With R's controlling EVERYTHING now What new legislation do you want?

[ATM]

And in the meantime (assuming that ever happens), what about the non-residents?

(Asking for Shaneen Allen.)

When non-residents have had enough of their rights being violated, they will resist the urge to visit.

 

[jamil]

When the residents have had enough of their rights being violated, they will resist.

Historically, at least more recent history, that's just not how it's gone down. Is it that Cuba just hasn't had enough rights violated yet? The problem with your thinking is that the few who aren't so easily indoctrinated aren't enough to pose much resistance.

 

[ATM]

Historically, at least more recent history, that's just not how it's gone down. Is it that Cuba just hasn't had enough rights violated yet? The problem with your thinking is that the few who aren't so easily indoctrinated aren't enough to pose much resistance.

Perhaps they need to become more persuasive.

 

[jamil]

How? Why?

What on earth would compel, say, Indiana to change its LTCH laws for the worse, on the basis of federally mandated carry reciprocity?

You've heard of AAMVA, I presume? I can see the point stephan87 is making, and why there might be reasons for concern. If there's a law that requires all states to recognize each state's carry license, undoubtably, states will want to standardize things, and might create an association for that purpose, which will push for laws that mandate the standards.

I'm not saying that will happen--we are talking about an enumerated constitutional right versus a privilege granted by states to drive on public roads. But controllers like to control. Under the guise of "standardization" who knows what could be accomplished.

That said, I do support the idea national reciprocity. But forethought needs to go into it to keep it from becoming another vector of attack on 2A rights.

 

[jamil]

Perhaps they need to become more persuasive.

Well, sure. Fat lot of good that does Cubans now. They're under the thumb.

 

[ATM]

Well, sure. Fat lot of good that does Cubans now. They're under the thumb.

So are we. Thresholds will vary.

 

[chipbennett]

When non-residents have had enough of their rights being violated, they will resist the urge to visit.

Why, yes: because all inter-state travel is merely a matter of leisure/tourism. (As if abdication of rights, as you suggest happen, were an improved - or more moral - outcome, anyway.)

 

[ATM]

Why, yes: because all inter-state travel is merely a matter of leisure/tourism. (As if abdication of rights, as you suggest happen, were an improved - or more moral - outcome, anyway.)

If you know certain routes to your destination are controlled by thugs, plot your course according to whatever level you're comfortable being violated.

If fighting thugs is your thing, schedule more trips into and through their territory.

 

[chipbennett]

If you know certain routes to your destination are controlled by thugs, plot your course according to whatever level you're comfortable being violated.

If fighting thugs is your thing, schedule more trips into and through their territory.

Nope; you clearly still don't get it. It isn't merely about travel. Law-abiding people have all manner of legitimate purposes for doing the things that they do. I refuse to advocate for law-abiding people to be unnecessarily, unreasonably, and immorally constrained in the conduct of their lawful affairs.

 

[jamil]

So are we. Thresholds will vary.

Well, yeah, to a lesser extent than Cuba, we are. But as it is there, the people that see are too few to matter.

 

[ATM]

Nope; you clearly still don't get it. It isn't merely about travel. Law-abiding people have all manner of legitimate purposes for doing the things that they do. I refuse to advocate for law-abiding people to be unnecessarily, unreasonably, and immorally constrained in the conduct of their lawful affairs.

Is that what you think I advocate for?

 

[ATM]

Well, yeah, to a lesser extent than Cuba, we are. But as it is there, the people that see are too few to matter.

The individual matters.

 

[chipbennett]

Is that what you think I advocate for?

That's exactly what you're advocating for, by telling law-abiding citizens to modify their lawful behavior in carrying out their purposes (whatever those purposes may be). You are asserting that law-abiding citizens should simply avoid certain states, in order to avoid having their natural, civil, constitutionally protected rights violated while in those states.

 

[churchmouse]

That's exactly what you're advocating for, by telling law-abiding citizens to modify their lawful behavior in carrying out their purposes (whatever those purposes may be). You are asserting that law-abiding citizens should simply avoid certain states, in order to avoid having their natural, civil, constitutionally protected rights violated while in those states.

Chip.......If I know an area sucks for what ever reason I.................wait for it.........avoid the area. Period unless I absolutely have to be there.

I see your point but I also see ATM's.

1st we have to effect change. How to start.......???????

 

[ATM]

That's exactly what you're advocating for, by telling law-abiding citizens to modify their lawful behavior in carrying out their purposes (whatever those purposes may be). You are asserting that law-abiding citizens should simply avoid certain states, in order to avoid having their natural, civil, constitutionally protected rights violated while in those states.

You may choose to avoid or fight those thugs. Choices = freedom.

 

[chipbennett]

Chip.......If I know an area sucks for what ever reason I.................wait for it.........avoid the area. Period unless I absolutely have to be there.

I see your point but I also see ATM's.

1st we have to effect change. How to start.......???????

I'm not talking about going to or avoiding areas because of crime/risk. I'm talking about non-residents going to States that have laws that unconstitutionally violate RKBA.

I'm talking about people like Shaneen Allen, who inadvertently crossed an arbitrary, invisible line, and found herself committing a felony merely for crossing that line. I'm talking about people like me, who has to travel to many states around the country for work.

In these states, the residents have demonstrated that they either are happy with the status quo, or are unwilling/unable to change the status quo. Non-residents have no power to effect change that the residents themselves do not effect. Non-residents thus find themselves with no recourse to having their rights violated within the borders of such states.

How do we effect change? By removing the unconstitutional authority of such states to violate the rights of non-residents, through federally mandated reciprocity of state-issued resident carry permits. Do you not think that the residents of New York, California, etc. would be apoplectic to see residents of 49 other states freely exercising rights that they themselves have been denied by their own state? What better way to incentivize residents of such states to effect change?

 

[chipbennett]

You may choose to avoid or fight those thugs. Choices = freedom.

I am not now, and never was, talking about fighting thugs. You brought that up as a straw man argument. You're welcome to demolish it, but it has no bearing on my argument.

 

[ATM]

I am not now, and never was, talking about fighting thugs. You brought that up as a straw man argument. You're welcome to demolish it, but it has no bearing on my argument.

Seemed like you wanted others to fight those thugs in your place, perhaps while you choose to avoid them.

 

[chipbennett]

Seemed like you wanted others to fight those thugs in your place, perhaps while you choose to avoid them.

Nope; still not talking about thugs. Are you done with this straw man, yet?

 

[churchmouse]

I'm not talking about going to or avoiding areas because of crime/risk. I'm talking about non-residents going to States that have laws that unconstitutionally violate RKBA.

I'm talking about people like Shaneen Allen, who inadvertently crossed an arbitrary, invisible line, and found herself committing a felony merely for crossing that line. I'm talking about people like me, who has to travel to many states around the country for work.

In these states, the residents have demonstrated that they either are happy with the status quo, or are unwilling/unable to change the status quo. Non-residents have no power to effect change that the residents themselves do not effect. Non-residents thus find themselves with no recourse to having their rights violated within the borders of such states.

How do we effect change? By removing the unconstitutional authority of such states to violate the rights of non-residents, through federally mandated reciprocity of state-issued resident carry permits. Do you not think that the residents of New York, California, etc. would be apoplectic to see residents of 49 other states freely exercising rights that they themselves have been denied by their own state? What better way to incentivize residents of such states to effect change?

OK I missed that part.
Just making a statement as I saw the issues