The Guardian: National Reciprocity Likely

[T.Lex]

Because keeping and bearing arms is a civil right and Congress has a mandate to defend civil rights.

Nice dodge.

Generally, individuals can sue to protect their civil rights. So where is that NRA-sponsored lawsuit?

 

[chipbennett]

Feast on the fear of Our Enemy: The NRA?s dead aim - NY Daily News

Let me guess: blood will be running in the streets?

Holy crap, they actually went there:

Needless, heartless, pointless: Blood would spill, because the gun manufacturers bought friends in Congress and now in the White House, because no one had the spine to take a stand.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Nice dodge.

Generally, individuals can sue to protect their civil rights. So where is that NRA-sponsored lawsuit?

Dodge? Civil Rights Acts are dodges? Why didn't the freemen of Mississippi simply sue so their state goverment would be educated about their right or some other claptrap?

They just spent 50M this cycle and you want to go spend more money on lawyers? No. Go educate your free jurists or whatever chest-thumping, beard-stroking purity nonsense is hip now.

I want to win. I want to burn their villages, watch them flee and hear the lamentations of their women, like Chris Matthews or any other woman on MSNBC.

The way to kill them is using the constitutional power of the Constitution, the real Constitution, not the imaginary one in the libertarian comic books. We jam a federal law with teeth right down their throats and then pass federal law after federal law to civilize New Jersey and New York. It will happen no other way.

 

[T.Lex]

The way to kill them is using the constitutional power of the Constitution, the real Constitution, not the imaginary one in the libertarian comic books. We jam a federal law with teeth right down their throats and then pass federal law after federal law to civilize New Jersey and New York. It will happen no other way.

And this is how government grows.

You really should run for Congress.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

And this is how government grows.

You really should run for Congress.

Why are we growing government?

We already have a DOJ. No reason not to have private enforcement as well.

 

[T.Lex]

Why are we growing government?

We already have a DOJ. No reason not to have private enforcement as well.

I see 2 "growths" at work: functional and conceptual.

Functionally, you'll either need more DOJ employees (or heck, let's create a new bureau for this) to handle the complaints, accusations, and outright flouting by more civilized places like Illinois and Cali, or you'll need to re-direct existing ones from other things. Like fighting crime.

Conceptually - and this is what I've tried to highlight with my first post - you're sending additional governmental tendrils into fallow ground where they do not currently exist. That's great, until the fruit turns bitter and wholly different from what was originally intended.

And private enforcement is what I've been getting at all along. Philosophically, that what Heller and its progeny were all about. And now that we are less likely to face a hostile SCOTUS, that incrementalism might serve better than trying to get Congress to agree on legislation lacking poison pills.

Congress also brought us the super-committee and fiscal cliff.

There's another angle on federal enforcement: money. To incentivize compliance, the federal government can tie all sorts of budgetary devices to the deal. Its how they think. We like the idea now, because we like the notion of national carry. But future administrations could turn such a shield into a sword to enact nationally-imposed LIMITATIONS on the right to carry.

We're both old enough to remember when states could set their own speed limits. How'd we get to where we are now?

Anyway, worth saying again that you and I really aren't that far apart on this, so I'm not sure why you're throwing all the libertarian shade at me. I'm not that. Just offering up a loyal opposition perspective.

 

[chipbennett]

I see 2 "growths" at work: functional and conceptual.

Functionally, you'll either need more DOJ employees (or heck, let's create a new bureau for this) to handle the complaints, accusations, and outright flouting by more civilized places like Illinois and Cali, or you'll need to re-direct existing ones from other things. Like fighting crime.

Sounds like a much better use for BATFE.

 

[SteveM4A1]

Feast on the fear of Our Enemy: The NRA?s dead aim - NY Daily News

 

[actaeon277]

Feast on the fear of Our Enemy: The NRA?s dead aim - NY Daily News

I notice they didn't mention the anti-gun money, or how it came mostly from rich individuals.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

I see 2 "growths" at work: functional and conceptual.

My view is that you seen an imaginary downside and not the realistic upside.

Functionally, you'll either need more DOJ employees (or heck, let's create a new bureau for this) to handle the complaints, accusations, and outright flouting by more civilized places like Illinois and Cali, or you'll need to re-direct existing ones from other things. Like fighting crime.

Why would you need that? DOJ already has a civil rights division.

No need for any new expansion.

Conceptually - and this is what I've tried to highlight with my first post - you're sending additional governmental tendrils into fallow ground where they do not currently exist. That's great, until the fruit turns bitter and wholly different from what was originally intended.

I am sending governmental tendrils into Jim Crow Alabama in today's New Jersey or Massachusetss.

And private enforcement is what I've been getting at all along.

Private enforcement needs a federal statue, with triple damages and attorney fees.

There's another angle on federal enforcement: money. To incentivize compliance, the federal government can tie all sorts of budgetary devices to the deal. Its how they think. We like the idea now, because we like the notion of national carry. But future administrations could turn such a shield into a sword to enact nationally-imposed LIMITATIONS on the right to carry.

No, future administrations cannot. Congress can pass swords now and impose limitations on the right to carry.

So, you would rather the Ms. Allen's of the world suffer than for us to help them by crushing New Jersey? There is no other way to way New Jersey or California in line outside of federal civil rights legislation.

We're both old enough to remember when states could set their own speed limits. How'd we get to where we are now?

There is no civil right to speed.

Anyway, worth saying again that you and I really aren't that far apart on this, so I'm not sure why you're throwing all the libertarian shade at me. I'm not that. Just offering up a loyal opposition perspective.

Because the denial of Congress's authority and power to correct the states is based on an incorrect, and purposefully blind, reading of the Constitution and the Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment.

 

[ATM]

...Anyway, worth saying again that you and I really aren't that far apart on this, so I'm not sure why you're throwing all the libertarian shade at me. I'm not that. Just offering up a loyal opposition perspective.

I'll take any libertarian shade if there's some extra to be thrown about.

Kirk should run for congress, then I could simply bribe him to do my bidding and be done with all the tedious back and forth of trying to convince him that we the people were supposed to remain free.

 

[T.Lex]

My view is that you seen an imaginary downside and not the realistic upside.

And I think you have a wonderful fantasy that lacks a realistic downside.

Why would you need that? DOJ already has a civil rights division.

No need for any new expansion.

Then what, in your opinion, should the DOJ do less of?

Or will your framework rely solely on private enforcement?

No, future administrations cannot. Congress can pass swords now and impose limitations on the right to carry.

What do you mean by this? It almost sounds like in a post-Heller world that your position is that Congress could limit a state's ability to allow carry.

Or are you talking about Congress telling states what aspects of carry should be guaranteed to all?

If it is the latter, what would that look like?

So, you would rather the Ms. Allen's of the world suffer than for us to help them by crushing New Jersey? There is no other way to way New Jersey or California in line outside of federal civil rights legislation.

I agree with your latter assertion. But I also believe there is a serious states' rights issue here. One that should not easily be brushed aside, lest it be easily brushed aside in other contexts.

The Ms. Allens of the world, who do not educate themselves as to the specific rules in states through which they travel, are unlikely to avoid problems under this new rubric.

There is no civil right to speed.

There is also no right to limited government.

The speed limit issue was an example of tendrilification. Once the federal gov't moves into a space, it is VERY difficult to move them out. Unintended consequences abound. And abide.

Because the denial of Congress's authority and power to correct the states is based on an incorrect, and purposefully blind, reading of the Constitution and the Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Ah, then let me be absolutely clear, since you apparently didn't pick up on this: for me, this is not a question of whether Congress can or can't, but whether it should.

This is inviting a vampire into a new house.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

And I think you have a wonderful fantasy that lacks a realistic downside.

I fail to see a downside.

How about this, you give me an example of unintended consequences of a civil rights act.

Then what, in your opinion, should the DOJ do less of?

Improper lobster labeling and orchid harvesting prosecutions.

What do you mean by this? It almost sounds like in a post-Heller world that your position is that Congress could limit a state's ability to allow carry.

What you worry about, the Feds voiding State carry licenses could have already happened.

We have an opportunity to expand the RKBA beyond the wildest dreams of Harlon Carter and we deny history because of some imaginary construct of constitutional law?

Ah, then let me be absolutely clear, since you apparently didn't pick up on this: for me, this is not a question of whether Congress can or can't, but whether it should.

This is inviting a vampire into a new house.

Your concerns are valid, but give me an example of the Federal vampire misbehaving under the federal civil rights acts.

Do you have a bill of particulars of federal harm that are specific to the proposed legislation under discussion?

 

[HoughMade]

This must be a slow week in legal-land. Our local esquires are having to get their ration of debating on INGO.

...as is proper. I just have a hard time giving it away for free (still talking about the debate).

 

[Woobie]

This must be a slow week in legal-land. Our local esquires are having to get their ration of debating on INGO.

...as is proper. I just have a hard time giving it away for free (still talking about the debate).

I've noticed you are the stingiest of the INGO legal team.

How would you establish the order on your shingle? Post count? Length of membership?

Maybe you guys could provide ban defense in exchange for rep.

 

[T.Lex]

(Re-ordered for convenience.)

I fail to see a downside.

Clearly.

How about this, you give me an example of unintended consequences of a civil rights act.

Your concerns are valid, but give me an example of the Federal vampire misbehaving under the federal civil rights acts.

Let's ask some of the law enforcement agencies subjected to DOJ investigations.

The problem, of course, is that sometimes there are violations. We don't know if there are or aren't until after the investigations. Usually.

Do you have a bill of particulars of federal harm that are specific to the proposed legislation under discussion?

Sure, link the proposed legislation. Or describe what you would advocate. I've asked several times for you to put some meat on the bones of what you propose; I would welcome the opportunity to discuss those practical aspects.

Improper lobster labeling and orchid harvesting prosecutions.

To include improper labeling of Chinese baby formula?

I'm not arguing there are BS DOJ prosecutions, but let's sit down and figure out the priorities and resource allocation, at least in ballpark terms.

What you worry about, the Feds voiding State carry licenses could have already happened.

That is not my fear, and I apologize if my posts suggested that it was.

Regulating to the point of irrelevance is not voiding.

Currently, the feds have no authority - statutory or constitutional - to dictate terms of carry permits. At least none that I'm aware of. If you are aware of something, please cite.

Under the vague fantasies that I've read about national reciprocity, there would be a statute that did that. I would refer back to chip's posts.

We have an opportunity to expand the RKBA beyond the wildest dreams of Harlon Carter and we deny history because of some imaginary construct of constitutional law?

What are you talking about?

Federal mission creep is constitutional (usually). And not an imaginary construct.

 

[HoughMade]

I will gladly go last....after the "&". I'm humble that way.

Ban defense in exchange for rep....I'm always up for a challenge, but never, in my entire career, have i been called upon to represent such ne'er do wells....and given my career, that's saying something.

 

[T.Lex]

I will gladly go last....after the "&". I'm humble that way.

Ban defense in exchange for rep....I'm always up for a challenge, but never, in my entire career, have i been called upon to represent such ne'er do wells....and given my career, that's saying something.

Pump the brakes, now.

Do I recall pharma clients in your retinue?

ETA:
Given some of the opposing counsel I've had to deal with lately, the intellectuality of the debates here is an order of magnitude better.

 

[jamil]

I will gladly go last....after the "&". I'm humble that way.

Ban defense in exchange for rep....I'm always up for a challenge, but never, in my entire career, have i been called upon to represent such ne'er do wells....and given my career, that's saying something.

Well, if it's any consolation, the last name listed in a partnership tends to stay with me more.

 

[HoughMade]

Pump the brakes, now.

Do I recall pharma clients in your retinue?

ETA:
Given some of the opposing counsel I've had to deal with lately, the intellectuality of the debates here is an order of magnitude better.

Pharma? I love those guys. Frequent FDA preemption, always pay their bills...never results in Dateline requests for an interview.