The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Politics & RKBA => Topic started by: scott.ballard on March 10, 2010, 08:50:11 PM
-
Hello,
Reading through the thread about the plausibility of eliminating CCWs in their entirety made me wonder about this:
Assuming we all can stand on the same field as a united front, is it likely we will be able to push national reciprocity through without standardization of the training, screening and demonstration of proficiency requirements?
Would standardizing the the process for all 50 states be a concession we could bear?
How much is too much when it comes to concessions? I live in a Shall Issue state and really don't want some draconian process imposed upon me. However, is it likely we will ever see national reciprocity without concession?
Your thoughts are appreciated.
Stay Safe,
-
Hello,
Reading through the thread about the plausibility of eliminating CCWs in their entirety made me wonder about this:
Assuming we all can stand on the same field as a united front, is it likely we will be able to push national reciprocity through without standardization of the training, screening and demonstration of proficiency requirements?
Would standardizing the the process for all 50 states be a concession we could bear?
How much is too much when it comes to concessions? I live in a Shall Issue state and really don't want some draconian process imposed upon me. However, is it likely we will ever see national reciprocity without concession?
Your thoughts are appreciated.
Stay Safe,
See, this where I get hung up. Its not as though I don't have principles, as my critics will suggest. Its that I have too many on this issue and they conflict with one another. On the one hand "The right of the people to keep and bar arms shall not be infringed" is pretty damn clear. On the other, I do support states rghts vs Federal preemption. So, here we have it. Do you support the right of state (as expressed through the peoples' represenaitives the legislature) to define the terms of what "The right to keep and bear arms" means on the ground, via laws, rules and court precedent, or would you prefer that the feds do it? On the one hand, you get different gun laws in Ca. v Al., On the other, you get a Court imposed set of rules that fails to satisfy either the antis or us. The one thing pro-life and pro- choice folks can agree on is that Roe and Casey left a lot to be desired, and damn sure didn't settle the agument. I'm not sure the Court will do better on this one.
FQ13
-
Never vote to limit Freedom. The smallest thing you give up with out a fight is a bargaining chip you do not have later .
Also, in many states it is not a matter of "Federal Pre-Emption" (which would be proper ) as the same or similar clauses are in State Constitution's as well.
In the States that DON'T have it the Feds would be justified because they are duty bound to protect your Federal Gun rights
-
we don't even have a national standard for what is and is not a felony.
There is not a single member of this forum that has not commited a felony at some point in thier life. Chances are they didn't even know they did it.
-
Ignoring TAB's stupid remarks....
I've carried in five states and am currently licensed in three. Back in the day, we could carry openly on the streets of Northern California as well as in the state of MI. Granted this was the seventies but there was no blood running in the streets then any more than there is now. There was also no concealed carry laws.
Basic safety courses would be probably required but there are those in the industry that believe that responsible carry requires more training than that minimum. I would venture that most of the proponents of that training are those that make a living teaching it!
Personally, I've been trained by the best, my father and my Uncle Sam! The other courses I've been required to take in MI, CT and MA were essentially a way for someone to take 50 or 100 bucks from me and sign a document. Useless!
We can get there, but who's going to set the standard? If the Feds do it, it won't work, remember the whore house analogy?
No easy answers...
-
Tab, those of us not from California aren't smart enough to know that making your own flower beds and home repairs by yourself without illegal Mexican help is a felony..... ;D
In Oklahoma the course focused on 1) what is imminent danger, 2) what specific carry laws are and 3) just a few minutes to make certain you don't shoot yourself in the foot each and every time you load and fire a weapon.
What I envision as a standard would be each state to publish what their standards are to shoot...what is imminent danger and next where/how to carry in their state. Carry law quirks like....you can carry in your car when driving in a school to pick someone up or meet someone but you cannot leave the vehicle vs. some places where that is a no-no. Some places allow you to carry in a bar, some do not allow where alcohol is served making restaurants off-limits, others where I live allow you to carry in a restaurant but not in the "bar section" where minors are not allowed.
The biggest Federal standard would be enforcing the 2nd Ammendment by saying concealed carry is legal without a permit.
-
Even
The biggest Federal standard would be enforcing the 2nd Ammendment by saying concealed carry is legal without a permit.
And a HUGE loss of states rights. I started out on the side of national reciprocity, but the more I thought about it the less I like it.
-
Even
And a HUGE loss of states rights. I started out on the side of national reciprocity, but the more I thought about it the less I like it.
In the spirit of the Second Amendment, national security is more important than states' rights. Does a state have the right to opt out of military involvement, including the draft?
-
States Rights have survived national Driver's License Reciprocity. And, contrary to much popular opinion, driving is a Right and not a privilege, simply because the Government doesn't have any privileges to hand out to The People.
If we can manage with Driver's License Reciprocity, we can do the same with Concealed Carry Licensees.
-
States Rights have survived national Driver's License Reciprocity. And, contrary to much popular opinion, driving is a Right and not a privilege, simply because the Government doesn't have any privileges to hand out to The People.
If we can manage with Driver's License Reciprocity, we can do the same with Concealed Carry Licensees.
But you are comparing apples and oranges..... Guns are way more dangerous then cars ::) The regulating of who has a gun in a public place is far more important then who is behind the wheel of a car ::) Think of all those little kids that are killed each year by guns. That could never be compared to cars ::) Besides, think of the inconvenience that it would create if we didnt let drivers licenses be recipricol accross state lines and didnt hand them out to illegals and hormone crazed teenagers with no driving experience what so ever ::) Come on, its for the children ;D
I yield the floor to Tom Bogan
-
In the spirit of the Second Amendment, national security is more important than states' rights. Does a state have the right to opt out of military involvement, including the draft?
Actually you pose an interesting question here. (BTW I Agree with the point of your post and think that however much I value state's rights, the freedoms guaranteeded in the Bill of Rights win. ) As far the draft goes it ain't just hippies that didn't like it. Half of New York was burned down by Draft protestors during the Civil War. When Wilson reimposed them in WWI he made sure the Selective Service (and ain't that a euphemism for the ages, screw "collateral damage", that one wins hands down) boards were locally comprised. The reason for doing this was he knew there would be riots if some fed showed up and sent Johnny off to die in a ditch in France. So, he figured he could save money and save hassels by empowering some yokel to do his job for him. It worked. Funny thing happened in Vietnam though. There were a few (and here I'm relying on memories of a paper that was presented several years ago) communities where the yokels stood up on their hind legs and found no suitable candidates for the draft. Not a single one. These were small rural communities in the midwest and south, not Berkley either. Guess what? The feds did not say a mumbling word. They didn't want the word to spread or have to revamp the selective service system in Congress. Neither Johnson or Nixon were forgive and forget kind of guys, but on this one, they sucked it up.The Constitution is a tricky thing and state's rights do matter.
FQ13
-
States Rights v. Feds
Are we not a nation of states first? If so, do we not adhere to the laws of that nation above all else? The constitution and BoR were ratified and accepted by a majority when they were presented. We have an amendment process for changing thing if necessary. The documents which govern us are created by the people. We probably need to take more interest in those documents and the laws our elected officials keep creating, but that does not mean a state should be permitted to take away federal rights.
I am all for states rights, but only if they do not violate those afforded to us by the constitution and the BoR.
Am I being too naive?
Thanks,
-
The Civil War is the most common area that most people have heard of that raises the question of which is more important - The individual state or the collective union. Lincoln believed it was the union that was more important than the state or the individual.
From that point of view, which is more important - The right of the individual to be armed to protect himself, his family, his neighborhood or to ban together in a malitia to protect the state or the union, or should we through that out to protect the warm fuzzy feelings of the paranoid?
-
Scott
Nope, you're not being naive, you're just overlooking dual soveriegnty. In a nut shell this means the states have power over those areas not granted to the Feds. In 1805 in the case of Baron v Baltimore (which involved the question of the 5A takings clause and could it be applied to the states) the Court said that the Bill of Rights applied only to the feds, not the state government. With the interesting exception of Dredd Scott (where Taney effectively reversed Baron and for the first time incoporated a right, though in a perverse manner) Baron was good law until the 1920s when Court started to use the 14A to incorporate. Bottom line is this. The Constitutional safeguards (or limitations) of freedom apply only when the Court says they apply to the states. This is ovrsimplified, but good enough I hope.
FQ13
-
The Federal Govt is sworn to "Uphold and protect" the Constitution which specifies that the "Right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" That applies to every one in the nation equally.
Therefore, just like if Mississippi tried to re institute slavery, the Feds have a duty to intervene to protect Nationally recognized rights regardless of the desires of a particular state.
-
The Federal Govt is sworn to "Uphold and protect" the Constitution which specifies that the "Right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" That applies to every one in the nation equally.
Therefore, just like if Mississippi tried to re institute slavery, the Feds have a duty to intervene to protect Nationally recognized rights regardless of the desires of a particular state.
Tom Bogan for SCOTUS
-
I think the only way we will get national reciprocity is if there is some kind of minimum standard requirements set.
-
I think the only way we will get national reciprocity is if there is some kind of minimum standard requirements set.
Yep. And therein lies the problem. Is the standard set in Indiana, where the rules seemed to be "You must be at least as tall as this sign, have a clean record and have $25 in your pocket"? Or do we go with Texas, which for a very pro-gun state recquires a fairly rigorous 2 day class that includes a graded practical test? Or do we go with California where the standard seems to be "Does you local Sheriff like you"? Right now, as best I can see it, there are two unspoken rules regarding reciprocity.
Rule the first: You have to have some sort of permit issued by the state. This is why Vermonters get screwed. >:(
Rule the second: You honor my permit and I'll honor yours. Its piecemeal, but not too bad.
Thing is, if its federalized, do we not only have uniform standards for getting the permit, but uniform laws for carrying? Bars, Churches, schools, no gun signs etc.? I have no real opinion as to which is better or worse, but it is something to think hard about. Just my .02.
FQ13
-
How about "You are a legal adult citizen of the United States, and you can legally posess a firearm"?
Just a cent and a half from a northern redneck son of a bitch ;)
-
You would not have to uniform the standards for getting the permit, nor the laws for carrying.
It does not work that way with driving.... There are very few things that are standardized from state to state. Certain states outlaw texting while driving and others do not. States have different thresholds for measuring intoxication. Speed limits (aside from highways) are set by localities. States also have differences in the age at which you can get a license as well as far different tests that must be taken to get the license. The list goes on and on. Its up to the driver to know the local traffic laws and it would be the same thing with concealed carry.
It merely must be a matter of forcing recognition...... Giving things over to the federal government and making them responsible for determining the requirements and enforcement would be a BIG mistake.
-
How about "You are a legal adult citizen of the United States, and you can legally posess a firearm"?
Just a cent and a half from a northern redneck son of a bitch ;)
You would not have to uniform the standards for getting the permit, nor the laws for carrying.
It does not work that way with driving.... There are very few things that are standardized from state to state. Certain states outlaw texting while driving and others do not. States have different thresholds for measuring intoxication. Speed limits (aside from highways) are set by localities. States also have differences in the age at which you can get a license as well as far different tests that must be taken to get the license. The list goes on and on. Its up to the driver to know the local traffic laws and it would be the same thing with concealed carry.
It merely must be a matter of forcing recognition...... Giving things over to the federal government and making them responsible for determining the requirements and enforcement would be a BIG mistake.
+1......thank you both for saving me some typing.
The biggest involvement on the federal level should be the feds 'reminding' some states what "shall not be infringed' actually means.
-
+1......thank you both for saving me some typing.
The biggest involvement on the federal level should be the feds 'reminding' some states what "shall not be infringed' actually means.
Yes. The last thing that we should want to do is to give those idiots in Washington - and I will remind you that the Dumbocrats currently control both houses of Congress and the White House - the power to legislate dictate the way inwhich the 2nd Amendment is going to be dished out and how much tax will be placed upon it.
Lets face it, the biggest grip we as permit holders have with this is that when we go to certain states our permits are not recognized. Yes, looser restrictions about how permits are handed out in God forsaken places like Kalifornistan would be great but that is a battle that must be fought on the local level.
-
Yes. The last thing that we should want to do is to give those idiots in Washington - and I will remind you that the Dumbocrats currently control both houses of Congress and the White House - the power to legislate dictate the way inwhich the 2nd Amendment is going to be dished out and how much tax will be placed upon it.
Lets face it, the biggest grip we as permit holders have with this is that when we go to certain states our permits are not recognized. Yes, looser restrictions about how permits are handed out in God forsaken places like Kalifornistan would be great but that is a battle that must be fought on the local level.
And the Earth stood still. I actually agree with Eric. I think he cut to heart of the matter. Yes I would like loose and uniform CCW laws in all 50 states. No, I don't trust the feds to the job right so I'd rather work on the local level. See, sometimes we really can all get along. ;D
FQ13
-
And the Earth stood still. I actually agree with Eric. I think he cut to heart of the matter. Yes I would like loose and uniform CCW laws in all 50 states. No, I don't trust the feds to the job right so I'd rather work on the local level. See, sometimes we really can all get along. ;D
FQ13
Bless your heart. ::)
You obviously did not read my earlier post where I destroyed your assertion that the govt must set national uniform standards for attaining a CWP as well as the laws for carring. WTF, Quaker(D)? Do you even know where you stand on this issue ???
http://www.downrange.tv/forum/index.php?topic=11671.msg152548#msg152548
-
Bless your heart. ::)
You obviously did not read my earlier post where I destroyed your assertion that the govt must set national uniform standards for attaining a CWP as well as the laws for carring. WTF, Quaker(D)? Do you even know where you stand ???
And here I thought we were all getting along. I guess that lasted about as long as BO's "bipartisanship". ::) Eric, you destroyed nothing. Here's the thing. Article I of the US Constitution sections seven, eight and nine. Article IV of the same document. Check them out. The Constitution enummerates certain powers to the feds and denies others to the states in article I. Driving (by ommision for obvious reasons) is not an enummerated power and thus falls under state rather than federal purview. However the 2A (and the implied duty to protect it), by virtue of being in the Constitution is close to an enummerated power. State reciprocity, which I thought we both agreed on, but apparently not, falls under the "Full Faith and Credit" clause of artivle IV. Personally, I think its better this way, but YMMV.
FQ13
-
Quaker(D)-
You are contradicting yourself at every turn here.
*And its not about "everybody getting along".... if thats all you really are looking for then go hug a tree ya hippie (I know, you will see being called a hippie as a compliment, but I said it anyway. ::) )
-
It's Eric, you should have known better ::)
-
Wouldn't it be pretty simple for there to be national recognition of state permits? Every state must recognize your permit as long as you are subject to the concealment laws of the state you are in. I have an OH permit but if I'm in say in PA, PA recognizes that I have a valid permit as long as I follow PA concealment laws while in PA. Currently PA does not have an agreement with OH because of different training requirements. Yet PA and neighboring WV recognize each others permits and WV and OH recognize each others permits but PA and OH do not. In math didn't the transitive principle say that if a=b and b=c then a=c? It's that kind of crap that makes me want there so be some kind of federal standardization much like drivers licenses. But I can see where it becomes a slippery slope letting the fed in to the permit business. Just like everything else the fed gets it's fingers into it tries to take over and corrupt.
-
I think that arguing CCW reciprocity is the same as DL reciprocity would be difficult to stand behind in the long run. Driving is considered, even by many here on this forum, to be a right. It is a deeply entrenched part of our society. Driving is something we teach our youth. It is a modern rite of passage. Even the majority of hoplophobes drive without openly recognizing that what they are operating is a weapon.
The most abundant weapon in our country is a knife. Most kitchens have several ranging in size and type. We teach our children to use them safely at a young age. Again, the hoplophobic refuse to recognize that what they are wielding is a weapon.
Our challenge is to convince these people, the openly and cluelessly hypocritical, the casualties of common sense, the irrationally weak minded fools they are, that there is no difference between a concealed firearm, a knife or a car. Any of them, when in the hands of the properly trained, can produce an individually or collectively pleasant result. Yet, when used improperly, with malice or while impaired, the results can be undesirable.
I do not think that standardization of training or even state's laws will enable this to happen. We need to counter the firearms education that most Americans have received with the actual facts. We need to stand by our convictions without failing to recognize that those of our opposition are as deep rooted as our own. It is highly unlikely that we will ever convince those who oppose us with as much passion as we oppose them that their opinions are wrong. We don't need to do that. We need to persuade those who are stuck in the middle.
Do we lobby Hollywood for more accuracy? Do we educate our elected officials? Do we back those who share our common beliefs? Absolutely, but the most effective way is for us to take our message to a grass roots level. Let's start educating those around us. Let's gently convert a non-shooter by letting that person know it isn't anything like they hear and see in most movies, TV shows or newscasts. Find a youngster in need of direction and spend some time with her/him. You don't even have to go shooting to educate them about the truths of firearms.
Hell, it's working for the green effort so why not use it for ourselves? Act locally. Educate the next generations. Provide logical answers to those who are confused. Then, we may stand a chance. Otherwise, I'm afraid that we will lose a deeply embedded part of our nations culture. The way of the gun.
Will standards help us out? Not likely? Laws do no good for a society when there are those willing to ignore them. The criminals and parasite of society will always exist. Most likely balanced out by the well-intended. A law is words on paper; a nice idea. No piece of paper or well intended thought will ever keep us from harm by those with malignant souls. The Constitution and Bill of Rights declare and define that which is ours as citizens of the United States. They don't define us, they don't provide us anything we are not willing to take onto ourselves. That is about all we can hope for from words on paper. The rest is up to us.
-
Scott, you wrote what I was thinking, but more eloquently than I could have managed. Thank you.