the courts have applied Article IV, Section 1 fairly narrowly.

    • For example, see this article:
      ...In drafting the Full Faith and Credit Clause, the Framers of the Constitution were motivated by a desire to unify their new country while preserving the autonomy of the states. To that end, they sought to guarantee that judgments rendered by the courts of one state would not be ignored by the courts of other states. The Supreme Court reiterated the Framers' intent when it held that the Full Faith and Credit Clause precluded any further litigation of a question previously decided by an Illinois court in Milwaukee County v. M. E. White Co., 296 U.S. 268, 56 S. Ct. 229, 80 L. Ed. 220 (1935).....
      Click to expand...

    • Or this article:
      ...The Court first interpreted the clause in the 1813 case Mills v. Duryee [11 U.S. 481]. Currently, the Court has heard numerous cases involving the Full Faith and Credit Clause. The Court says that the clause can be used in three different ways. First, the clause can command a state to take jurisdiction, or control, over a claim that started in another state. Second, the clause can determine which state's law should be applied when a case involves more than one state. And lastly, the clause directs states to acknowledge and enforce court judgments from other states. ...
      Click to expand...

    • As discussed here, the scope of the application of the Full Faith and Credit Clause has been well settled in the courts:
      ...The Supreme Court has invoked the clause to police state-court proceedings in three contexts: (1) determining when a state must take jurisdiction over claims that arise in other states; (2) limiting the application of local state law over another state's law in multistate disputes; and (3) recognizing and enforcing judgments rendered in sister-state courts....
      Click to expand...

    • And here's another interesting commentary on the finer points of the Full Faith and Credit Clause:
      ...Article IV, Sec. 1, has had its principal operation in relation to judgments. Embraced within the relevant discussions are two principal classes of judgments. First, those in which the judgment involved was offered as a basis of proceedings for its own enforcement outside the State where rendered, as for example, when an action for debt is brought in the courts of State B on a judgment for money damages rendered in State A; second, those in which the judgment involved was offered, in conformance with the principle of res judicata, in defense in a new or collateral proceeding growing out of the same facts as the original suit, as for example, when a decree of divorce granted in State A is offered as barring a suit for divorce by the other party to the marriage in the courts of State B....
      Click to expand...

  3. Let's look at some applications of Article IV, Sec. 1:

    • Your State B license to marry means nothing in State A:

      • It won't allow you to legally contract marriage in State A.

      • What would matter is that if you legally contracted marriage in State B now State A would recognize you as being married.

      • But any consequences of being recognized as married by State A will be decided under the laws of State A. For example:

        • If you and your spouse remain residents of State B but have investments in State A, your liability for State A income tax on those investment would be determined based on (1) you and your spouse being a married couple; and (2) the tax laws of State A.

        • If after having been married for a while and living in State B (which is a community property State) you and your spouse move to State A (which is a common law marital property State), respective rights in property acquired after the move will be determined in accordance with the law of State A, even though the marriage was contracted in State B and even if respective rights in marital property acquired before moving from State B continue to be determined in accordance with the laws of State B.

    • Similarly:

      • If you acquired title to a 1997 Ford F-150 by intestate succession under the laws of State B because the decedent was a resident of State B when he died, and under the intestate succession laws of State B you were entitled to that property, State A would recognize you as the owner of that 1997 Ford F-150.

      • That would be the case even though under the intestate succession laws of State A you would not have been entitled to that truck.

      • But again, any consequences of your ownership of that truck in State A would be determined in accordance with the laws of State A. So, for example, if the windows of that truck have a dark tint permissible in State B but not in State A, you'll be likely to get a ticket if you drive your truck in State A.

    • For another example:

      • You sue Y in State B and win. The court in State B issues a judgement in your favor against Y to the effect that Y must pay you $100,000.

      • Y splits to State A where he has all his property and bank accounts.

      • You now take that judgement to a court in State A to get a writ of execution to allow you to attach Y's property and/or bank accounts so you can get paid the money Y owes you.

      • In general, the court in State A will recognize and accept the State B judgement as conclusively establishing that Y owes you $100,000 (although there are some limited bases upon which Y might try to collaterally attack that judgement).

      • But even though the court in State A has accepted (given Full Faith and Credit to) that State B judgement, the way you can collect that judgement in State A (e. g., terms of the writ of execution, how it may be served, the interest payable on the unpaid judgement, exemptions of property from levy, limitation on garnishment of wages, etc.) will all be determined under the laws of State A.

  4. However, in general, State B will not recognize a license issued by State A to do something. If you are licensed by State A as a barber, lawyer, contractor, doctor, etc., in State A, you can't expect to take that State A license and be able to set up shop in State B as a barber, lawyer, contractor, doctor, etc. So while I'm licensed to practice law in California, that license isn't necessarily recognized by the State of Oregon to allow me to practice in Oregon (at least unless I associate with local counsel).
 
Thank you, Frank, for that post. I saw the one you've quoted, but just didn't have the time or energy to straighten out that misconception again.
 
I wish this would get buried right along with the infringement debates.

It doesn't do a lot of good to wave a flag if only a few salute it. You might as well try to find something the majority will support, or at least a large minority.
 
Being that this is my first non-intro thread-post here and that I am a "liberal gun owner"...who is not, in principle, opposed to the very consideration of some forms of regulation...I agree, in part.

However, there most interesting part of this post is, IMO, the fact that it centers around the use of an analogy. I would love it if we'd quit using simple analogies as a community period. I propose we knock off the Hitler memes, overly simple aphorisms, and general snap references to superficially similar...but ultimately weak...references to other legal and ethical matters.
 
Last edited:
Analogies serve a useful purpose, in exposing double standards in applied logic, or in illustrating in different terms, a problem or occurrence.

In this instance, drawing parallels between automobiles and weapons; fails.

Automobiles do not serve as a bulwark against tyranny, and as such, are not threatened by goverment knowing full well, who owns what.

Firearms do serve that purpose, and so are threatened by government knowing who has what.

Like playing poker....if you know what the other guy has, you have the advantage.

Goverment does not need that advantage, since their motives are often suspect with regards to individual liberty.

Thatd be like....giving ted kennedy the keys to your liquor cabinet and oldsmobile!
 
Sometimes you have to use an analogy to make the other person see where you are coming from.

If somebody is 35 and has never seen a gun, never shot a gun and knows no one who owns a gun and doesn't know anyone who faced a gun in a crime, how can they understand anything about the importance of what the right means? To them, it does not matter if it's a Constitutional right or not because it does not affect their lives. They just don't care.

Now, if you tell that same person that the government wants to take away their cars because drunk drivers kill people every day, they will raise holy heck because they think they have the right to drive even though it is not a right at all. It is a privilege regulated by the government but they don't see it that way.

They can't understand what it means to lose a right unless you equate it to them losing something precious to them and when you then point out that gun ownership is a right granted in the Constitution and driving is not, they may just "get it" or they may just blow it off because they aren't affected at all. However, you've given them an analogy they can relate to.

I believe that our biggest downfall in our fight is telling people that without our guns, the government will turn us into slaves or subjects. Whether this is true or not is not relevant to our cause because when the anti-gun crowd as well as the ambivalent gun crowd hear us hammering this home, they see us as radicals because our government would never do that to us, even though history has proven otherwise.

We need to use every other valid argument and leave out the tyranny aspect because, I believe, we lose our credibility to the people on the fence about gun control. They don't see it and never will and they paint us all as paranoid gun nuts. We gain no ground with this argument and may actually turn some people the wrong way because they don't want to support the loonies.
 
Tracer 83 said:
... I would love it if we'd quit using simple analogies as a community period. I propose we knock off the Hitler memes, overly simple aphorisms, and general snap references to superficially similar...but ultimately weak...references to other legal and ethical matters.
Click to expand...
I agree.

Analogies are often specious or spurious. They are easily debunked or ignored. Analogies are really only useful when looking at things which truly analogous -- a very rare circumstance. As differences between the things compared are identified, the utility of the analogy becomes increasingly tenuous.
 
Analogies have their uses

larryh1108 in post 89 said:
Sometimes you have to use an analogy to make the other person see where you are coming from.
(edited for brevity)
To them, it does not matter if it's a Constitutional right or not because it does not affect their lives. They just don't care.
Click to expand...
What about the analogy brought to mind by this bumper sticker, "Keep your hands out of my gun locker and I will keep my hands out of your womb" ? That is, is it possible to relate the right to choose regarding whether or not to own or carry a tool of self-defense to the right to choose whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term?

larryh1108 in post 89 said:
...leave out the tyranny aspect because, I believe, we lose our credibility to the people on the fence about gun control.
Click to expand...
I opine that the tyranny aspect of opposition to gun control is analogous to the tyranny aspect of the opposition to right-to-life legislation. (note that I am not advocating a position on the point, but merely pointing out the utility of appealing to the shared opposition to restrictive/tyrannical laws). That shared opposition to government intrusion may provide a common starting point for understanding. That is, a right-winger could ask a left-winger, "Can you see my resistance to gun control as analgous to your opposition to abortion restriction?")

Moderator Frank Ettin in post 92 rightly points out that "Analogies are really only useful when looking at things which truly analogous". Yes that is true.

I hurry to add that many analogies are useful in facets where (and only where) the relationship is actually relatable/analogous. Many analogies work within some aspects of the analogy and don't work with other aspects. Requiring a license to operate a car on public roads is one aspect of cars. Requiring a license to OWN a car is a different aspect. Requiring registration of cars is another aspect. Requiring a seller verify licensing and/or insurance of a buyer is yet another.

Some of the foregoing aspects of cars are analogous to guns and some aren't. And, one of the current (Jan 6-7 2016) Presidential actions seeks, I am informed, to require private sellers to do some sort of verification of the right of a private buyer. As far as it goes, the car-gun analogy for that aspect holds some usefulness for discussion. And the discussion becomes understandable (back to larryh1108's post 89) by the non-gun-owner who does own a car.

To enable into the understanding of the opposition is beneficial to our goal of converting the anti-gun advocate to a pro-gun point of view isn't it?

Thanks for reading.

Lost Sheep
 
Frank Ettin said:
I agree.

Analogies are often specious or spurious. They are easily debunked or ignored. Analogies are really only useful when looking at things which truly analogous -- a very rare circumstance. As differences between the things compared are identified, the utility of the analogy becomes increasingly tenuous.
Click to expand...
Frank, yes, I agree, too. And a poorly chosen analogy weakens the supporting argument, so choosing the analogy is important.

Where a car extends deadly force on our public roads, a gun extends deadly force in our world. Is there any useful analogy there?

Lost Sheep
 
I never did see anywhere in the Constitution where any government has the right to dictate what people's rights are and are not.

People are right about one thing - all the government has to do is make something a felony or in some cases an unrelated crime to revoke inalienable rights.

Even felons and mentally ill people, according to the constitution, have the right to keep and bear arms.

How about this: instead of keeping guns away from bad people, how about keeping bad people away from guns?
 
I never did see anywhere in the Constitution where any government has the right to dictate what people's rights are and are not.
Click to expand...
The Bill of Rights simply enumerates, i.e. names and numbers, a set of rights that the government is specifically enjoined from infringing. It does not grant you rights.

However, anyone who violates the laws of the land may be stripped of SOME rights, through due process of law. To deny that would be to say that, just because someone is murdering his neighbors, he can't be denied the right to freedom, weapons, and the pursuit of happiness (or even life in some states).

Which actions are crimes and which crimes require the removal of which rights -- once due process has been seen to -- are matters for legislatures to decide. Not the Constitution and not the Executive or Judicial branches of government.

People are right about one thing - all the government has to do is make something a felony or in some cases an unrelated crime to revoke inalienable rights.
Click to expand...
I don't know which people ever said that, or why saying that would make them "right" but -- in a government of the people, by the people, a system of laws is established. Once established, individuals BREAKING those laws subject themselves to the possibility of having some of their rights removed (some temporarily, some permanently) as society applies the due process of law against those individuals in court.

Even felons and mentally ill people, according to the constitution, have the right to keep and bear arms.
Click to expand...
I don't think you understand the concept very well. Rights CAN be removed through due process of law. That's an utterly necessary function of a justice system. Putting someone in jail is a removal of their rights. Executing a convicted murderer is a removal of their MOST FUNDAMENTAL right. Yet, it must be so.

How about this: instead of keeping guns away from bad people, how about keeping bad people away from guns?
Click to expand...
Oh...but I thought you couldn't deprive someone of their rights, under the Constitution? :rolleyes:
 
crazysquirrel said:
I never did see anywhere in the Constitution where any government has the right to dictate what people's rights are and are not.....
Click to expand...
This is not the thread in which to start a lengthy discussion of what the Constitution says and how it applies to RKBA issues. But the way things actually are and how things actually work in real life are often very different from the ways some people imagine things to be.

Some past threads discussing these matters include:


For a better understanding of the Constitution from a legal perspective see Spats McGee’s Federal Constitutional Primer.
 
Too many laws have been upgraded from misdemeanors to felonies just to take away gun rights.

Keeping someone locked up (due process) removes their rights until they are no longer locked up.

This keeps the bad people away from guns for the most part.

Nothing in due process authorizes the removal of any rights unless incarcerated. But once no longer incarcerated, their full rights should be restored.

Where in the constitution does it say that free men (ahem) lose any right forever?

Even due process isn't supposed to revoke an inalienable right permanently. Or at all.

I know a few 'felons' that lost their gun rights for very minor offenses (like having pot in their pocket at 18 which was a felony in that place at the time). And now they are in their 30's or older.

I might be able to see if they used a gun and hurt someone intentionally. But with that they should be rehabilitated to the point they should have their full rights restored or never let out of prison.

There are a few contradictions in the constitution.

Also, the constitution was an agreement between the people at the time and the government at the time. Where in the constitution does it say that future generations are bound by their decisions?

This is derived from the fact that congress can pass amendments to the constitution. But where does it say in the constitution that you or I agree to any of the government's decisions? Or even that we have to abide by them?

IMHO everone not locked up in jail or mental hospital should enjoy all their rights.
 
Napolitano provides an elegantly simple (as we say in the physics trade) breakdown of
Rights vs Constitution vs "The Excutive" here: ·
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016...a-guns-and-our-constitution.html?intcmp=hpbt2

> In 2008, the Supreme Court laid to rest the once-simmering
> dispute over the meaning of the Second Amendment.
> In an opinion written by Justice Antonin Scalia, the court
> articulated the modern existence of the ancient personal
> right to keep and bear arms as a pre-political right.

Read on....
It's a fairly tight outline.
 
My post can be applied to this thread. Concealed carry, gun rights, etc are included in my post.

But I will look up that item you posted to learn more about things. Thank you.
 
But once no longer incarcerated, their full rights should be restored.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't disagree with that, in principle, but that's a matter for your state legislatures to decide, and the federal congress. If you want it to change, tell your representatives and get out and vote.

The Supreme Court has not struck down the ongoing withholding of rights from felons and those "adjudicated mentally deficient," so it techincally cannot be a violation of the Constitution, and laws have not been changed to eliminate that, so until you and other like minded folks work to change these laws, they remain.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

J
  • Locked
Drivers Licenses and the 2A
2
Replies
40
Views
2K
DMK
DMK
J
  • Locked
Canadian Registration Reprieve
Replies
6
Views
2K
G-Raptor
G
B
  • Locked
My response to The New Yorker
Replies
8
Views
735
Tropical Z
T
H
  • Locked
Florida's "Right to Gun in Car" vs. Pizza Delivery Driver
Replies
5
Views
875
jrfoxx
J
J
  • Locked
Text of H.R.117 -- Handgun Licensing and Registration Act of 2013
Replies
0
Views
484
Jorg Nysgerrig
J
Back
Top