Nation needs right-to-carry reciprocity

[Hoopla Phil]

As elected officials in Congress, we take seriously our oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the liberties and rights afforded to American citizens. This includes the Second Amendment, and we believe the bureaucratic, piecemeal right-to-carry reciprocity system in our nation threatens the ability of law-abiding American citizens to exercise this vital constitutional right.

H.R. 822 would allow any person with a valid state-issued concealed-firearm carrying permit or license to carry a concealed weapon in any other state. It would not create a federal licensing system but merely would require states to honor one another’s carry permits, just as states recognize one another’s driver’s licenses. Concealed-carry permit holders would have to obey the concealed-weapon laws of the state they enter, just as drivers must obey speed limits and basic safety laws of whichever state they are driving in, regardless of where they are from.

The ideas proposed in this legislation are not new. In fact, hundreds of reciprocal agreements exist between many states across the country. The problem lies herein: Many of these reciprocal agreements don’t match up, and law-abiding gun owners are left with a confusing piecemeal system in which states recognize permits from some states but not others.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/nov/11/nation-needs-right-to-carry-reciprocity/

So far it looks like a good clean bill that does not add any bureaucracy, paperwork, or expense. I support the proposed law.

[tblue]

1. Then I think we need gun-control reciprocity

The gun-control laws in the most restrictive state should be the law of the land, using your logic. Yeah, I'd go for that in a heartbeat.

[TheWraith]

2. Unfortunately for your logic, the tightest restrictions are in the states with the worst crime.

California, Maryland, New York, Illinois. Strict gun control in those states has utterly and completely failed to prevent them from having the most violent cities, despite a massive overall national drop in the crime rate.

[fascisthunter]

4. no, the worst crime is using them

[TheWraith]

7. Would you like to restate that, with actual sentence structure? nt

[fascisthunter]

19. The idea of using a gun to solve problems is already in the books.

I know it's not the answer you were looking for, and I'm more than happy to use it.

[Hoopla Phil]

23. Could you please go back and explain what "crime" you are speaking of?

You seem to be speaking as if we already know what you are talking about, I do not.

[fascisthunter]

24. it's called taking a life... it's universal and many religions adhere to it

or so claim.

[PavePusher]

28. I know of no religion that claims self-defense to be wrong....

up to and including the taking of life, if required.

Perhaps you can cite for us?

[fascisthunter]

36. read #35.... enjoy

[PavePusher]

38. Different topic entirely.

Dodge...

[fascisthunter]

42. My Point Supercedes your attempt.... very effective I can tell

like I said, your agenda makes it more available to psychopaths to kill and claim defense. Of course they have to try to prove so, but the life is gone.... too late. Good going.

[PavePusher]

43. Now you seem to be speaking in Toungues....

Religion, indeed.

:crazy:

[fascisthunter]

44. haha.... you can't argue against what I stated. You lose...

[PavePusher]

47. You are correct. I can't argue against meaningless incoherencies.

But I fail to see the "win".

[fascisthunter]

48. you make it possible... even more so... that's the point.

[Hoopla Phil]

29. You are still being very obtuse. Again, what "crime" are you taking

about? Please leave the theology discussion for another thread as that is a different topic. This topic is about a Federal law that would mandate any state that issues a CCW to honor any other state's CCW.

[fascisthunter]

35. You assume all defense is justified.... I could claim I shot...

...in defense. If I was smart enough I could frame the perpetrator. Your lobbying for guns makes that more available to psychos. Good job!

[Hoopla Phil]

52. I'm still at a loss for what "crime" you are speaking of.

You seem to be conflating legal self defense with murder. Or saying that a murderer can claim self defense and get away with it. AND, that I somehow am advocating for mentally challenged people to be able to somehow get a CCW that they would not be able to get? Seemingly you believe all this is going to be possible because of a national reciprocity law?

Did I get this all right? Would you like to through in "suicide will go up and blood will run in the streets" too?

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[hack89]

59. Which is why the police and prosecutors reserve the right to examine every shooting

just because someone claims self defense does not make it so - it could be a crime.

[Union Scribe]

103. I like how you think that's new.

Through the entire history of crime, when there are two people and one is dead, the living one is likely to blame the dead one. This is countered by something called "police work" which examines the context and, in this day, forensics to see if the claim makes sense. Sometimes people get away with it, but if I were you I wouldn't bet my freedom on it.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

191. Self defense is justified.

What you describe is murder. Totally different concept.

Nobody is saying there shouldn't at least be a sanity check on the story, and an investigation if deemed necessary.

As far as making guns available to psychos, nobody is asking for that either. If you think that protecting the right of an individual to own weapons is the same as making them available, well, there is little point in talking to you. That is an utterly irrational position.

[AtheistCrusader]

100. Well, thank nothingness I'm an atheist.

Because under the correct circumstances, I would do so, and never lose a second's worth of sleep over it.

[Euromutt]

175. I second the above in every respect

I place a high value on human life, but I do not consider it inviolable. Specifically, I refuse to place more value on the life a particular individual than that individual places on the life of others.

And not to put too fine a point on it, that puts me ahead of every organized religion ever, because there isn't a single one that hasn't had somebody killed merely for being politically inconvenient (as opposed to presenting an active and imminent threat to the life of an innocent).

[SteveM]

179. Using a gun to defend myself from someone threatening my life is no crime...

I'm sure you would agree with me on at least that point.

[fascisthunter]

3. Thank you

fuck the obsession with guns

[Hoopla Phil]

8. You are not using any logic at all much less "my" logic.

The analogy you are looking for is the drivers license. While my Texas drivers license is valid in other states, I have to obey the driving laws of the states I'm in. I do not have to follow the laws of a different state in order to purchase a car in Texas. Your ridiculous analogy would have the Federal Government telling each and every state how to register and conduct sales of cars within their respective state. Something that is clearly beyond the purview of Federal authority.

Please do not allow hatred of a firearm to cloud rational thought.

[fascisthunter]

20. HA!

[SteveM]

178. Go ahead and try it. nt

[MADem]

5. Don't hold your breath. States would view that as an intrusion. Won't fly. NT

[Hoopla Phil]

10. How is it an intrusion into state's powers? A person with an out of state

CCW will have to follow the rules of the state they are in. All this does is say that if a state allows CCW then they have to allow it for out of state visitors that have a CCW. It's just like having an out of state drivers license. Where is the intrusion?

[MADem]

16. There are towns in this great nation that don't allow firearms to be discharged within their borders

Like I say, you can argue that "They should do it because YOU like it" but states, and communities, pass laws for THEIR benefit--not yours. If a state doesn't like CCW, or requires permitting by their own agencies, that's the way it's gonna be.

Drivers licenses don't go "boom"--that's the difference in "intrusion." No one would feel threatened if someone pointed a driver's license at them.

I mean, come on--use a little logic. This is a nonstarter.

[gejohnston]

17. Neither do CCW cards

No one would feel threatened if someone pointed a CCW card at them either. People would feel threatened if someone drove a car with their head up their ass.

[MADem]

21. No, but it is what the card represents that is at issue.

You can keep wishing and hoping, if you'd like--and, er, "shooting the messenger" because you don't care for my opinion.

My bet on this issue is that it is a pipe dream. Not gonna happen. You can think what you'd like, of course.

[Hoopla Phil]

30. If it is about "what the card represents" then why did you make

such a ridiculous statement? This is about mandating the recognition of other states CCW's in states that have chosen to allow CCW. Such is within the purview of the Federal Government.

[MADem]

34. Now you're just being rude. States can and do regulate how things are done within their borders.

If you don't like it, I fear you'll just have to lump it, and getting nasty with me won't change that fact.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

40. There are any number of exceptions to that today

Not so much in earlier times, say before the current Constitution was ratified.

Right now there are Federal gun laws that over ride state laws. This could be added to that list and similarly enforced.

That said it does not have a change in hell of becoming law any time soon, so the discussion is academic at this point.

[MADem]

55. Not in cases like this. Citizens have the right to know how many

CCW permits are circulating within their borders.

This ill-thought-out proposal strives to take that ability to regulate themselves with regard to these permits from the citizenry.

Not gonna happen.

There's nothing to prevent a state from making a reciprocal agreement with another state, but a federal blanket? Hell, no.

[Hoopla Phil]

60. Citizens have a right to privacy. Don't you agree with that?

This is not "ill-though-out". It is something that has been in the works for a very long time. It may not happen this go around but it will eventually.

You are correct, states have been making reciprocal; agreements with one another for a while now. BUT, the Federal government does in fact have the power to do that which is being proposed. It's just a matter of time.

[MADem]

65. Citizens do not have a right to skulk around with concealed weapons in contravention to state law.

You want privacy in that regard? Move to Texas.

[AtheistCrusader]

101. Look at you, you don't even know anything about Texas.

Try a state that has had concealed carry for decades (over half a century in many cases) with no training requirement at all. Like Washington State.

[MADem]

110. Try reading what I wrote, please. Why are you fixating on Texas?

States have the right to make their own laws re: this matter, that's my point.

[AtheistCrusader]

154. "You want privacy in that regard? Move to Texas."

You brought up Texas.

Most states allow concealed carry. Texas just recently joined the group. It was illegal there not too long ago.

So, one wonders why you brought up a newcomer like Texas, rather than Washington, or any of 30+ states that have had it for decades.

[MADem]

160. OK, move "where ever"--you fill in that blank to suit yourself.

You're not going to find any love in Hawaii, or Illinois, so avoid those places.

[Hoopla Phil]

196. Thanks for participating in this thread. It's always interesting to see

the position of the anti's and how far they will go to make things be the way they want them to be. Stories changed, claims were changed, but no evidence was ever offered that supported the anti position.

Thanks again.

[Hoopla Phil]

106. So you don't believe in privacy rights to protect something you don't like.

How very progressive of you.

Please note we are not discussing illegal activity, we are talking about legal CCW.

[MADem]

115. Oh, horseshit. I believe that there is no "privacy right" when a behavior is LICENSED.

You ARE talking about "illegal" activity--because if you are in a state without a reciprocal agreement and carrying your little gun without a CCW license from that state, you are breaking the law.

Get over yourself! The tortured "progressive" argument is a laugh, and it won't hold any water in state legislatures (progressive ones, too) that just don't see things your way. Your "right" to privacy ends when it impinges on the rights of citizens who have created laws that suit THEM, and might not like your "private" habit of wandering around with a gun in your little pocket. You want to carry your little shooter? Get a license in the state where you are at, or go where it's legal, get the appropriate license, and have at it. Otherwise, stop crabbing at people who don't see things your selfish way.

What's unprogressive is someone who can't abide by the rules that a community makes for itself, for the benefit of everyone in the community. They live there, they elect the officials, they pay the taxes, pass the laws and decide which activiities should be regulated. When an entire state makes a decision in this regard, you have a choice--get with the program, or move.

[Hoopla Phil]

123. Must have hit a nerve there. Ha Ha Ha.

Yes, we are talking about privacy rights. Please cite your evidence that all licensed activity is public record.

No, the object of this post is about CCW's being recognized amongst the states. That is legal activity. You may WANT it to be illegal but it is not.

As far as state legislatures not seeing the progressive nature of CCW goes, how many states now have CCW? Yep, that one is worth a laugh.

Sorry, but you have no right to know what legal things I have on or about my person. If you think you do please cite your evidence - of course we know how good you are at that right? Time for another laugh maybe?

I notice you seem to like to use the word "little", why is that? lol

As far as wanting to LEGALLY carry across state lines. I support the idea of a national reciprocity law. I think that will make things much easier far all those concerned. That's my opinion, you are entitled you yours of cores but I think mine is better. :)

So it is progressive to tell a person to "get with the program, or move."? Hummm, that doesn't hold to what I understand as progressive.

And just to be clear, and has been explained to you many times, the state laws on regulating CCW do not change. All we are talking about is one state honoring the license of another state.

[MADem]

127. Nope. No nerve. You've lost the bubble. That's your problem, not mine.

Take your whine to Clarence Thomas and the rest of his pals--let us know when they agree with you, mmmmm-kay?

And please cite your evidence that all licensed activity is NOT a public record. You made the claim, boyo, now put up or shut up.

[Hoopla Phil]

131. I like the way things are going now, why would I take your advice.

And in point of order, you made the claim that they were public record without the citation. What is that phrase again?

"So put up, or begone."

[MADem]

135. It's not "advice." And if you like the way things are going, why are you arguing with me?

I never had a problem with state-to-state reciprocity.

You are the one demanding a federal blanket, and you're not going to get one.

See, I put up--now you 'begone.'

[Hoopla Phil]

139. No, you did not make a citation to back up your assertion.

I see now the problem, you don't seem to understand what a citation is - as you do not provide them.

I am demanding nothing. I am advocating a new law that would have states honor one another's licenses for CCW.

I believe that we will get there eventually.

As far as you citing any evidence on your claim that any fee paid for a license is public record goes. . I'm not so hopeful.

[MADem]

141. Reading is fundamental. Read, Hoopie, Read! nt

[Hoopla Phil]

143. Maybe this will help.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=476137&mesg_id=476499

[MADem]

144. Maybe it wouldn't, either. Read. nt

[Hoopla Phil]

193. Yeah, I didn't think you would read it. Look

The simple fact is you made an un cited statement. I responded by basically saying it's bullshit and did so without citation. I, of course am free to do that by the rules covered in the link I posted.

You've shown a pattern here in this thread: First off, forgetting what you posted, denying what you posted, and then ignoring it when shown proof. Second, you make an un cited claim and when called on to cite it you continue to play a childish game of "prove it". Not only have you continued to ignore rules of internet decorum (as linked to above) and refused to post proof of your statement, you have ignored posts that showed your statement to be false.

I'm done with such childish antiques. Any reasonably intelligent person can understand basic rules of internet decorum and knows that when they make a statement they need to provide proof. Without that proof anyone is free to discount said statement without citation.

Good by.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

177. That's way too easy...

A doctor. You may be able to see if he has a license to practice medicine, but you have no right to find out if he actually uses said license or not.

Geez...think a little before you post, would ya?

[friendly_iconoclast]

169. "When an entire state makes a decision in this regard, you have a choice--get with the program,...

...or move" Like Mildred and Richard Loving had to?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia

Fotunately, the Feds and the Supreme Court both disagree with you:

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driver%27s_Privacy_Protection_Act

Driver's Privacy Protection Act
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Driver's Privacy Protection Act of 1994 is a United States federal statute governing the privacy and disclosure of personal information gathered by state Departments of Motor Vehicles. The law was passed in 1994; it was introduced by Rep. Jim Moran in 1992, after an increase in opponents of abortion rights using public driving license databases to track down and harass abortion providers and patients, most notably besieging Susan Wicklund's home for a month and following her daughter to school.<1> It is currently codified at Chapter 123 of Title 18 of the United States Code.<2>

Upheld by the Supreme Court:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reno_v._Condon


You know, you really should reconsider your DU membership if you employ the same arguments as racist anti-miscegnationists,
psycho stalkers, and the Lambs Of God...

[SteveM]

183. You seem to have scant knowledge of federalism. nt

[SteveM]

182. No one has that right; even with reciprocity. Straw man. nt

[ProgressiveProfessor]

62. There is no such right *anywhere* in the US.

Restrictions on publishing names/addresses/quantities have been enacted and upheld. There is no right of the citizenry to know who has a CCW, how many there are, let alone control who gets them. In many states there is a state preemption law that over rides localities on this issue. Its black letter law, in some cases in the state constitution.

Given past history it would possible to create a Federal mandate for reciprocity or even a Federal CCW and have it hold up in the courts.

It won't become law while Obama is President, but it still could.

[MADem]

67. Quantities? Are you quite sure?

I think you're ENTIRELY mistaken.

Names and addresses, sure. Number of permits issued? Uh-uh. That's available data. Citizens DO have a right to it, hell, it's published routinely.

Just one example--there are many more: http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2010/02/record_number_of_concealed_car.html

Give it up. Your arguments aren't cutting it.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

74. Like I said, I fully believe it could be legal, espcially when you consider the Commerce Clause

and what else it has been used for. However, it is an academic argument since it won't happen at least while Obama is in office.

Some state publish quantities others post little to nothing about CCWs. Then there are those that do not even require them. Whether the citizens have a *right* to it is questionable, though I agree quantities should be availabe

Feds could make this happen if we lose the WH and both houses.

[MADem]

78. Whatever. I'd bet against it. Publishing quantities is not "illegal" though--never has been.

Every state publishes the number of permits issued. It's a matter of public record, as fees are collected and added to the state coffers.

You have an opinion, and I disagree with your POV. It won't happen, IMO.

[GreenStormCloud]

91. Not all states even keep track of such data.

In some shall-issue states the issuing is done by county officials and they aren't required to report totals to the state. Some states have no idea how many CCWs there are in the state. Others, such as Texas, keep tight records of their CHLs.

[MADem]

95. If a license fee is collected, it's a matter of public record.

The only time there might possibly not be a record is if licenses were free. Even at that, I would think there would be a record, simply to justify the workload of the individual issuing the document.

If totals aren't reported to states, then you'd have to go county-by-county, but the information would still be publicly available.

[Hoopla Phil]

107. The fact that a fee is collected does not make something public record.

You may WANT it to be so, but that want does not make it so.

[MADem]

109. I'd love an example where a license fee is collected and there is no record of it. at all. nt

[Hoopla Phil]

117. I did not say "no record" I said "public record". Reading is fundamental.

And as far as examples go. You seem to be lacking in your own.

[MADem]

118. OK, PUBLIC record. Come on--cough up an example. NT

[Hoopla Phil]

124. You made the claim. Now back it up. But you can't so you'll just

try to deflect. It's about all your left with now.

[MADem]

No--YOU made a claim, right here, in this thread, at this post:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=478655&mesg_id=479028

So put up, or begone.

[Hoopla Phil]

129. In response to YOUR claim that you posted here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=478655&mesg_id=478914

You forgetting what you post seems to becoming a pattern. You may want to see someone about your forgetfulness.

Now what is that phrase that's all the rage??? Oh yeah: "So put up, or begone."

That's so catchy, I'll have to remember it - I of course will cite to give proper credit.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[MADem]

134. Back at you , with your little rolling laughing men (how many times did you have

to cut and paste that? You feel "cool" now?)

That post was quite clear. You have YET to refute it.

You can't answer the question, can you?

You've done the google, and you can't find a single example to back up your claim! Uh-oh.

So yeah--put up, or indeed--begone.

It's pretty obvious that you don't answer me, because you CAN'T. Instead, you're trying to laugh your way out of it. You are funny--but you can't answer the simple question I asked you. There was nothing :rofl: about the question--it was pretty simple and basic. So why are you laughing, instead of replying? I only need a single example--why are you having such a hard time coming up with one?

[Hoopla Phil]

136. That post was pretty clear alright. WITHOUT a citation proving

the assertion. Now back it up. But you cannot.

[MADem]

137. You can't prove the point you made! You CAN'T.

You've tried, too, haven't you?

ONE example. Just ONE. Come on!!!

[Hoopla Phil]

142. Still waiting on your citation that a fee collected for a license makes that

license public record. You made that claim without citation. I am left to fall back on a very sage DU member that posted this.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=476137&mesg_id=476499

[MADem]

145. You were the one that said licenses could be issued without a public record. Prove it. nt

[friendly_iconoclast]

170. You have not heard of the Driver's Privacy Protection Act, I take it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driver%27s_Privacy_Protection_Act


Driver's Privacy Protection Act
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Driver's Privacy Protection Act of 1994 is a United States federal statute governing the privacy and disclosure of personal information gathered by state Departments of Motor Vehicles. The law was passed in 1994; it was introduced by Rep. Jim Moran in 1992, after an increase in opponents of abortion rights using public driving license databases to track down and harass abortion providers and patients, most notably besieging Susan Wicklund's home for a month and following her daughter to school.<1> It is currently codified at Chapter 123 of Title 18 of the United States Code.<2>...

Upheld unanimously by the Supreme Court in Reno v. Condon

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reno_v._Condon

So basically, you've spent the better part of this thread talking out of your ass..

[MADem]

173. No one wants personally identifiable information. Just numbers.

No personal info at all. Statistics.

You're the only one talking about personal info.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

188. If all you want is numbers

then how do you reconcile that claim with your previous statement that you have the right to know if a specific person is carrying?

Your arguments would be a little less laughable if they were at least consistent.

[Hoopla Phil]

194. This person has shown a pattern of changing position, forgetting what she posted

and denial. Her continued banter of "prove it" has worn very thin. She has shown what she is and that she has no factual basis to stand on. Thank you for participating in this thread. It's always interesting to see how far the anti's will go to try and make things be the way they want them.

[AtheistCrusader]

102. Some states publish it.

Some do not. Though, likely the information can be obtained via FOI request, for the states that do not publish it.

[MADem]

116. Most do. The rare ones that don't, you could go county-by-county and get the info if need be.

It's public record, in any event.

[AtheistCrusader]

155. Rare my ass.

Most states DO NOT publish it.

[MADem]

159. Which ones? nt

[AtheistCrusader]

161. Give and take.

Washington does not appear to publish, though various media outlets have come up with numbers in the past, so clearly a request of some sort can turn up data.

As far as states that DO publish, Florida is the only one I know of that posts total licenses, revoked liceneses, etc.

[MADem]

165. Yup-probably need to FOIA them and make it clear you're only looking for a number and not names.

This reporter was able to get the state and King County figures out of an official five years ago without too much apparent strain--maybe "Ask and Ye Shall receive" is how it's done, there.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003298710_shootingside11m.html

Statewide, there are about 239,000 active concealed-pistol licenses. King County has slightly more than 48,000, Forth said.

There might be some halfassed report in the bowels of government, too, that has the totals aggregated somewhere, but I don't know if it's available online.

[GreenStormCloud]

156. That's a hell of a lot of work to go county by county to get those stats.

Best guess is about ten million CCWs nationally. That comes from taking the available data and extrapolationing it. There was a thread on it here a few months ago.

[MADem]

158. I agree. Most of the states--every one I've happened to look at--have the

"number of permits issued" number available, because the state governments collect that stat.

I have been told that some don't (I haven't been told which ones, though)--in that case, you'd have to go county-by-county.

[GreenStormCloud]

164. First state I tried I couldn't find the info. Alphabetic order, Alabama.

Tried Alaska then. No luck. Too much work to go state by state.

[Hoopla Phil]

197. Thanks for participating in this thread. It's always interesting to see

the position of the anti's and how far they will go to make things be the way they want them to be. Stories changed, claims were changed, but no evidence was ever offered that supported the anti position.

Thanks again.

[Hoopla Phil]

195. Thank you for participating in this thread. It was very interesting to see

the position of the anti's and how far they will go to make things be the way they want them to be. Stories changed, claims were changed, but no evidence was ever offered that supported the anti position.

Thanks again.

[SteveM]

181. Don't know if it is a right, but I don't care if citizens "know how many"...

permits are circulating within their borders.

They do NOT have a right to know who these people are, anymore than they have a right to know the name, address, phone of people by merely accessing a license plate number. That was stopped in Texas many years ago because stalkers and other thugs bent on mayhem could merely phone the Department of Public Safety and find out all they needed to know by telling them the plate numbers. Same with concealed-carry permits.

[Name removed]

57. Deleted sub-thread

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

[hack89]

61. But if a state thinks that it is ok for it's citizens to carry

then why would they have problems with other state CCW carriers? The fact that a state allows CCW seems to indicate that that particular state doesn't think that CCW is a problem whatsoever.

[MADem]

69. They are free to enter into reciprocal arrangements with other states.

Each state has different requirements for CCW. Some require more training than others, as an example.

This idiotic proposal in the OP is to mandate them on a federal level.

It is not going to happen, ever.

[hack89]

71. Well, not every battle is won but the trend is in the right direction. nt

[MADem]

80. There is no "battle" here. States that want to reciprocate can so do.

And many do.

Those that don't have the right to live as they see fit.

What ever happened to "Live and let live?"

[gejohnston]

92. how about this

the states continue the current system, but have a parallel national CCW (like a CDL, if you want to want to compare it to drivers license.) where the training curriculum and requirements be created by subject area experts and operated by, say, Treasury or Interior. The federal permit be recognized by all states that allow CCW, but state rules as far as where still prevail. (As in, don't carry in a bar in Wyoming even though you can in your home state.)

[MADem]

94. The individual states would still have to "sign up" for such a thing.

If they wanted to, they could.

There are more reciprocal CCW arrangements between states already than some people here seem to realize.

Here's a little flash thingy that will tell CCW'ers where they can go--as you will see it does vary by state: http://www.usacarry.com/concealed_carry_permit_reciprocity_maps.html


You have to reload it to try on a different state.

[GreenStormCloud]

157. Modification of that idea.

Federal level CCW with stiff training and screening but you can carry EVERYWHERE with no exceptions.

[Hoopla Phil]

18. Most towns have those laws. And an out of state CCW holder would

have to obey those laws. If a state does not allow for CCW in their state then an out of state CCW would not be recognized. That is exactly the case for Illinois. Again, this only mandates the recognition of an out of state CCW, it does not change the laws within a state. The power for the Federal Government to do this is well established.

A CCW licenses does not go "boom" either.

"No one would feel threatened if someone pointed a driver's license at them. " You seem to be confused. This law would only allow an out of state CCW to be recognized in a state that already allows it's own citizens to have CCWs. The out of state licensee would have to comport themselves to the laws adopted withing the state they are visiting.

Again, please explain how this is an intrusion into a states laws? As far as a "nonstarter" goes, have you looked at the amount of support this proposed law has?

[MADem]

32. The issues include education, license fees, varying terms of validity.

How is a state to know that a person licensed in state A has the same level of education that state B requires?

What's to stop people from State A from going to State B to get their CCW because it's moronically easier to get one in State B?

The thing that is carried once one gets a CCW is the thing that goes "boom"--and citizens of a state have the right to say they don't want people who haven't passed THEIR quality control standards to have the privilege. I sure as hell wouldn't trust, say, TEXAS to do ANYTHING right--they can't even elect a governor with an IQ exceeding 100, apparently. Why should I rely on their processes in this matter? As a citizen of my state, I don't think the vetting of Texas is sufficient to preserve my safety or security. Any vetting to be done should be done by the authorities that I elect, within the confines of the state where I pay taxes and have a self-interest as a citizen.

Is that a clear enough example for you?

[Hoopla Phil]

45. Finally you took the time to make a clear and cogent argument.

Unfortunately you could not do it without inflammatory rhetoric against the state of Texas. If you could take your blinders of hate against an entire state perhaps you might learn a bit about the Texas CHL process a bit. All that aside, your argument is entirely moot.

What you bring up is the exact system we have for driver's license. The Federal Government has the power and authority to mandate such a reciprocal law. The fact that YOU don't like it because you think YOUR system is better is irrelevant. If your state allows for CCW then the Federal Government does in fact have the power to say your state has to recognize other states license.

So, you have been able to postulate different training requirements from state to state, but the bottom like is that an out of state licensee will still have to obey the carry, and use, laws of the state he or she is visiting in.

I still don't see a problem with it and in fact support it.

[MADem]

53. Which you haven't done to this point.

Your only argument is that you WAAAANT it, and states should see things your way, at the end of the day.

As far as "inflammatory rhetoric" that's in the eyes of the beholder. The last two TX governors were fucking morons; the state kills more people on Death Row--many of them innocent--than any other state. They hover near the bottom of the nation in educational achievement.

You think I should have confidence in them because you say so? Please. Everything they do is dysfunctional. They don't inspire confidence by their ACTIONS, and that isn't "inflammatory rhetoric"--it's the frigging truth.

You can support this proposal all you want, but it ain't happening.

:hi:

[Hoopla Phil]

64. Again with the insults.

"many of them innocent", care to cite them please? As I understand they were all found guilty by a jury with may automatic appeals.

"because I say so"? No, I think I suggested you educate yourself on the matter, which is clearly lacking.

"ain't happening". Perhaps not this go around but eventually. It took a number of tries to get CCW passed within the state. Many claimed it would "never happen" then but it did eventually.

[MADem]

68. Oh come on--anyone who doesn't agree with you is insulting you.

Grow a thicker skin, or come up with better arguments.

You can do your own Google on innocent Texas death row inmates--I suggest you start with The Innocence Project.

Tell you what, when you get your way on this subject, you send me a note with a "Nanny Nanny Boo Boo."

I won't hold my breath waiting for it.

[Hoopla Phil]

73. Is it not you that continues to say that I am rude? And I'm the one

that needs a thicker skin?? :rofl:

No, you made the claim, it is your job to cite it.

[MADem]

81. Keep chuckling. Your argument has disintegrated, so you may as well laugh. NT

[Hoopla Phil]

108. I have made no "argument". I have expressed my support for the proposed law

and shown how the Federal Government has the authority to enact said law. You've made an uncited claim that has nothing to do with the OP.

[MADem]

119. Alright--I'll play your little game so you can back away from your failure to make a point.

You have made "no argument."

Ergo, you've nothing more to say.

:hi:

[Hoopla Phil]

125. So I take it you do not have a citation for you claim? I didn't think so.

I do support the proposed law though. Hopefully it will get passed this time but if not, we'll try again. It's much like how all those states passed CCW laws.

[MADem]

128. How many times do I have to repeat that you need to read the full thread.

Do you have trouble with the written word?

[Hoopla Phil]

132. You seem to have trouble posting links.

Still waiting.

[MADem]

138. No I don't. They are contained IN THIS THREAD. Read the thread and find them. nt

[PavePusher]

31. "that don't allow firearms to be discharged within their borders"

except in valid self-defense.

"Drivers licenses don't go "boom"--"

Except that 45K-odd traffic deaths per year says you are quite wrong. (And yes, some of those are actual murders.)

[MADem]

37. Sorry, you haven't made your case.

States can insist that you comply with their regulations. If you don't like it, don't visit.

[PavePusher]

39. And this reciprocity requirement would not affect that at all.

If I have an Arizona permit, I would have to follow all New Hampshire laws when in New Hampshire.

I fail to see what you are getting exercised about.

[MADem]

46. And NH wouldn't know how good your training was, wouldn't collect a licensing fee,

and their citizens would be unable to regulate the number of CCW permitted persons in the state.

See? It's a non-starter.

Just because YOU want it, doesn't mean the citizens of the state, who make the laws through their legislative process and pay their taxes (and NH does have taxes--just not "income" ones) want it.

You don't live in the state--you're not "The Decider." They are.

I'm not getting exercised at all, FWIW. I'm simply refuting an incredibly stupid idea.

[PavePusher]

49. So, same as those driver's licences.

What's the problem here?

[MADem]

58. No, not true. License exams are fairly standard, a product of that whole

"federal highway funds" thing a few decades back. All the states had to play ball and join the national database if they wanted highway money, and all of 'em did.

Remember, it all started when they raised the drinking age back to 21? It was all part and parcel of that effort.

There's no "carrot and stick" at play here--no way to bully the states to comply. And they won't. Not all states have a gun culture, and the federal government will not foist one on them.

It isn't going to happen.

[PavePusher]

63. Can you cite this? I have no idea what you are talking about. Thanks. n/t

[MADem]

76. Google is your friend, too. This isn't news.

http://www.dhs.gov/files/programs/gc_1200062053842.shtm

More here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driver%27s_license_in_the_United_States#Standard_licenses

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

You need a social security number to get a driver's license. It is, in effect, a national ID, and has been for years.

[RSillsbee]

85. That makes two of you NT

[ProgressiveProfessor]

51. You continue to ignore that the Feds could make it national law and enforce it on the states

Happens in any number of areas, including firearms, and it would probably pass muster legally under the same theories used for the other laws today.

I don't think it will be law so the discussion is purely academic at this point

[MADem]

82. And what stick would they use to shove that carrot down the throat of the states?

Carting around guns isn't the same as riding around on federally funded highways. The carrot was the nice roads, the stick was "No money unless you do things OUR way." States had the ability to opt-out, but they chose not to because roads are expensive.

People have the right to live as they please. You like guns and want to carry them? Good for you. Associate with people in a state that feels as you do. Stop trying to shove your wishes on people who aren't of your POV. It's just not 'on.' It will not prevail.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

83. They would not need a stick...they have the Federal Courts

and the Commerce Clause. That is how existing Federal firearms laws are justified today. Its not like the forcing BA levels for setting max speeds to get Federal highway funds.

Again, this is academic since I do not feel it would pass in the near future.

[MADem]

86. Who won't touch this with a forty foot pole. NT

[ProgressiveProfessor]

90. After what was tried in Montana, I would not be so sure

[beevul]

105. "Stop trying to shove your wishes on people who aren't of your POV."

"Stop trying to shove your wishes on people who aren't of your POV."

I'd be interested in whether you'd apply that sentiment to everyone across the board in all cases...


Or if you'd only apply it where guns are concerned.


Enlighten us.

[MADem]

121. States have the right to regulate and license activities. If you don't like it, I suggest you

either get off your behind and persuade the population of the state to "think different," or MOVE to somewhere that accomodates you.

Are you sufficiently "enlightened?"

:eyes:

[beevul]

168. It was a simple question...

(Oh and by the way, States and governments dont have "rights" they have powers.)

Beyond that, it was a simple, and direct question:

"Stop trying to shove your wishes on people who aren't of your POV."

I'd be interested in whether you'd apply that sentiment to everyone across the board in all cases...


Or if you'd only apply it where guns are concerned.


Is there some reason you'd rather not answer it, preferring to dodge it instead?

[MADem]

174. PACK your gun if you'd like--I don't care. Just don't expect a

state with a different set of regs to accomodate you because you stomp your foot and pout. States have the ability to make their own rules with regard to these matters, and too bad if you don't like it.

[beevul]

186. I don't carry a gun.

"Stop trying to shove your wishes on people who aren't of your POV."

Would you apply that sentiment to everyone across the board in all cases, and extend to them the courtesy of them being alowed to implement it as they see fit as well?


Or is it a one way street "gun only" thing?


Is there some reason you'd rather not answer it, preferring to dodge it instead?

Is the answer that damning?

[We_Have_A_Problem]

189. So you're suggesting....

...that civil rights should be something a state can decide upon individually?

So you're a George Wallace style Democrat then?

[Hoopla Phil]

111. That would be Article IV, Section 1 of the United States Constitution.

But somehow I don't think you will read it. It kinda crushes your position.

[MADem]

120. Take it to the Supremes, then. We'll see how you do. nt

[Hoopla Phil]

126. No, actually I like the way it is going now. We've had a lot of success

going this rout. First getting CCW laws passed in the states, then with a lot of reciprocal agreements between the states and now we are working at getting national reciprocity. The Feds do have the authority to do it.

[MADem]

130. Well, if you're so happy why are you spending your life carping about it on DU?

I don't have a problem with reciprocal laws that are agreed upon between states. I never have.

States have the right to regulate themselves as they see fit with regard to this matter.

You aren't going to get national reciprocity. You can take it to Clarence, and you still won't get it.

[Hoopla Phil]

133. I'm only responding to you. You don't seem to understand

that the Feds have the power to make this law.

Again, this will not affect the states laws on regulating the carrying of arms. It will only make states recognize each other's license.

I believe that we will eventually get national reciprocity. Just like getting state CCWs past it's just going to take some time.

I don't understand your fixation with "clarence" though. Could you explain?

[MADem]

140. You don't seem to understand that they don't make the law because they don't have the power

to do it. They won't even try.

The Supremes would cut them like a knife, and they don't want to go there.

Clarence is clearly one of your Supreme faves--he likely sees things your way.

[friendly_iconoclast]

171. The Feds certainly have the power to regulate licenses- see Reno v. Condon

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reno_v._Condon


..which upheld the Driver's Privacy Protection Act

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driver%27s_Privacy_Protection_Act

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reno_v._Condon

Decided unanimously, you will note. You will also note that the Feds dictate the requirements for commercial drivers' licenses:

http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/registration-licensing/cdl/cdl.htm

COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY ACT OF 1986

The Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1986 was signed into law on October 27, 1986. The goal of the Act is to improve highway safety by ensuring that drivers of large trucks and buses are qualified to operate those vehicles and to remove unsafe and unqualified drivers from the highways. The Act retained the State's right to issue a driver's license, but established minimum national standards which States must meet when issuing CDLs.

The Act addresses circumstances that existed prior to 1986 by:

making it illegal for CDL holders to possess more than one license;
requiring States to adopt knowledge and skills testing to ensure that individuals required to have a CDL are qualified to operate heavy trucks and buses
establishing minimum licensing standards and information requirements for the CDLs that States issue.
It is important to note that the Act does not require drivers to obtain a separate Federal license; it merely requires States to upgrade their existing testing and licensing programs, if necessary, to conform to the Federal minimum standards....

To my knowledge, this has never been challenged in court. So theoretically, if the Feds wanted to set the standards for CCW permits and make them stick, they could do so.

[MADem]

172. The carrot was highway money, the stick was licenses and before that, the drinking age.

I talked about this elsewhere in this thread.

The CDL thing is all about crossing state lines on federal highways.

There's no carrot to hand the states with CCW, and no stick, either. The states will just have to make their own deals, as most have done.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

185. Why do you care....

...if I'm carrying a gun or not? Unless you intend to do me harm, you'll never know I have it.

[Euromutt]

176. If a state government feels that way, it can prohibit CCW entirely

Because any state that does not permit private citizens to carry concealed in the first place is under no obligation to recognize CCW permits issued by other states. What this bill does is fuck over "may issue" states that, in principle, permit private citizens to carry concealed, but in practice only extend that privilege to individuals who possess large amounts of wealth, celebrity and/or influence over local politicians (generally as a result of having large amounts of celebrity and/or wealth).

In short, what's objectionable about subverting a system that's geared to serving a plutocracy?

[SteveM]

180. There are towns which don't allow "engine braking."

The issue is reciprocity with permits/licenses, not uniform regulations for each town or state. Some states have yearly "safety inspections" for all licensed cars; some do not require this for all licensed cars. Speed limits vary, right-on-red traffic laws vary. Similarly, reciprocity of concealed-carry permits doesn't mean states cannot ban guns from some government buildings, while others do not, and doesn't remove the obligation of those carrying from obeying properly posted "no weapons" signs in places of business, though the issuing state of an individual has no such requirement.

This seems far more "logical."

[ProgressiveProfessor]

13. The Feds would invoke the Commerce Clause

It is the basis used for the nationwide restrictions. If those are valid, a national reciprocity bill should be too. Challenge it and all Federal gun restrictions could fall by the wayside. Be an interesting choice for the anti gun rights bubbas

[Hoopla Phil]

33. I was thinking the Full Faith and Credit claus myself. The ICC may

also give the Feds the authority as well.

[iverglas]

6. are you serious?

You have linked to an opinion piece in the WASHINGTON TIMES co-authored by a Republican and, yes indeed, a Democrat. A former NFL quarterback. A shining example of all things "liberal":

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

Shuler voted against the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 both times it came before the House. He later joined seven other conservative House Democrats in voting against the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, an $819 billion economic stimulus bill proposed by President Barack Obama. Shuler also voted against the Affordable Health Care for America Act, or HR 3962, along with 38 other Democrats, despite voting yes on the Stupak amendment in the same bill, which prohibits federal funds to be used for abortions. In January 2011, Shuler voted against repealing the law.

In 2011, he co-sponsored HR 3, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act ... In July 2011, Shuler was one of five Democrats to vote for the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act.

These are your sources, your opinion leaders, your authorities?

I pity you.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

14. It is one of many citations out there for this

And while I doubt it will become law, it would probably pass legal muster.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

56. I read just fine, even off a tablet here at OWS

I question your underlying assumption that the source quoted is the only available source in support of the post, since clearly it is not.

I don't know why the OP used that citation. Like most of us I assume it was something they came across and they thought it worthy of sharing with the rest of DU. That they did not provide additional ones is their call and not surprising since multiple citations are rare in posts here.

[Name removed]

70. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

79. Things were always quite clear. You made an assumption and I disagreed with it.

You do realize that one of the cited authors is a Democratic Party office holder and it is consider bad form to slag them here at DU?

[Name removed]

84. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

72. "even off a tablet here at OWS"

:rofl:

Long flight?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

77. It a decent ride from my desert dwelling, no air time involved

[iverglas]

150. I'm begging you to make sense here

but I guess somebody thinks I should just not bother.

I question your underlying assumption that the source quoted is the only available source in support of the post, since clearly it is not.

YOU ARE ALLEGING AN "UNDERLYING ASSUMPTION" IN MY POST.

Substantiate that in some way that makes some basic kind of sense or RETRACT IT.

I have no fucking clue what you are talking about.

[fascisthunter]

22. Damn... well done!

That does pretty much obliterate this OP's effort.

[iverglas]

it's like shooting

fish in a barrel. ;)

[fascisthunter]

27. I always appreciate your input

it's quick and to the point!

[MADem]

41. Missed that--!!! Makes it toilet-paper-worthy, after all that. NT

[Mendocino]

9. You can have CC in my state when your state

allows same sex-marriage or medical marijuana. This is not personally directed at you or your state, but as a general statement.

[Hoopla Phil]

11. The two issues are mutually exclusive. You are of course free

to lobby your reps for a similar law on whatever issue you wish though.

[MADem]

122. Game, set, match! nt

[bluestateguy]

12. I'm for the law too

Most states have some time of right to carry. This law will bring about less confusion and more standardization.

[MH1]

15. Only where the issuing state's permit requirements are as restrictive as the state to be carried in.

Otherwise you'd basically have permit shopping and the loosest restrictions would then be imposed on other states. A state should have a right to set its own rules in this regard. In fact I think a locality should have the right to set its own rules. You don't like the rules, live and do your business elsewhere.

[Hoopla Phil]

26. You seem to think it is OK for one area of the country to have

different rules and laws than another. That was tried under the Articles of Confederation and was a failure. We now have the U.S. Constitution that allows for uniform laws to be enacted and enforced. It has worked out much better this way.

[gejohnston]

54. how many states have non resident permits?

In order for the "race to the bottom" to work, it would have to be more than a few of them.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

66. Not a going to happen.

States have certain authority. Significant precedent exists in court such that states have the authority to regulate CCW.

Vermont requires no CCW license/permit. If New York is forced into reciprocity with Vermont, would anyone from Vermont be allowed to CC in Manhattan?

And of course, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

[ProgressiveProfessor]

75. Seeing what has been done in the name of the Commerce Clause I would not be so sure about that

Consider this, what give the Federal government the authority to control firearms at the level it does in this country? Why couldn't a state legalize the private ownership of machine guns? That same authority could be used to justify a Federal CCW or some sort of mandated reciprocity.

At a practical level you are right. It will not become law while Obama is president, and most likely not even if the Repukes had the WH and both houses.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

93. I don't see it happening for a verrry loooong time.

CA, IL, MA, NJ, NY control 129 seats in the House, almost 30%. They also have the most restrictive gun laws. Any such legislation would not be veto proof. Any President that would approve would probably be rather one-dimensional and, therefore, non-electable. Further there are almost certainly ample grounds for court challenges on the constitutionality of such laws on the federal level.

ICC is most of the current leverage.

[GreenStormCloud]

162. It passed the House last time and had 59 votes in the Senate.

Since it takes 60 to override a filisbuster it wasn't able to pass. In this House over 50% of the House has NRA "A" ratings and almost 50% of the Senate does too. To get Obama's signature all they have to do is place it as a rider on something he wants really badly. That's how the guns-in-parks measure went through. It was a rider on a credit card reform bill.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

187. Just a couple nits to pick...

Private ownership of machine guns is perfectly legal. There are some states which have state laws forbidding it, but there is nothing nationally.

Additionally, a couple of states (MT and TN IIRC) have passed laws recently which plainly state if the gun is made and sold exclusively in the state, the 1934 NFA does not apply - the obvious intent being to force a showdown with the BATFE and their near arbitrary enforcement of the law.

[Hoopla Phil]

112. It didn't happen the first go around and it may not happen this time

But just like getting CCW past in the states it will eventually happen. As far as constitutional authority goes you should check out Article IV, Section 1 of the United States Constitution. The authority is there should the Feds decide to do it.

[iverglas]

87. okay, I give up

Why is an opinion piece from the Washington Times being cited at Democratic Underground with approval?

[noiretextatique]

89. because "right to carry reciprocity"

is such a major "need" :eyes:

[iverglas]

148. so my thread DEBUNKING right-wing horseshit is locked

And this thread started with an OP consisting of right-wing horseshit published in the fucking Moonie Times is still open for business.

Hm.

[gejohnston]

153. UPI is owned by the Moonies too

maybe because the mods thought you had questionable intent. Why don't you ask them?

[jpak]

88. No it doesn't - it's just more extremist fringe GOP/NRA douchebaggery

yup

[Hoopla Phil]

113. You may want to look up the name Heath Shuler.

[iverglas]

163. missed post #6, did you?

I was way ahead of you.

[ObamaFTW2012]

96. While it would be comforting to be able to carry my 1911 in NYC

it would be scary IMO to grant new regulatory powers to the federal government to dictate how I carry a firearm, and it would be an assault on states' rights. If NY doesn't want me to carry a handgun in their state, then NY shouldn't be forced by Congress to allow me to do so.

[PavePusher]

97. If NY won't follow the Constitution, they need tobe forced.

But we don't need any additional rules in the package.

[ObamaFTW2012]

98. The way to get your permit recognized

is through the federal court system, suing for recognition under the Full Faith & Credit Clause. This is the same method that should be used to get gay marriages recognized nationwide. It wouldn't grant any new powers to the federal government but would achieve the same "national reciprocity" result.

[PavePusher]

99. Agreed. n/t

[Hoopla Phil]

114. I would agree with you about any about

"new regulatory powers to the federal government to dictate how I carry a firearm". This law would not do any of that. As I said in the O.P.
"So far it looks like a good clean bill that does not add any bureaucracy, paperwork, or expense. I support the proposed law."

As far as the feds making one state honor the legal paperwork/license granted from another state goes, you should check out Article IV, Section 1 of the United States Constitution.

[ObamaFTW2012]

147. If you read my other post,

you would have seen my suggestion that this issue be pursued not through legislation, but through the courts, under the Full Faith & Credit Clause.

[iverglas]

167. right

Funny how the NRA just doesn't seem to take that route too often, ain't it?

You'd almost think it's afraid of losing ...

[ObamaFTW2012]

192. In my opinion

successfully arguing the case under the Full Faith & Credit Clause could set a precedent that would also benefit the gay marriage cause, or vice versa. I really hope to see someone bring such a case.

[Hoopla Phil]

198. I did see your other post. The fact is that this bill does none of the

things you apposed to being in such a bill. I agree, those things do not belong in a national reciprocity law, fortunately this proposed bill is along those lines. The court system IS a way to go and has been considered. However, a national reciprocity law is much easier than shopping through the court system and dealing with all the appeals to finally end up at SCOTUS. Such an operation could take decades. This way has many advantages over that.

[NOMOREDRUGWAR]

104. So funny how gun grabbers suddenly become ardent states' rights advocates when guns are involved

The hypocrisy is astounding. Unfortunately for you, our President knows that gun control is a losing issue for Democrats and so he won't be paying any attention to your little fantasies.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

146. welcome to DU.

:hi:

[iverglas]

149. hahahahahahaha

So entertaining, actually, that the right wing, for which "states' rights" is a fundamental tenet of its belief system, suddenly abandons them when it's necessary in order to steamroller the states they can't beat fair and square.

I have never thought that respecting the division of powers in a constitution was an exclusively right-wing credo, myself.

Sorry that I'm not saying "welcome to DU"; I can't see your profile, so for all I know you've been here longer than I have and that would just be presumptuous of me ...

[NOMOREDRUGWAR]

166. Yes,

there is no question that some right-wingers forget all about their pro-Tenth Amendment stance when it comes to certain issues. I have never considered myself bound by 19th century interpretations of federal limitations under the Commerce Clause, however, so I feel quite comfortable supporting this inherently sexy piece of legislation.

Let's be honest, however, and concede that the Tenth Amendment is dead. Republicans confirmed its demise when they voted for Medicare prescription drug coverage in 2003. Most anti-RKBA Democrats, however, have always been strident opponents of federalism, so it strikes me as quite humorous that they would cling to such a philosophy at this point.

[SteveM]

184. It does seem peculiar since states don't have "rights," only powers...

But gun-controller/banners make the same mistake segregationists made generations before.

Welcome to D.U. "Forums: Guns." This is the most unique web site about guns in this country. You can find many right-wing gun sites, and a number of left-wing guns sites. But you won't find a place where folks can talk about gun laws, policies, etc. WITHIN a large liberal/progressive organization. Everyone has their reason for being here; mine is to foster the argument that ALL of the rights of the Constitution should be respected, that "gun-control" ought to be dropped from the Democratic Party Platform, and keeping and bearing arms is indeed one of the most progressive -- indeed liberal -- ideas recognized in the Constitution.

Incidentally, I agree that the WOD should be ended, and now-illegal drugs should be legalized and placed under reasonable regulation and taxation.

[iverglas]

190. Thomas Jefferson to William Giles, 1825 December 26

http://www.yamaguchy.com/library/jefferson/giles.html

To William B. Giles.
Monticello, December 26, 1825.

Dear Sir, — I wrote you a letter yesterday, of which you will be free to make what use you please. This will contain matters not intended for the public eye. I see, as you do, and with the deepest affliction, the rapid strides with which the federal branch of our government is advancing towards the usurpation of all the rights reserved to the States, ...
But in the meanwhile, the States should be watchful to note every material usurpation on their rights; ...

To Judge William Johnson.
Monticello, June 12, 1823.

... And if there is any reason to believe the States more disposed now than then, to acquiesce in this general surrender of all their rights and powers to a consolidated government, one and undivided ? ...

But what did Thomas Jefferson know?


It does seem peculiar since states don't have "rights," only powers...
But gun-controller/banners make the same mistake segregationists made generations before.

Well, I guess he was a segregationist.

Lucky I don't actually need him to prove you wrong; he's just one tiny example of somebody who knew what they were talking about.

Because ordinarily, it ain't me citing that slave-owning woman-exploiting 1%er to make a case.




I want a forum that doesn't make me type html tags .........

[ileus]

151. If it was a blanket gun ban of some sort they'd be all for it.

[Remmah2]

199. Why a ban on blankets?

What's being covered up? (Other than ATF foolery.)

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

200. Only blanket-guns. Regular guns and regular blankets are OK... just keep 'em separate. (n/t)

[ileus]

152. Oh and Welcome to DU