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

[ATM]

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

It's hardly a straw man, you're the one who brought up force:

The Iron Curtain states are going to "fix themselves"? No. The only way for those states to stop violating basic, constitutionally protected, human rights is to force them to...

 

[Lelliott8]

Subsidized guns and ammo for low income citizens.

If we're going to be in the business of subsidizing things, why doesn't the government subsidize gun-safes? Help keep guns away from little kids and criminals at the same time.

 

[Hohn]

The Iron Curtain states are going to "fix themselves"? No. The only way for those states to stop violating basic, constitutionally protected, human rights is to force them to.

And a federal law that requires all states that issue resident carry permits to honor the resident carry permits issued to residents of other states gives the federal government zero additional power. Further, the constitution has already prohibited to the states the power to infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms, through the second amendment.

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?

Chip, I find most of your arguments compelling, but history suggests that giving the Feds additional scope of authority never results in more liberty.

The problem with giving the Feds more power to use in your favor is that the same power often (inevitably) will end up used against you.


And just because we can't YET see how a seemingly innocuous role of Federal government might lead to problems doesn't mean it won't happen. It's the whole "penumbras and emanations" problem again. Never mind Kennedy's dangerous and absurd jurisprudence of "dignity."


I think if we stick to the simple idea that the 'full faith and credit" clause REQUIRES reciprocity, then we might be OK. But how does one craft a "full faith and credit" argument that doesn't usurp the rights of a particular State? I mean, if the people of California want to live as Communists (and apparently they do), they should have the right to lose people and money to much smarter States.

I think we're flirting with Incorporation and all that territory again.

 

[seedubs1]

This is why we shouldn't push national reciprocity. We should be pushing constitutional carry. It is already set forth in the BOR.....Force states to honor what's already there and force them to stop infringing on the 2nd.

Chip, I find most of your arguments compelling, but history suggests that giving the Feds additional scope of authority never results in more liberty.

 

[foszoe]

I'm with chip. I want to enjoy my freedom without violation forced upon me by states who restrict my freedoms

 

[ATM]

I'm with chip. I want to enjoy my freedom without violation forced upon me by states who restrict my freedoms

Wanting isn't an action. Avoid or fight.

Assuming you'd like to fight, the question becomes: by which means and upon which principles do you propose to fight the thugs restricting your freedoms?

seedubs1 had an interesting take on that.

 

[chipbennett]

It's hardly a straw man, you're the one who brought up force:

"Force" != "thug".

Keep trying.

 

[Kutnupe14]

"Force" != "thug".

Keep trying.

On INGO "thug" is has a variety of equivalent words. Think of it like "smurf."
You get what I'm smurfin'?

 

[chipbennett]

Chip, I find most of your arguments compelling, but history suggests that giving the Feds additional scope of authority never results in more liberty.

The problem with giving the Feds more power to use in your favor is that the same power often (inevitably) will end up used against you.


And just because we can't YET see how a seemingly innocuous role of Federal government might lead to problems doesn't mean it won't happen. It's the whole "penumbras and emanations" problem again. Never mind Kennedy's dangerous and absurd jurisprudence of "dignity."

This is always a risk with the fed.gov. But for the fed.gov to use national reciprocity as the basis of assuming more non-enumerated authority would represent not an extension of national reciprocity, but rather entirely new legislation with entirely different justification. National reciprocity does not tell the several States the manner in which they must license their own residents; it merely stipulates that *if* a State chooses to license its own residents, *then* it must *honor* the resident licenses issued by other States to their own residents.

I think if we stick to the simple idea that the 'full faith and credit" clause REQUIRES reciprocity, then we might be OK. But how does one craft a "full faith and credit" argument that doesn't usurp the rights of a particular State? I mean, if the people of California want to live as Communists (and apparently they do), they should have the right to lose people and money to much smarter States.

I think we're flirting with Incorporation and all that territory again.

If the people of California want to give up their own rights to the State, and live as communists, they may do so (though I would argue that the language of the second amendment binds ALL levels of government). However, they may not force non-residents to give up *their* rights merely because they are present within the State of California. And that is the point of national reciprocity.

 

[chipbennett]

This is why we shouldn't push national reciprocity. We should be pushing constitutional carry. It is already set forth in the BOR.....Force states to honor what's already there and force them to stop infringing on the 2nd.

That is certainly the ideal. But it has zero chance of passing. Do not sacrifice the good in pursuit of the perfect.

 

[chipbennett]

Wanting isn't an action. Avoid or fight.

Assuming you'd like to fight, the question becomes: by which means and upon which principles do you propose to fight the thugs restricting your freedoms?

seedubs1 had an interesting take on that.

How should Shaneen Allen have fought?

 

[Ericpwp]

This is always a risk with the fed.gov. But for the fed.gov to use national reciprocity as the basis of assuming more non-enumerated authority would represent not an extension of national reciprocity, but rather entirely new legislation with entirely different justification. National reciprocity does not tell the several States the manner in which they must license their own residents; it merely stipulates that *if* a State chooses to license its own residents, *then* it must *honor* the resident licenses issued by other States to their own residents.



If the people of California want to give up their own rights to the State, and live as communists, they may do so (though I would argue that the language of the second amendment binds ALL levels of government). However, they may not force non-residents to give up *their* rights merely because they are present within the State of California. And that is the point of national reciprocity.

If that is the case, California could pass a law that you can carry only unloaded guns and one would have to abide... no?

 

[Kutnupe14]

How should Shaneen Allen have fought?

Ha! Nice....

 

[ATM]

"Force" != "thug".


Keep trying.

Of course force is not the thug, the states you want to force to stop violating basic, constitutionally protected, human rights are the thugs.


Force is the manner in which you fight these thugs.


Hiring other thugs to fight them (federal thugs vs state thugs) is one manner, but not the only one.

That is certainly the ideal. But it has zero chance of passing. Do not sacrifice the good in pursuit of the perfect.

Passing? What needs passed?

How should Shaneen Allen have fought?

However she pleased. How could you have joined and supported her fight? However you pleased.

Freedom.

 

[chipbennett]

If that is the case, California could pass a law that you can carry only unloaded guns and one would have to abide... no?

Actually, no California couldn't. Such a law would violate Heller, McDonald, et al.

Ha! Nice....

Kut gets it.

Of course force is not the thug, the states you want to force to stop violating basic, constitutionally protected, human rights are the thugs.


Force is the manner in which you fight these thugs.


Hiring other thugs to fight them (federal thugs vs state thugs) is one manner, but not the only one.

Do tell what other manners of fighting the Iron Curtain states are available to non-residents of those states.

Passing? What needs passed?

I believe the suggestion in question was constitutional carry.

However she pleased. How could you have joined and supported her fight? However you pleased.

Freedom.

Do you even know who Shaneen Allen is, or what happened to her?

 

[jamil]

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.......???????

Raise moral children and equip them to be resistant to the mind numbing of pop culture. And encourage them to be teachers, professors, judges, politicians, business owners, influencers. The latter is how we lost it. I don't really see another way to get it back peacefully.

 

[ATM]

Actually, no California couldn't. Such a law would violate Heller, McDonald, et al.

Sure they could. How would you fight such a violation?

Kut gets it.

Get's what?

Do tell what other manners of fighting the Iron Curtain states are available to non-residents of those states.

Besides sitting by and waiting for federal thugs to force state thugs to stop violating rights? Stop trading with the thugs, expose their thuggery for others to see, shame them, trade with and funnel resources to those willing to fight, etc. Use your imagination.

I believe the suggestion in question was constitutional carry.

I asked what needed passed, a second amendment prohibition upon infringing the right to keep and bear arms? Would that do it?

I'm willing to bet we could get that passed.

Do you even know who Shaneen Allen is, or what happened to her?

Yes, why?

You don't think part of this fight would entail educating people like her before they get jammed up or helping to defray legal fees to support those who do?

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Members of Congress to reload gun rights caucus | Fox News

 

[Phase2]

I wake up happy every day that Donald Trump is in the Oval Office rather than Hillary, but as for passing laws.