Trump releases policy paper on Second Amendment...

[jerkface11]

I see no way to make national right to carry work. If you simply make states recognize all carry permits then the hodgepodge of carry laws nation wide will cause all sorts of confusion. Not to mention the states where getting a permit is nearly impossible. Or the ones that have a difference definition of what a handgun even is. It would be like all states recognizing your drivers license but some drive on the left side of the road, and others don't allow you to use turn signals, while others require your headlights to be on at all times.

 

[Sam1911]

Well, jerkface, that's not really an end-of-the-world problem. I mean, yeah, if your're licensed to drive in one state and make right-hand turns on red, that will get you in trouble in other states. And if you go 75 mph on the highway, that's not kosher in a lot of states. And some states have special lanes where you can't drive if you're alone in the car (HOV) and if you aren't familiar with that you can get pulled over, etc.

It is a risk, and the burden is on the visitor to know the laws where s/he is. But we deal with it.

In the end, that's exactly the situation we have with carry reciprocity right now, except that there are a few states where you cannot carry at all. But when I cross the border into Ohio I have to remember that I have a "duty" to inform a cop who happens to stop me for speeding, and I have to remember not to carry at a University, or a church, or while having a beer with dinner. I wouldn't think twice about those things here in PA, but I'd better pay attention to them in many other states.

Simply increasing the number of states where I'd have the ability to carry (and duty to know the laws) can't be claimed as a negative.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...Frank, as I am sure you are aware, finding somewhere a reference to specific influence common people had on the Founding Fathers when crafting the documents that formed our nation is the equivalent of looking for a needle in a haystack. It is not a case that the needle is probably not there, it is that it is difficult to prove it is there...

• Often things are hard to prove. But if something is hard to prove, you still can't state it as fact in the absence of evidence.
  
  
• You've offered no evidence whatsoever -- merely suppositions and assumptions. Suppositions and assumptions are not evidence of any kind -- even circumstantial.

 

[R.W.Dale]

National carry is a noble idea.

But let's face it. The possibility of getting it passed and passed without the federal government sticking their fingers in the pie as to what qualifications an individual must meet to have a permit are slim to none.

Do you really think it'll be all peaches and cream carrying in a state against the local government will that only allows it because Washington forces them to?

For me national carry isn't even on the radar for RKBA must do's

 

[jerkface11]

Sam the difference being that what's legal on one state may be a felony in another.

 

[danez71]

Jerkface (edited due to spell check)

That could be said about age of sexual consent and a host of other laws.

Yet the public lives with those state by state variations every day.

 

[Sam1911]

Sam the difference being that what's legal on one state may be a felony in another.

Sure is! My point exactly.

Increasing the number of states where I have the ability to carry while following the law can't actually be claimed to be a BAD thing.

 

[Nom de Forum]

• Often things are hard to prove. But if something is hard to prove, you still can't state it as fact in the absence of evidence.
  
  
• You've offered no evidence whatsoever -- merely suppositions and assumptions. Suppositions and assumptions are not evidence of any kind -- even circumstantial.

The odds are in my favor that somewhere at least one document exists that mentions a Founding Father commenting on a political statement from someone belonging to the common people. I’ll be keeping an eye out for that document and will bring it to your attention. I am quite comfortable in believing the Founding Fathers were influenced by the political comments of the common people. The Founding Fathers read newspapers containing editorials and letters about politics that were written by the common people. I can not produce a document proving the Founding Fathers read those newspapers or the editorials and letters printed in them, but I doubt any historian would disagree with me that they were read. Even if that is not evidence that would accepted in court, that is a very strong indication that the political speech of common people influenced the Founding Fathers.

 

[Nom de Forum]

Sure is! My point exactly.

Increasing the number of states where I have the ability to carry while following the law can't actually be claimed to be a BAD thing.

Exactly! As I mentioned in other words earlier, an increase in freedom in one area often creates the legal momentum to move to increase other freedoms.

BTW, I am much like danez71 in that I travel between California and Arizona several times a year. A National Right to Carry Law forcing California to adopt some of the freedoms we have in Arizona would be of great benefit. I am sure the same benefit would be welcomed by other people traveling to and from states with radically different firearms laws.

 

[Frank Ettin]

The odds are in my favor that somewhere at least one document exists that mentions a Founding Father commenting on a political statement from someone belonging to the common people....

What does that have to do with the price of tea? You're opening up entirely different subjects.

Let's review the bidding:

1. In post 159, Sam made a specific response to another post:

   Which is exactly why we should be discussing what it should look like, and the political tactics and compromises that may be required to achieve enactment of a National Right to Carry Law. These tactics and possible compromises should be discussed and well understood long before the probability becomes high that such a law could be enacted. Done at the last minute the resulting law could be far from optimal.

   
   Unfortunately, that's a little like a bunch of shade tree mechanic folks scattered across the country mailing random car parts to some dude in Omaha to assemble into some sort of quasi-functional car-shaped object in his garage -- and saying this affects how GM builds their new model line....

   
   In other words, our discussions here are unlikely to be meaningful in the context of what is actually going on.
   
   
2. You objected in post 162:

   THR reminds me of another type of place where random folks scattered across a large geographic area discussed random ideas about how to assemble a quasi-functional object. That place would be the taverns and meeting halls of colonial America that random folks discussed the random ideas that influenced the individuals who designed the written tools that resulted in a new model of country.

   Analogizing forums like THR to the "taverns and meeting halls of colonial America" and implying that discussions among members of the public in those venues had some meaningful influence on the manner is which our nation was formed and the model underlying it political structure.
   
   
3. In post 163, I suggest that was not how things in Colonial America happened.
   
   
4. So now what? --
   
   
   • I didn't understand what you wrote? (post 164):

     ...I think you overreacted a little due to failure to pay attention to important small details.

     
     
   • Or the Founding Fathers were really in touch with the common people? (post 170):

     Do you really believe the Founding Fathers were so out of touch with what average people discussed? The population of the American colonies was approximately 2.5 million and the majority of them were located within 100 miles of the coasts from Massachusetts to Virginia....

     That's really a different question. But by the way, at the time 100 miles was about a five day journey.
     
     
   • And now the discussion has morphed into a discussion of the fact that the Founding Fathers read newspapers? (post 183):

     ...The Founding Fathers read newspapers containing editorials and letters about politics that were written by the common people....

   
   
5. I can hardly wait for your next revelation.

 

[Nom de Forum]

Frank,

Nice try at attempting to obfuscate the fact that what caused our disagreement is you attempting to attach meaning to my statement that I did not. What is really funny is in this disagreement you are wrong in two ways not just one. Remember my statement “That place would be the taverns and meeting halls of colonial America that random folks discussed the random ideas that influenced the individuals who designed the written tools that resulted in a new model of country.” You being an attorney I would have thought you would have done a better job parsing meaning of the statement. Since you didn’t I will do it for you. The Founding Fathers were strongly influence by the political and social history of Classical Greece and Rome, and Renaissance and Enlightenment political philosophy. In 1770 and even earlier common men making up the merchant and tradesmen classes would have exposure to these influences so they would discuss them. So that alone makes my original statement true, but of course that is not all. It is almost impossible for the Founding Fathers to have not read the newspapers in which politically oriented editorials and letters written by common men were published. Merely having read them causes influence and all influence has some meaningfulness. Frank you have been so wrong in the details of what this disagreement is about that no amount of lawyering tricks of rules of evidence, burden of proof, or mockery to distract can make you appear to be right to anyone paying close attention, and anymore of those tricks just makes you look silly. Of course some of the common people would be exposed to the same influences the Founding Father were and discuss them. Of course the Founding Fathers would be exposed and influenced by the common people’s discussion of politics. It is absolutely absurd for you to claim otherwise.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Nice try at attempting to obfuscate the fact that what caused our disagreement is you attempting to attach meaning to my statement that I did not....

It's you who are trying to obfuscate, and now you're trying to rewrite what you originally wrote, or ascribe to your statements new meanings.

You will, of course, complain that's not true. Who cares?

The reality is that what you've written is there for all to read.

 

[Nom de Forum]

It's you who are trying to obfuscate, and now you're trying to rewrite what you originally wrote, or ascribe to your statements new meanings.

You will, of course, complain that's not true. Who cares?

The reality is that what you've written is there for all to read.

Your words are all obscuring dark smoke, not illuminating fiery rhetoric. The meaning in my statement was always there for anyone paying attention.

Who cares? Obviously you do.

The reality is your continued failure to acknowledge how you distorted the meaning of my words and your refusal to acknowledge the near impossibility of your argument being correct is in plain sight for anyone with open eyes.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...in plain sight for anyone with open eyes.

In other words, anyone who disagrees with you has his eyes closed (or is closed minded or is prejudiced or is otherwise somehow automatically wrong). And through all of this not a scintilla of actual evidence.

Of course that's consistent with your posting style -- supposition, assumption, unsupported and hollow opinions, empty rhetoric. But no real evidence.

There is of course nothing which prevents you from posting thus. However, that certainly gives one no reason to take your opinions seriously.

 

[Prince Yamato]

BTW, I am much like danez71 in that I travel between California and Arizona several times a year. A National Right to Carry Law forcing California to adopt some of the freedoms we have in Arizona would be of great benefit. I am sure the same benefit would be welcomed by other people traveling to and from states with radically different firearms laws.

I'd like to be able to carry when I visit my family in NYS. Yes, no threaded barrels and mags 10 rounds or less, but I'd still be able to carry. That would be HUGE.

Literally EVERY SINGLE TIME this issue comes up people make suppositions about what imaginary things the government (or Democrats) will do to us when this hypothetical thing passes. Newsflash, the anti gun crowd are coming after the RKBA regardless of whether or not there's nationwide carry. There will not be standardization of carry laws due to this. They will press for it, but they won't get it. There will be hemming and hawing. NY will throw a fit. CA will throw a fit.

Then, the rest of the country will tell them to shove it. The End.

I honestly believe some folks on our side feel the need to be oppressed. It's like if something doesn't go exactly like the armchair constitutional scholars want it to go, then they expect the rest of us have to sit on our thumbs and go, "oh well, I guess I'll just stay in my home state for the next couple years until Ron Paul gets elected."

I honestly believe there are folks like this. They talk about how much freedom they want but secretly, they feel the need to be victims. They see imaginary false flags everywhere and they think that the entire government is out to get them. They think they have some sort of magic insight and then they begin quoting the Founding Fathers and talking as if we will all somehow get magically transported back to 1800 if only (something) happens.

I'd like to wake up tomorrow and see constitutional carry as the law of the land. It's not going to happen. No matter how much I wish or click my ruby slippers together, it's going to be the same set of laws tomorrow. If folks expect any headway, we need to break NY or CA. The ONLY way that will happen is a law like this. Once the residents of the state see the disparity between their level of gun ownership and the rest of the country, the laws in NY and CA will fall. Then we can talk about going permitless nationwide.

 

[Frank Ettin]

National carry --

On one hand, it could make things more convenient for a lot of people who lawfully carry a gun for self defense.

On the other hand, it gets the federal government involved and probably means further pushing the envelop of the Commerce Clause. Some people might see that as a hefty price.

 

[OldMac]

I see at least two problems with the national carry issue. First, If the States are the focus of the law, then it may be okay. I envision that a Ron Paul type of Trump might push for a law that demands all States acknowledge the 2A and not infringe upon any American's Right to bear arms in their state. However, if a Chris Cristie type of Trump really means that a NY/NJ standard shall be expected of all states so we have a level playing field, then we are screwed.

The second issue is more philosophical. Another national law for rkba might add another layer of bureaucracy cementing the idea that your God given right is a privilege that must be approved by whatever crooked clerk is in charge that day.

Frank & Nom: whats with those funny wigs they used to wear back then?

 

[Prince Yamato]

...or maybe... Just maybe... We'd have nationwide carry and we'd be subject to laws of individual states and it wouldn't be any more complex than that.

 

[X-Rap]

I'm not aware of any "national law" that requires all the states to honor the others drivers licenses, does such exist?
I do know that I am subject to all other 49 states laws and regulations while I'm driving, if one I repeatedly visited had a 40 MPH speed limit my knee jerk reaction coming from a 75 MPH state would be to lobby the central government to force them to adjust or standardize with mine.
That all seems well and good until it moves the other direction and those with more influence than I decide that the speed should be standardized at 40.
I know a few commercial drivers who operate under the DOT, it sounds like having that license is a far bigger deal than what I go through with mine, the main deal being the federal involvement.

 

[ljnowell]

...or maybe... Just maybe... We'd have nationwide carry and we'd be subject to laws of individual states and it wouldn't be any more complex than that.

Don't use common sense like that, it flies in the face of the tin-foil-hatters.

 

[Sam1911]

I'm not aware of any "national law" that requires all the states to honor the others drivers licenses, does such exist?

Nope. Which is why I said that in the tongue-in-cheek manner I did:

The very most optimistic of gun rights folks believe it would simply say, "All states must recognize a gun carry permit issued by any other state." This would be exactly like the law that doesn't exist which makes all states recognize each others' drivers' licenses.

It seems most people THINK there's a federal law that requires that, sort of like how most people THINK the police can look up who a gun is "registered to."
...

...or maybe... Just maybe... We'd have nationwide carry and we'd be subject to laws of individual states and it wouldn't be any more complex than that.

And that is the very best of the various possibilities which we could possibly hope to see. That would be pretty nifty, (setting aside the questions of expanding federal government control and Commerce Clause inflation some of us do rage against).

The other possibilities range from "not so good" to "downright awful," but aside from wishful thinking or fearful pessimism, there's no actual way to predict which -- if any -- we'll ever see leave the floor of congress and head off to receive the President's veto.

 

[basicblur]

Don't use common sense like that, it flies in the face of the tin-foil-hatters.

So if I'm reading you correctly, you think folks like Frank that bring up possible problems with having a national carry law a "tin foil hatter"?

While a national carry law may sound nice on its face, I view this as a possible case of being careful what you ask for - we need to tread lightly on this one.

If it were close to becoming law, does anyone think the anti-2nd Amendment crowd is not going to be working behind the scenes to insert a "gotcha" in the language?

Maybe I misread your intent, but I see a lot of folks that automatically dismiss people as tin foil hatters have a tendency to play checkers while the opposition is playing chess...

 

[jerkface11]

Increasing the number of states where I have the ability to carry while following the law can't actually be claimed to be a BAD thing.

I didn't mean that it would be a bad thing I just don't see any non complicated way to do it.

 

[Sam1911]

I think "Your carry credentials are valid in all states. Knowing and following the laws of those states is your responsibility," is about as uncomplicated as it could possibly get and would be consistent with all other areas of existing law, wherein you are responsible for following the laws of the state you're in regardless of your home state's laws.

And, again, is about the very most positive outcome we could hope for.



Though perhaps not the most likely one we could be handed.

 

[yugorpk]

Shouldnt be any different than a marriage or a drivers license. Its not a states rights issue at all. I don't have a "national marriage license" or a "national drivers license". I have a state issued license for each that is recognized as valid in all other states. The same should apply to concealed carry or for that matter open carry licenses ( if such a thing exists and it should ) .