Godfather'sGun, how do you propose to reconcile your proposal with the conflicts with other constitutional provisions that I have mentioned in prior posts?
As I mentioned previously, that's why I brought the idea here, to ask for ideas and assistance from those who are specialists. I'm not a lawyer, you are, you tell me. Don't get me wrong, I don't mean you have to, just that that is why I am here with it, for the help from others that may be willing to make it workable. Barring that, then as I also mentioned previously, lets come up with something else that may move us forward. The problem I see and want to reconcile, is that the majority of those on our side, including orgs such as the NRA, are always on the defence, rarely offence. We are always fighting new proposals, rarely puting forward our own. We do, yes (national reciprocity, suppressor), but it is minor compared to what we should be trying to accomplish and the antis are pushing for. Additionally, and one of the reasons I made my idea the way I did, is that we are just one SCOTUS appointment from losing it all. Everyone assumes that amending the Constitution is hard, which by way of a true amendment, it is. But a de facto change only requires five judges. I included in my plan ways to prevent that, but you and others say they go against other constitutional laws or are just plain unworkable. That's fine, I get that, but let's work on something else that will. The upcoming elections, including the next presidential, are not looking that great from a pro-2nd perspective. We won't know for sure until they actually get here, so we'll see, but I believe we need to go on the offensive while we still have a majority because we don't know for sure what the future holds. Does that mean trying to fast track legislation, or forcing a SCOTUS ruling, I don't know, as both of those are very difficult and slow processes with many requirements to actually make them happen. But as I said a moment ago, we currently have a majority, and hopefully will for at least a few more years, so let's make something of it. That said, what do we do?Godfather'sGun, how do you propose to reconcile your proposal with the conflicts with other constitutional provisions that I have mentioned in prior posts?
Well, I really don't think you and I have the same concept of "moving forward," but I'll play. We're not going to get anywhere through appeasement. We've tried that repeatedly (1934, 1968, 1986, and 1994 immediately come to mind).Barring that, then as I also mentioned previously, lets come up with something else that may move us forward.
That's fine, I get that, but let's work on something else that will. The upcoming elections, including the next presidential, are not looking that great from a pro-2nd perspective. We won't know for sure until they actually get here, so we'll see, but I believe we need to go on the offensive while we still have a majority because we don't know for sure what the future holds.
The above two quotes lead me to believe that a little education on how our legal system works may be in order. Might I suggest: Spats McGee’s Federal Constitutional Primer. The process is slow. It just is. Fast tracking legislation might be an option, but I'll suggest that something less ambitious, and yet less conciliatory might be in order. On the federal level, let's remove suppressors from the NFA. At the state level, we could push for an "Interstate Compact on the Carrying of Concealed Weapons." That's now drivers' licenses are recognized from state to state, and I see no reason the states couldn't do it for CCLs.Does that mean trying to fast track legislation, or forcing a SCOTUS ruling, I don't know, as both of those are very difficult and slow processes with many requirements to actually make them happen.
What it has not ruled on are carrying in public for self defense, may issue versus shall issue and the like, and if Caetano v. Massachusetts applies to type of firearm (AR-15, etc.). Why don't we go after this while we hold the SCOTUS majority?
Dig around here in Legal and you'll find lots of posts on how lawsuits play out. Is it possible, if money is no object? Sure. See my federal constitutional primer on how those lawsuits go. I've even considered applying for some non-resident permit and making myself a plaintiff as well. There are still a lot of factors that go into deciding whether it's a good idea, though.Hell, being from NY and still having family there, I've often toyed with the idea of applying for a non-resident carry license just so I could fight their inevitable "no way in Hell" response, but I don't have the resources to even get the process started. As a lawyer, Spats, can you tell me if that is even possible if the lack of resources wasn't an issue?
Except that they're not,at least by Minnesota. I got a DUI in MN in 2000, and when I attempted to get a REAL ID DL in WI in 2015, they told me I could not get one because supposedly I am suspended in MN, and have been since 2000, even though I completed the requirements for re-instatement in MN, and presented them to WI, and was re-instated there immediately. Oddly enough, I was allowed to get the regular WI DL, which I did, but will soon have to deal with this again. So just like MN does not honor my WI CCW, they do not honor my WI DL. SWMBO does the driving when we go to MN.At the state level, we could push for an "Interstate Compact on the Carrying of Concealed Weapons." That's now [sic] drivers' licenses are recognized from state to state
There are still a lot of factors that go into deciding whether it's a good idea, though.
By that, I mean that when someone claims that "assault weapons" have to be outlawed, make them explain why that AR chambered in .223 is any deadlier than grandpa's Winchester Model 100, chambered in .308,
Don't worry, we have a very similar concept. The only way I would agree to any appeasement is if it was like my plan; addressing the (reasonable) anti's concerns, but giving us unfettered access and carry rights and with protections for the future. That would be the ONLY way I would consider any kind of "compromise." Those "appeasements" you mentioned are by no means anything I agree with.Well, I really don't think you and I have the same concept of "moving forward," but I'll play. We're not going to get anywhere through appeasement. We've tried that repeatedly (1934, 1968, 1986, and 1994 immediately come to mind).
I don't consider myself an expert, especially not to the level of someone with professional teaching and experience such as yourself, but I do know much more than the average citizen. I know it's a long process and "fast tracking" is by no means actually a fast process, even calling it one of the slowest things known to man in my original post. This, along with my suggestion of trying to get a SCOTUS ruling, is solely made based on the fact that we currently do have the majority in congress and the SCOTUS, and while that can obviously change, that chance for change is true at any time. On one hand, we try legislatively, and if it doesn't pass, we lost nothing significant, it's just a failed bill, but if we win, it may only be a win for a while, possibly getting legislated out of existence in the future. On the other hand, we try through the SCOTUS, and if we win, it can/should stand forever, but if we lose, the same is true. However, the current Justices on our side are mostly relatively young/healthy and likely to keep their seats for the foreseeable future, so, while still no guarantee, it may be a good time for a push. Everything is a risk though, so it may be worth not pushing until we have no choice, such as another federal "assault weapon" ban or if national reciprocity fails. I simply want us to consider our options and do more than just fight against proposed restrictions.The above two quotes lead me to believe that a little education on how our legal system works may be in order.
Absolutely. I have said many times (not just here) that this is key in convincing moderates to come to our side, even if just enough to not have them push against us. Personally, I'm cautious about using the .223/AR-15 v. .308/hunting rifle comparison for the same reason Jim Watson, above, states. I simply use the fact that .223 is not allowed for hunting in Virginia, my current home state, due to its limited power and being "inhumane" compared to larger calibers and leave the argument at that unless they need more convincing. It seems to have slightly less risk of backfiring against us with those I've used it with so far. However, I don't often get the opportunity to argue our side simply because there are few antis where I live to talk to. What I have proposed is that we get those with the resources, especially those that have their resources because we gave them to them (NRA, etc.), to push our facts and information out to the general public, not simply preaching to the choir as has been done for years. Perhaps we should start a new thread specifically about this topic and drum up some support and ideas to show to those orgs we belong to.Nonetheless, we have to stand our ground. We have to speak up. And we have to make them explain. By that, I mean that when someone claims that "assault weapons" have to be outlawed, make them explain why that AR chambered in .223 is any deadlier than grandpa's Winchester Model 100, chambered in .308, Make them explain why I should have to give up my constitutional rights. Make them explain how [insert antigun proposal] is in any way a "compromise."
Odd Job wrote:
The UK has been through this already and here's what happens:
...
8) The GPs' solution is to charge for this request.
but if we find a workable solution, we can force them to either support it, or show their true colors which would help bring more moderates to our side. Find a real and provable solution, take it to the public and show the facts and proof, and they're forced to "put up, or shut up." We don't need everyone, just a majority.
As I mentioned above, this new system is forever. It will have to include a clause that it cannot be changed or revoked outside of the specific and narrow ways allowed within.
It becomes essentially a new and improved 2nd amendment.
I don’t really care if this plan ever sees the light of day. But I absolutely care that the 2nd lives forever...
A little off-topic, but . . . . Interestingly, but probably annoying for you, is that the interplay here between WI and MN sounds like it actually is part of that recognition I mentioned. Part of the interstate compact is that when any one state suspends a person's DL, it's suspended for all of them. So if I got a ticket in OK and failed to appear for my court date, OK could effectively suspend my AR DL.Except that they're not,at least by Minnesota. I got a DUI in MN in 2000, and when I attempted to get a REAL ID DL in WI in 2015, they told me I could not get one because supposedly I am suspended in MN, . . . .
No doubt about that, Jim. It has its risks. I figure our odds improve somewhat if we attempt: (a) to put antis on the defensive; and (b) to educate those who know little about guns. The hardcore antis are coming for all of the guns and they will not be dissuaded. To shamelessly steal a line from The Terminator: "Listen, and understand. The antis are out there. They can’t be bargained with. They can’t be reasoned with. They don't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And they absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are disarmed." It sounds like an exaggeration, but after 25+ years of watching this debate, I don't think it is.This is a common Gun Culture ploy. It might backfire. Explain that a traditional looking blue steel and walnut rifle is as effective as a modern military looking mass of black plastic and you might well get the blue steel and walnut banned, too.
No, we absolutely do not "have a very similar concept." Your concept involves a very complicated and costly licensing scheme which I believe to be unconstitutional. My concept involves telling the antis to go pound sand into bodily orifices.Don't worry, we have a very similar concept. The only way I would agree to any appeasement is if it was like my plan; addressing the (reasonable) anti's concerns, but giving us unfettered access and carry rights and with protections for the future. That would be the ONLY way I would consider any kind of "compromise." Those "appeasements" you mentioned are by no means anything I agree with.Spats McGee said:Well, I really don't think you and I have the same concept of "moving forward," but I'll play. We're not going to get anywhere through appeasement. We've tried that repeatedly (1934, 1968, 1986, and 1994 immediately come to mind).
Really? You can read my mind? Amazing. I said that because contrary to the conclusion nearly everyone seems to be coming to about me, I agree with you on every point you and others have made. I want the antis to "pound sand into bodily orifices" as well. I want the 2nd to be honored as written. As I've mentioned several times, but don't seem to be able to get through to anyone here, my plan was simply an exercise I took on based on some parameters brought up by others to see if I could come with a plan that satisfied those parameters without simply stripping us of arms, but actually gave us more access than we have now (e.g., getting rid of NFA, onerous state restrictions, etc.). I also said in the original post and several times since, that I am not a lawyer or other such expert and wanted input from others to clarify things I don't have experience with and solve the problems that others have pointed out. I by no means want to actually put my plan in place instead of the freedoms we want/have. It was an exercise. The only way I would actually want it to move anywhere would be if we were forced to consider a license program, not by choice.No, we absolutely do not "have a very similar concept." Your concept involves a very complicated and costly licensing scheme which I believe to be unconstitutional. My concept involves telling the antis to go pound sand into bodily orifices.
You might want to slow your roll a little bit. There was no reason for me to try to read your mind, and there's no call for you to get snarky now. You created this thread and its title: "Thoughts on a complete rewrite..." You posted it here in "Activism Discussion and Planning." Did you read the post entitled "Read this before posting in Activism Discussion?" That thread is pretty clear:Really? You can read my mind? Amazing.Spats McGee said:No, we absolutely do not "have a very similar concept." Your concept involves a very complicated and costly licensing scheme which I believe to be unconstitutional. My concept involves telling the antis to go pound sand into bodily orifices.
So AD&P isn't about posting thought exercises. It's about forming concrete goals and the steps required to achieve them.Sticky Thread said:This isn't a place for partisan politics, whining, big philosophy or thread drift. Keep focused on constructive ideas to develop real plans to make real change in defending and restoring the Second Amendment.
andGodfather'sGun said:... In the past I have toyed with ways to end the debate over the 2nd forever. With this new free time, I have dived deep into it, thinking, researching, and contemplating....
Godfather'sGun said:...
Our Founding Fathers were geniuses, but their smartest contribution was knowing that no man is an island and there is always someone with better ideas as well as the need to debate those ideas and reform them into a final product. That is what I want this to be… Or I’m just crazy and we throw it out, but hopefully not before getting at least something out of it.
TL; DR version? Nope. This could lead to the greatest change in our country since the Civil War. Read it and add to it. Don’t dismiss it or you may lose your chance to have a say in it. As mentioned, I plan to revise it and eventually bring it to larger and more “powerful” audiences. Even our Revolution and Declaration of Independence was born as a simple idea that grew to greatness.
Our Founding Fathers were geniuses, but their smartest contribution was knowing that no man is an island and there is always someone with better ideas as well as the need to debate those ideas and reform them into a final product. That is what I want this to be… Or I’m just crazy and we throw it out, but hopefully not before getting at least something out of it....
Unfortunately, GG, you're losing credibility here. I don't believe this was "simply an exercise" for you. You told us that in Post #1:. . . . As I've mentioned several times, but don't seem to be able to get through to anyone here, my plan was simply an exercise I took on based on some parameters brought up by others to see if I could come with a plan that satisfied those parameters without simply stripping us of arms, but actually gave us more access than we have now (e.g., getting rid of NFA, onerous state restrictions, etc.)....
That's not "an exercise." That's a plan.Godfather'sGun said:...I plan to revise it and eventually bring it to larger and more “powerful” audiences....
See above....I also said in the original post and several times since, that I am not a lawyer or other such expert and wanted input from others to clarify things I don't have experience with and solve the problems that others have pointed out. I by no means want to actually put my plan in place instead of the freedoms we want/have. It was an exercise. The only way I would actually want it to move anywhere would be if we were forced to consider a license program, not by choice...
I don't think that's quite true. I've mentioned the importance of education. I think (but may be thinking of a different thread) that I mentioned that we need to reclaim the narrative from the media. I pointed you to my constitutional litigation primer. I didn't mean to ignore anything, GG, but you have to admit: your posts are kind of wordy. That makes it easy to accidentally skip over things. What is it you want to discuss?....I've made since (although you've obviously read and replied to them, you too, have ignored every other aspect of conversation I've tried to have outside of my original plan).
Perhaps that might suggest to you that there are some very fundamental flaws in your approach here.....As I've mentioned several times, but don't seem to be able to get through to anyone here, my plan was simply an exercise I took on based ...
...I've also asked for thoughts and ideas on other things we could do to improve our stance, but those have been completely ignored because everyone is too fixated on the first post I made, and have mostly ignored every reply I've made since (although you've obviously read and replied to them, you too, have ignored every other aspect of conversation I've tried to have outside of my original plan).
....Spats, I am going to read your constitutional primer, however I'm a bit short on time today, thanks.
Not under the National Health, they don't.
I didn't say anything about ideals. I said we absolutely do not share the same concepts. It's the difference between something that is aspirational in nature ("What do I want?") as opposed to directorial ("How do I get it?").Spats, I didn't mean to come across as snarky, I just thought it was a bit presumptuous of you to say that we "absolutely do not" share similar ideals . . . .
Fair enough. I didn't realize that.As for posting it here, I didn't, a mod moved it.
Answering that is a massive undertaking, and one that gives me pause right off the bat. I question whether I should even begin helping put together a plan with which I so fundamentally disagree. For whatever it's worth, GG, there have been many discussions of national/federal reciprocity laws, and if you'll search my posts, you'll find that I've consistently opposed them. Or at least, I think I've been consistent. I don't want the federal government passing more laws restricting, regulating, or otherwise defining my RKBA. It's done enough damage already.What needs to be changed to make it work?
That is far easier asked than answered. Questions of constitutionality are: (1) based on far more than just the final legislative draft; and (2) depend in part of why something was done, not just how.What needs to be changed to make it constitutional?
The NRA is the 800-lb gorilla of gun laws and lobbying. No doubt about that. I like the idea of some mainstream advertising, but I'm cautious about it. IMHO, the NRA is fairly tone-deaf from time to time.For example, I tossed out the idea of advertising by the NRA in the mainstream, organizing something (maybe a petition?) to ask them to move forward with something like that.
I doubt it, but I'll play. Which ones? Be succinct, please.You've answered some of my questions, but I also think you're still misunderstanding some of my comments.
A change to the 2nd would be required to achieve the OP's goal and we've discussed how difficult that is.
What needs to be changed to make it work? What needs to be changed to make it constitutional?