The Brady Campaign is using the techniques of the anti-abortion crowd

[friendly_iconoclast]

Got a Supreme Court decision or proposed law you don't like? Go ahead and lie- it's to save innocent lives, dontcha know?:

http://www.bradynetwork.org/site/MessageViewer/?em_id=45461.0&dlv_id=54721&pgwrap=n

Dear Friend,

As early as next week, the U.S. House of Representatives will vote on dangerous gun lobby legislation, H.R. 822, which would force your state to allow dangerous and violent individuals from out-of-state to carry loaded guns in your community.

E-mail your U.S. Representative today!

"Vote 'NO' on H.R. 822. Stop dangerous people from packing heat on my street."

If the Washington gun lobby and their allies in Congress get their way, your state will no longer be able to make its own decisions about who can carry a hidden, loaded gun.

Domestic abusers, drug addicts, stalkers, people with violent arrest records, or people with absolutely no training, could be granted a concealed gun permit in another state, and your state would have to honor it — no matter what.

Discussed further on this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x477765

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x477765#477819

Euromutt (1000+ posts) Tue Nov-08-11 09:53 PM
Response to Original message
32. "Domestic abusers, drug addicts, stalkers..." So, people prohibited from possessing firearms?
Federal law and the laws of many (possibly all, for all I know) states prohibit the aforementioned people from possessing firearms, and by extension, they can't carry concealed. "People with violent arrest records" are a different matter, of course, because an arrest does not equal a conviction, and as long as we pay lip service to presumption of innocence and due process in this country, merely being arrested for something is not evidence of wrongdoing.

So what I'm wondering is, are the folks at the Brady Bunch willfully pig-ignorant, or are they fucking liars? Not that it really matters, since there's no excuse for either.

Looks like they picked up the "faith-promoting rumor" schtick fom the anti-abortion crowd:

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2011/11/10/the-truth-better-advice/xq428IG00uOk1qrBFLnO4N/story.html

The truth is better advice
By Yvonne Abraham | November 10, 2011

...Take, for example, those antiabortion rights outfits called Crisis Pregnancy Centers, which have set up shop across the country, including Massachusetts. A report released yesterday by NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts shows you don’t need a ballot to undermine Roe v. Wade: A flexible view of the truth works, too.

In the NARAL study, volunteers posing as women with unwanted pregnancies called or visited 24 of the state’s Crisis Pregnancy Centers for advice. There, they found what they described as deception and misinformation....

....Some of the women visiting these centers have no idea what they’re walking into. Inside, counselors promptly set about trying to dissuade them from having abortions, often by giving them medical misinformation in addition to moral pressure. For example, at a third of the centers, staff members said abortion may cause infertility or ectopic pregnancies in the future, an extremely rare complication. A video at one center made the bogus claim that most women are infertile after abortion.

Volunteers were also told that abortion increases the risk of breast cancer. One counselor told a NARAL volunteer the risk increased by close to 100 percent. Not true, according to the National Cancer Institute. Teresa Larkin - president of A Woman’s Concern, which runs several crisis pregnancy centers - said they changed their materials once the Institute discredited the cancer link. But plenty of other centers and their websites continue to insist that abortion gives women a 50 percent higher chance of developing breast cancer...

[We_Have_A_Problem]

1. Considering the Brady Campaign/VPC/HCI/etc

Have always used, shall we say, vague language and misdirection, it isn't much of a surprise.

They've been caught in outright lies before. They've used false in-house studies as support for their press releases. They've been known to use their own studies as source material for another of their studies. Hell, they even had one which referred to itself as a source, if you can believe that (Not just once either...)

While their most egregious lies don't last long, misdirection and insinuation have been the mainstay of their propaganda for decades.

[iverglas]

23. yup

And the national board of the NRA eats babies for breakfast.

Christ almighty.

[SteveM]

87. Viewed more widely, these are the tactics of prohibitionists. nt

[Hoyt]

2. Sounds to me they are using techniques to counteract the more powerful and dubious gun lobby.

Hope they are successful in persuading Congress to get real about guns in this country.

[TheWraith]

3. So it's okay to outright lie? The ends justify the means?

By that logic, the pro-lifers are doing the right thing by misinforming women and trying to tell black people that abortion is genocide, because they believe they're right. If we can't stick to facts in our national debate, then said debate means nothing.

[gejohnston]

20. Pro-life?

Sorry, when they go as far as "no even if the woman dies" that is not pro-life. Anti-choice, anti-privacy, anything but pro-life.

[iverglas]

24. you allege lie?

You PROVE lie.

The lines are open.

[rl6214]

4. You ever wonder why the gun lobby is "more powerful"?

Could it be because what the gun lobby wants is what most in the US want?

[Hoyt]

13. For much the same reason as the bank lobby, military, corporate, . . . . . .

[DonP]

17. Except the gun manufacturers are actually a very small industry compared to ....

... large businesses like potato chips by comparison. I think the annual sales number for US gun manufacturers is under 4 billion IIRC? Even with the big sales spike it's still fairly small. Somebody will correct me if that's wrong. That's small by any US standard.

Our political strength comes from the millions of people willing to pay $35 a year or more for membership in one or more pro-second amendment organizations. But the real strength comes from voting largely as a bloc, on any issue that we feel threatens our rights.

We pay dues, we go to meetings, we meet other like minded people at the ranges and we compare notes ... and we vote like clockwork, along with our extended families. That's where our strength comes from, not huge industrial giants contributing tens of millions to lobbyists.

A shrinking handful of gun control people whine online and don't do much else if anything in the real world. No organization, no meetings, no voting blocs.

Guess who the politicians are more likely to continue to listen to?

[Hoyt]

19. A powerful industry and those who support them with purchases would vote for a TBagger to protect

their supposed "right" to carry guns in public in a modern society where the risk of needing a gun is minimal.

[friendly_iconoclast]

22. So a little "heavenly deception" in order to counteract them is acceptable to you?

I suppose it utterly escapes you that the American Life League and their ilk say much the same thing about what they
call the "culture of death".

Ahh, Hoyt. You display the same grasp of current affairs as Bucky Katt...

[DonP]

35. You're right. I guess it is powerful and it's backed by millions of us.

So you are probably just shit out of luck on more gun control for the rest of your life.

[rl6214]

68. Well you just got three things wrong with this post

1) They (we) would not vote tbagger
2) Their (our) supposed "right" is not supposed
3) the risk of needing a gun is NOT minimal

0-3, I guess you struck out

[iverglas]

27. "Guess who the politicians are more likely to continue to listen to?"

Hmm, who is Scott Brown listening to?

[friendly_iconoclast]

41. "Hmm, who is Scott Brown listening to?" Michael Bloomberg, it would appear

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/07/scott-brown-nra-national-rifle-association_n_1080707.html


"But the letter to Menino, who co-chairs the 550-member coalition Mayors Against Illegal Guns"- which was created and is chaired
by Mayor 1% Himself. It doesn't do to piss off the dude with the largest wallet in what's left of the non-teabagger Right.

Not that it will do him any good. Elizabeth Warren would have to campaign in a Mao jacket and quote Pol Pot approvingly to lose
this one. She's not a Dukakis/Coakley clone by any means.

Brown should be planning his gubernatorial race, as his Senatorial career will be a short one...

[iverglas]

45. hm, so it isn't a matter of what the people want, in Brown's case ...

... it's money and influence.

I'll remember that the next time the question of the NRA's money and influence comes up.

Oh wait! Look!

[Callisto32]

51. HAHAHAHAHAahahahAHAHAHAHAHA

You're funny.

[iverglas]

26. "Could it be because what the gun lobby wants is what most in the US want?"

A right-wing government that protects corporate profits at all costs?

Could be. There's considerable evidence of that hypothesis, anyhow.

[Kolesar]

74. Because the corporate weapons industry is a well funded "special interest group"

Like the energy industry, agribusiness, Pharma, Boeing, and Lockheed.

[gejohnston]

75. joking right?

The US gun industry is mom and pop compared to even Netflex.

[Kolesar]

81. The gun peddlers spend a lot more money lobbying than does "Netflix" eom

[We_Have_A_Problem]

82. Have any actual proof of that claim?

Lobbyists are required by law to identify themselves as such and identify how much is spent. If your claim has any merit, you should be able to produce the data easily.

Bear in mind the NRA is NOT a lobbying organization for manufacturers, but for owners.

[SteveM]

88. Check out the Fortune 500, then check out Sturm Ruger...

Perhaps the most successful firearms company in the U.S. Their 2nd quarter profits? 10.8 million dollars.

woo-pee. big time.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/sturm-ruger-soars-on-jump-in-profit-2011-07-28

Oh, and there is Remington:

In June 2007, a private equity firm, Cerberus Capital Management, acquired Remington Arms for $370 million, including $252 million in assumed debt. This happened because Remington was millions of dollars in debt and did not report a profit during the years 2003-2005.<7>

Just....just thundering along.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remington_Arms

edited for additional content

[We_Have_A_Problem]

5. If the only way you can support your position...

...is with lies, misdirection, insinuation and self-referential "studies", then maybe your position needs to be rethought.

Currently, any anti-gun organization is actively lobbying for the restriction of civil rights - this makes them kin to the KKK and the like.

Is that REALLY the kind of ideal you wish to support?

[Hoyt]

15. Ah another gunner comparing their poor plight to those in the civil rights movement. Disgusting.

Carrying guns does not even approach the civil rights movement. You should be ashamed like others that try that BS.

[jeepnstein]

16. Well, except for the part about it being a Constitutional Right.

Citizens have rights. All citizens have those rights. Until they have their day in court to prove they can't handle their freedoms then it's really not any of your business. The overwhelming bulk of American citizens handle their rights quite well without constant minding from the state. That fact really bothers some people.

[PavePusher]

34. Self-defense is a Civil Right.

Access to efficient tools for exercising that Right falls under that aegis.

No matter how much you squawk, fact-free, to the contrary.

[Hoyt]

38. Not necessarily with a gun. Besides, you ain't judge, jury and executioner.

[Union Scribe]

48. And what does Hoyt want people to defend themselves with?

Keyboards?

[Hoyt]

49. Most folks will never need to defend themselves, they just think they will and like guns.

You can defend yourself by not going where trouble is more likely, by being aware of what is going on, etc. Now, if you want to carry a gun for whatever reason(s), you can rationalize it by saying there is always a .000000000000000000046234% chance I might need a gun. Then, of course, you have to say that your actions have 0 impact on society -- which is not the case.

And you could carry pepper spray, but for most gunners that's just not sexy/cool/macho enough.

[jmg257]

53. "Most folks will never need to defend themselves". But we know plenty of 'em do, so now what?

You feel like playing those odds, go for it. I occasionally prefer to tip them in my favor if possible...ya know - just in case.

One can be 'armed' with knowlege too, so "not going where trouble is more likely"...Where is that - exactly?

[PavePusher]

59. And still you have not offered up a remedy or reparations for those who are.

Those approx. 1.5 MILLION violent crimes per year. The ones "Most folks will never need to defend themselves" from.

[oneshooter]

60. Cite to proof your numbers

always a .000000000000000000046234% chance I might need a gun.

Or did you squat and drop it out of your truth hole.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[Union Scribe]

67. So your answer is, 'you don't need to defend yourself'

Brilliant. And you're not likely to ever be shot, so why the chronic whining about what other people do?

[Hoyt]

72. Try being unobtuse. Few people today need to defend themselves . . . . . . .with a friggin gun.

[Union Scribe]

73. you can't have it both ways.

Either there are lots of dangerous people with guns out there, which is the BASIS for all this hand-wringing, in which case it is pig ignorant to disarm their potential victims. Or there is not a significant risk of dangerous people with guns, in which case your positions for more control are irrational.

Which is it?

[Hoyt]

76. Try reading in chunks of words. The risk of a crime where a gun helps in very small.

So, next time you get ready to strap a gun or two on before venturing out, think how small the odds are and whether you really need to carry a gun into public places.

[Union Scribe]

79. No answer, then. Just your standard post.

You don't so much have arguments or points as you have trite catch phrases that you cram into any exchange regardless of whether or not it fits at all. And, in this case, it does not.

[PavePusher]

58. I never claimed to be.

My job, if attacked, is to stop the threat to myself as efficiently and safely, for me, as possible. The attacker is the only one responsible for the outcome.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

83. The tool I choose to use...

...to defend myself is none of your concern. Further, I'm not being "judge jury and executioner" if I defend myself - i am merely defending myself. If the assailant dies, well, he took that chance when he attacked me.

Unless you believe the assailant has the right to be MY judge, jury and executioner....

[iverglas]

46. self-defence is an excuse

for the use of force to assault or kill another person.

It's accepted as an excuse because to deny it would be to violate the right to life of the person who used force in self-defence.

It's really so simple.

Why the unending need to dress it up in gibberish?

Oh wait, I know the answer to that one ...

[Union Scribe]

47. No wonder you oppose gun rights.

You seem to think that people who own a gun under the "guise" of self defense secretly pine to murder someone and get off on those awful, unfair-to-criminals laws. I guess if one starts from such an astonishingly paranoid thought, one would naturally want to keep all those wannabe murderers in check.

[iverglas]

55. no wonder everybody knows what your agenda is

Only people with that kind of agenda engage in the kind of disgusting demagoguery you have put on display here.

Speaks volumes about the speaker, and says nothing else at all.

Perhaps the subject line of post 3 was meant for you.

[Union Scribe]

66. People can read your bullshit for themselves.

It's not like you're subtle.

[PavePusher]

78. An "excuse"?

Wow, you just plain hate people, don't you?

[iverglas]

84. oh, grow up and get a clue

If you don't know anything about the law, you should perhaps avoid putting your ignorance on display.

Using your own ignorance as the sole basis for making pig-ignorant false claims about somebody else ... were you born without the blush gene?

[NOMOREDRUGWAR]

80. An EXCUSE, iverglas?

The right to defend yourself from unreasonable force has long been a component of the Civil Rights movement. African-Americans in the 1960s employed these tactics in their struggles against white supremacy. The literature from that era is literally dripping with examples. I have long read your posts, and I remember you mentioning in one of your posts that you are a Canadian solicitor, so perhaps you need a refresher in our laws. I am an attorney currently practicing in U.S. courts and I would be happy to show you the error of your ways, with the caveat that you keep an open mind.

[iverglas]

85. oh, grow up and get a clue

If you don't know anything about the law, you should perhaps avoid putting your ignorance on display.

I am an attorney currently practicing in U.S. courts and I would be happy to show you the error of your ways, with the caveat that you keep an open mind.

Yeah, I'll bet you are.

I remember you mentioning in one of your posts that you are a Canadian solicitor

No you don't.


The perversion of self-defence law in very recent US state statutes doesn't alter the historical nature of self-defence when raised to avoid conviction for an assault. Self-defence is sometimes called "justification" rather than "excuse", and that discussion comes down to angels dancing on pins, so you can have that one if you like, although some would disagree even there.

www.wcl.american.edu/journal/lawrev/36/rosen.pdf

1985, written before so many in the US became (or decided to portray themselves as being) so distressed by the notion that they ought to consider alternatives before killing someone, and started promulgating the notion that they ought to be lionized for killing people rather than merely shown the proper tolerance in appropriate cases.

at page 25:

THE EXCUSE OF SELF-DEFENSE:
CORRECTING A HISTORICAL ACCIDENT ON BEHALF OF BATTERED WOMEN WHO KILL

... Today most American jurisdictions treat self-defense as a justification.7 8 Because self-defense first entered the common law as an excuse, however, exploration of the history of the common law doctrine of self-defense is instructive in revealing whether it corresponds more closely to the rationale of justification or excuse.

Early English common law did not recognize the notion that a killing in self-defense precluded culpability for homicide.7 9 All intentional killings were felonious, capital crimes. 80 Prohibition of any form of self-help allowed early English rulers to control violence and establish obedience to the rule of law. If self-help was unlawful, reliance on governmental authority was necessary to protect one's 81 interest in personal safety.

Between the twelfth and sixteenth centuries, strict liability for intentional killings began to disappear. 82 Homicides committed to prevent crime, in war, or to carry out the lawful execution of a legal punishment were deemed justified.8 3 Such intentional killings admittedly violated the interests of the victim. 8 4 Nonetheless, under the circumstances, the actor had a legal right to commit the act because it was beneficial to society. 8 5 The homicides justified by the early common law benefitted society because they were committed on behalf of the state itself against persons who threatened the state's ability to control aggression against persons and property. It was necessary to except those intentional killings from the proscriptions of the criminal law to consolidate respect for the rule of law.

Medieval England also saw the beginnings of the notion of excusable homicide. Self-defense first appeared in the common law as an excuse rather than a justification. 8 6 One who commits a justifiable homicide is acquitted of the crime because the objective external circumstances that make the killing desirable require exception to the prohibitory criminal law.8 7 On the other hand, an excusable act of homicide constituted a crime because an unjustified criminal act invaded a legally protected interest of the victim. Because of surrounding circumstances that affect the defendant in a unique fashion, however, the defendant is not culpable because he has no free choice whether or not to comply with the criminal law.8 ...

[Simo 1939_1940]

89. Some people conveniently ignore the fact that arms were

used to protect the lives of civil rights leaders. That horrible "right wing shill" Don Kates is a white American who stood guard over the home of one of those leaders with a rifle.

Edited to correct typo.

[iverglas]

91. some people conveniently ignore the fact that this has fuck all to do with "arms"

Go find somebody who wants to play your silly games, will you?

[Callisto32]

52. You can't even conceive of how offensive that is, can you?

[iverglas]

56. I know I sure as hell can't

To conceive of what was said as offensive, I'd have to be standing on my head in fluidic space.

I sure as hell know how offensive the effort to liken gun militancy to the struggle for racial equality is, though.

[rl6214]

69. Still won't answer what a "gunner" is?

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=space%20shuttle%20door%20gunner

[rl6214]

70. The only thing disgusting here is the dishonesty of your arguement

and your position on trying to destroy the 2A

[iverglas]

28. excellent advice!

If the only way you can support your position...
...is with lies, misdirection, insinuation and self-referential "studies", then maybe your position needs to be rethought.

I think you meant to reply to the OP, though.

[krispos42]

36. Why is the gun lobby so much more powerful?

Is is because there are far more people behind it? Is it because they have far more money from far more individual donors? Is it because far more people vote on this issue?


If so, then SHOULDN'T the gun lobby be more powerful than the anti-gun lobby?





After all, we can agree that OWS should be far more powerful than Wall Street, right?

[SteveM]

86. So, are saying that the Bradys are lying, but it's justifiable? nt

[safeinOhio]

6. On the other hand

NRA is using Glenn Beck techniques and conspiracy theories.

http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/david/nra-claims-massive-obama-conspiracy-not-ban-

In the eyes of National Rifle Association (NRA) executive vice president Wayne LaPierre, President Barack Obama's decision not to pursue gun control legislation is a "massive conspiracy," and just another reason not to give him a second term.
" will say gun owners -- they'll say they left them alone," LaPierre told an audience at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) Friday. "In public, he'll remind us that he's put off calls from his party to renew the Clinton ban, he hasn't pushed for new gun control laws... The president will offer the Second Amendment lip service and hit the campaign trail saying he's actually been good for the Second Amendment."
"But it's a big fat stinking lie!" the NRA leader exclaimed. "It's all part of a massive Obama conspiracy to deceive voters and destroy the Second Amendment in our country."

So who you gonna trust?

[friendly_iconoclast]

8. I trust most those that lie the least, and I trust none implicitly.

So for my money the NRA currently has more credibility than the orgs under the Joyce Foundation umbrella- but I'll still research
their claims...

[safeinOhio]

9. So send you $ to this guy

Elected Board of Directors of the NRA and official spokes person for the NRA.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vy8RIiTyhMI

[friendly_iconoclast]

12. Why? I'm not an NRA member. I *am*, however, a member of the Brady Campaign...

...who most recently sold my name to Ralph Nader's Public Citizen.

So, which group helps Republicans most?

[We_Have_A_Problem]

90. Which group helps Republicans most?

Arguably they both do in the long run. Being an openly anti-gun politician these days is the kiss of death in many areas, regardless of party affiliation.

[Maine_Nurse]

7. What really irks me is...

that the lying bastards know damned well that the domestic assaulters, etc are already prohibited from possessing firearms under the BRADY act, yet they feign ignorance so they can get the knee-jerk response from the public.

[safeinOhio]

11. Just like those lying bastards at

the NRA knew there was no "Obama has a secret 10 point plan to take away your 2nd Amendment rights" as they stated in a 2008 issue of the The Rifle Man.

Stink rises on both sides, so I wouldn't hook up my wagon to either, or bitch about one without including the other. Funny how the gun crowd can get away with the same crap the other side uses and ideologues will cry like a baby on both sides. Why not disregard the radicals on both sides of the issue, the Bradys and the NRA. Both are lying bastards.

[Maine_Nurse]

18. I'm no fan (nor member) of the NRA either, but I do believe strongly in 2A

thus the Brady Bunch are wrong on both principle and technique with me.

[gejohnston]

25. both are lying bastards

Please don't insult bastards. To paraphrase an old adage, truth is the first casualty of politics. I agree, we should ignore the radicals on both sides. Too many people on the other side or in the middle assume the radical speaks for me. Larry Pratt does not speak for me any more than......... pick any example, you get the picture.

[Euromutt]

30. Slight correction

It was the "Lautenberg Amendment" to the Gun Control Act of 1968 that prohibited those convicted of domestic violence, stalking etc. from possessing firearms. The Brady Act introduced background checks on gun sales by FFLs.

[iverglas]

31. will you be the one

to PROVE your allegation of lying?

the lying bastards know damned well that the domestic assaulters, etc are already prohibited from possessing firearms under the BRADY act

And how well do you know that because of violations of reporting requirements by local jurisdictions, there are domestic assaulters, etc., who are not known to NICS to be ineligible to acquire firearms, and who in fact have permits to carry concealed firearms?

Very well? Really well? Damned well?

[TheCowsCameHome]

10. Oh dear,

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/07/scott-brown-nra-national-rifle-association_n_1080707.html

we do have a problem

[friendly_iconoclast]

14. I don't- I'm voting for Liz Warren.

Brown's stance is less "deeply held belief", and more "I don't want to piss off Michael Bloomberg, who has all that luverly money".

If both candidates have the same position on guns, I'll go for the Dem every time.

[iverglas]

29. "If both candidates have the same position on guns, I'll go for the Dem every time."

Interesting phrasing.

And if they don't?

[friendly_iconoclast]

39. I'll still go for the Dem, same as I voted for President Obama

[iverglas]

21. the one who alleges lying

had fucking well better prove it.

So far, that's a fail.

I don't know why you think multiple threads like this are needed. Maybe you think it's a way of evading what has been posted in the other threads. Fail there too.

http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/2011/06/special_report_concealed_gun_l.html

Ten years after Michigan made it easier to carry concealed guns, its mandatory process for reporting who has the permits — and who had them taken away — is a shambles.

Records are incomplete. Compliance by counties is spotty. Convictions for crimes go unreported.

It’s against the law, but there is no penalty.

... Confusion reigns. In some instances, licenses were reinstated after convictions when they were supposed to be revoked. Ottawa County revoked just one license in nine years because of a procedural misunderstanding.

Countless other cases are unaccounted for, either because county licensing boards are not notified of the outcome of criminal charges, or they neglect to take action. Revocations are not completed, so they never show up in public reports.

Take, for example, the case of 28-year-old Estanislao Mendez, who was armed when his companion fired shots at the feet of a victim they were robbing. His permit was suspended, pending the case’s outcome. Mendez was convicted, sent to prison for nearly two years, and has been paroled since October. The Kent County gun board has yet to permanently revoke his license. It still lists his case as pending.

Got any HONEST argument to make?

[krispos42]

37. And the other 49 states?

Besides, the Michigan problem isn't the legislation, it's the execution. Apparently, it sucks. There's your "smaller government" and "tax relief" at work.

Well, "your" in the generic sense. Don't want to put words in your mouth.

The fact is that the legal standard is there. Reporting of crimes and revocation of things like CCW permits, driver's licenses, pedophiles, sexual assault, delinquent child support, and mental illness are always subject to the state's bureaucracy.

So, yeah, the proposed bill COULD let people with CCW permits carry legally in other states, even though their permit should have been revoked. Of course, regardless of reciprocity, this also means that people with CCW permits who should have had them revoked will be carrying IN THEIR OWN STATE too.

And of course, you'll have the usually collection of people without permits carrying concealed, too, but that's outside the scope of this discussion.

[iverglas]

40. you tell us

Who said the problem in Michigan was the legislation? Certainly not me. The counties are in fact breaking the law. What a confidence-inspiring situation that is. People, including holders of permits to carry concealed weapons, are convicted of crimes, and nobody knows. Their NICS checks don't show it, and their permits are not revoked. And the people of, oh, Massachusetts are supposed to roll over and let Michigan decide who gets to carry a concealed weapon in Massachusetts?

So, yeah, the proposed bill COULD let people with CCW permits carry legally in other states, even though their permit should have been revoked. Of course, regardless of reciprocity, this also means that people with CCW permits who should have had them revoked will be carrying IN THEIR OWN STATE too.

Let the people of that state foul their own backyard and live in it if they like. Their choice, which they're entirely free to make -- for themselves.

[krispos42]

42. And if Massachusetts had ANY reciprocity at all...

...this issue wouldn't have much in the way of teeth, because Massachusetts could then say:

"Hey, Michigan's standards of issuance are significantly lower than ours, AND they have a major problem keeping their permitee database up to date, so we're not going to reciprocate with them. However, since (for example) New Jersey's standards are strict and their record-keeping good, we'll reciprocate with them. It's a standard-based system."

But as it stands, Michigan could be absolutely perfect in this regard, and it would make no difference at all with Massachusetts.

[iverglas]

43. and exactly how would they know this?

"Hey, Michigan's standards of issuance are significantly lower than ours, AND they have a major problem keeping their permitee database up to date, so we're not going to reciprocate with them. However, since (for example) New Jersey's standards are strict and their record-keeping good, we'll reciprocate with them. It's a standard-based system."

It took an intense media investigation of the situation in Michigan to bring the violations to light.

Do the people of State A have to wait for the media in State B to expose that state's illegal behaviour?

[krispos42]

44. That is exactly why the states have bureaucracies

To figure this stuff out and issue a report on it.

[iverglas]

62. so they can waste their residents' money

investigating other states' adherence to the law, to protect their own residents against the harms that could occur as a result of other states' negligence and law-breaking ...

The whole idea behind full faith and credit is that no such investigation is needed.

Full faith and credit where it's due, I'd say. And it sure ain't due to Michigan.

Besides, what would the result be, if this bill passed, and Massachusetts investigated Michigan and found it as sorely wanting as it evidently is?

Nothing, that's what. Massachusetts would be compelled to honour permits issued in Michigan.

So your point was?

[krispos42]

63. Then, if Massachussetts doesn't want to be forced to...

...and the other 9 recalcitrant states don't want to be forced to, then they should have defused this situation a decade ago when more and more states began issuing concealed-carry permits.

They still can, if they get their act together and come up with some palatable alternative.

Or they can gamble that the bill fails in the Senate (which, given the dysfunction over there, is likely).

Or they can gamble on Obama for a veto.

Or they can file suit in federal court.

[iverglas]

64. or they can get steamrollered

by a crowd of right-wing assholes and their congressional puppets.

Is everybody here agitating all over the internet for states to be compelled to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states? Spitting epithets at politicians who don't agree? And worse, at individuals who oppose this measure of simple basic fairness and respect?

There you have a genuine "rights" issue, and a genuine instance where full faith and credit applies.

Unless there are states in the habit of issuing marriage licences to 10-year-olds or siblings or the already-married, or licensing marriage officiants who falsify their records or some such, it's pretty straightforward. The eligibility criteria for marriage licences aren't complex and there's no indication that any state is less stringent than another in verifying compliance. And there isn't a scintilla of a chance that anyone else's interests would be damaged in any way by giving full faith and credit to all other states' marriages.

But hey, those are somebody else's rights, so who cares?

Much more important to watch out for No.1 and "our" hoked up "rights".

[krispos42]

65. As opposed to left-wing assholes and their congressional meatpuppets?

And yeah, I think people here would agitate for states to be compelled to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. I know that's my opinion.

Let me put it this way... those that agitate for states to have the right to NOT recognize same sex marriages generally get a granite cookie.

[iverglas]

77. "people here would agitate for states to be compelled to recognize same-sex marriages"

Did I ask whether they "would"?

Why not just answer the question I asked?

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

32. This is common to many/most special interest anti-rights groups.

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

57. well I guess I'm still confused

What is this "this" of which you speak?

The opening post alleges lying.

You were talking about something else?

So if you are taking that allegation as your premise, you don't think you have a duty to substantiate it?

I do.

[Callisto32]

50. Thank God...

they are less relevant every day.

[ileus]

54. Wonder why they're so afraid of citizens with the right to carry...

[jpak]

61. Go Brady!!11 Beat GOP/NRA morans!!11

:rofl:

yup

[rl6214]

71. Yeah, that is pretty funny

:rofl:

Yeup