Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

nannygovtsucks

Concealed Carry Reciprocity

Recommended Posts

This is an interesting debate in that it reflects once more some tension between two conservative strains of thought: the basic tenets of Federalism and a right guaranteed by the Constitution, namely the 2A.

 

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/398470/senate-takes-concealed-carry-reciprocity-charles-c-w-cooke

 

From the Hill, the Republican Senate is taking up concealed carry reciprocity:

 


Gun owners would be allowed to carry concealed weapons around the country under new legislation in the Senate.

The Senate’s No. 2 Republican, John Cornyn, will reintroduce a gun rights bill Thursday that critics warn is dangerous.

The Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act would allow gun owners who have a concealed carry permit in their home state to bring their firearms in any other state with concealed carry laws.

 

“This operates more or less like a driver’s license,” Cornyn told The Hill. “So, for example, if you have a driver’s license in Texas, you can drive in New York, in Utah and other places, subject to the laws of those states.”

Cornyn, a Texas Republican, said this would “eliminate some of the ‘gotcha moments,’ where people inadvertently cross state lines” with guns they are legally allowed to carry in their home state.

 

This lattermost claim is almost certainly a direct reference to Shaneen Allen, the single mother who was threatened with ten years in jail for crossing into New Jersey with a concealed handgun. And rightly so. As more and more Americans buy guns and obtain concealed carry permits, legislation such as this is going to be deemed increasingly necessary.

Having said that, there is a raging debate on the right as to how this relates to the important question of federalism, and whether the legislation would be justified by the full faith and credit clause. I’m never quite sure what I think, but I nevertheless tried to sum up the state of the disagreement a few months ago.

Similar legislation has been introduced into the last few Congresses, but has never made it out. One can only imagine that, should this session be different, President Obama would veto the measure.

see also,

https://www.nraila.org/articles/20140311/hr2959

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which Amendment covers driver's licenses?.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having said that, there is a raging debate on the right as to how this relates to the important question of federalism, and whether the legislation would be justified by the full faith and credit clause. I’m never quite sure what I think, but I nevertheless tried to sum up the state of the disagreement a few months ago.

IANAL, but why would the "necessary and proper" clause not also apply? People cannot travel among the states without engaging in commerce, so it seems to fit an enumerated power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Analogy fail. Drivers licenses are handled by an interstate compact.

Have you ever heard of full faith and credit?

 

Licenses in one state are supposed to be honored in another...

 

If you get married in MA, you are still married if you move to CA.

 

If you have a D/L in MI, you can drive in TX...

P.S.

 

The 2nd Amendment is EVERYONE'S concealed carry permit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

States rights. If a state doesn't want gun nutters, they should be allowed to do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

States rights. If a state doesn't want gun nutters, they should be allowed to do so.

The Constitution and the Bill of Rights trumps states rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

States rights. If a state doesn't want gun nutters, they should be allowed to do so.

The Constitution and the Bill of Rights trumps states rights.

 

Sometimes. Ask a tea bagger.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

States rights. If a state doesn't want gun nutters, they should be allowed to do so.

The Constitution and the Bill of Rights trumps states rights.

 

Sometimes. Ask a tea bagger.

 

No, always. Not to be confused with the federal government trumping states' rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

States rights. If a state doesn't want gun nutters, they should be allowed to do so.

The Constitution and the Bill of Rights trumps states rights.

 

Sometimes. Ask a tea bagger.

 

No, always. Not to be confused with the federal government trumping states' rights.

 

If the federal government trumped a states rights to regulate milita, would that be bad too?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

States rights. If a state doesn't want gun nutters, they should be allowed to do so.

The Constitution and the Bill of Rights trumps states rights.

 

Sometimes. Ask a tea bagger.

 

No, always. Not to be confused with the federal government trumping states' rights.

 

If the federal government trumped a states rights to regulate milita, would that be bad too?

 

Yes it would be. The states can not regulate a militia in a way that violates "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" though or they would be violating the Constitution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So gay rights also are a federal issue?

There is no right to be gay.

 

There is a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that should not be infringed upon. Fuck whomever you want. Just don't ask me to bake you a cake for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So gay rights also are a federal issue?

There is no right to be gay.

 

There is a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that should not be infringed upon. Fuck whomever you want. Just don't ask me to bake you a cake for it.

 

 

So if two gays are pursuing their right to be happily married - why would you infringe on that? So if two gays came into your restaurant - should you be able to kick them out? Maybe you could have a "gays only" lunch counter segregated from the rest of the other patrons?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So gay rights also are a federal issue?

 

There is no right to be gay.

 

There is a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that should not be infringed upon. Fuck whomever you want. Just don't ask me to bake you a cake for it.

Now you are just adding stuff to the constitution. It doesn't help your argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So gay rights also are a federal issue?

 

What is a gay right? All people have rights including the right to carry.

 

The issue here is the extent to which states can ignore them. This is the single mom who faces 11 years because New Jersey has decided not to recognize on of her Constitutional rights? Would you suggest New Jersey could make here ride at the back of public busses too or drink from specified drinking fountains?

 

shaneenallen_lawyerphoto.jpg?h=188&w=250

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

So gay rights also are a federal issue?

There is no right to be gay.

 

There is a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that should not be infringed upon. Fuck whomever you want. Just don't ask me to bake you a cake for it.

 

 

So if two gays are pursuing their right to be happily married - why would you infringe on that? So if two gays came into your restaurant - should you be able to kick them out? Maybe you could have a "gays only" lunch counter segregated from the rest of the other patrons?

 

There is no right to be married. Yes, in my business I can choose to do or not do business with whomever I want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do gays have a federal right to marry like straights do?

There is no federal right to marry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Do gays have a federal right to marry like straights do?

There is no federal right to marry.

 

Actually there is. DOMA anyone? Are hetero marriages recognized federally? Are homo?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think standardized concealed carry makes sense, but think of what it would entail. There would have to be a states agreement on the minimum standards for CC permits, like there are for driving.

I'm not sure NY and Alabama would agree on a minimum standard.

Which means some sort of federal standard, but that wouldn't be very welcome by the NRA.

 

So - I think it's a great idea, but i have no idea how it would be implemented.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get your point, but Heller established the core, fundamental right to self-defense. Treating a fundamental right as something to be regulated is wrong.

 

Sort of like regulating churches regarding what they can and cannot say or profess with respect to politics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get your point, but Heller established the core, fundamental right to self-defense. Treating a fundamental right as something to be regulated is wrong.

 

Sort of like regulating churches regarding what they can and cannot say or profess with respect to politics.

well, regulations exist. There are definitions as to what is acceptable armament. So there is broad recognition that there are rules, the debate of course is the boundaries of the rules. I could see a nationwide CC permit process, and see the value, but doubt in this environment that there is a snowballs chance in hell of it happening.

 

As to church political speech, the constitution has been interpreted that there is a pretty strong line separating religion and politics. The effect of that line is gov't makes no rules, including taxing them, but also, that churches stay out of politics. If they wander into politics, then it's no longer religion, and therefore no longer tax free.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's actually a pretty recent construct. LBJ pushed through the 501c3 stuff when he was in Congress; mid-50s IIRC. Prior to that churches were pretty much outside the jurisdiction of government and openly discussed the issues of the day. Basically, the IRS regulates the free exercise portion of the 1st Amendment.

 

But I've been out of university for many decades so might be a little fuzzy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That makes sense, as it wasn't till the US was trying to pay off the war that income taxes became what they are. Before that, tax exemptions wouldn't have been worth much, as there wasn't much tax.

 

I believe they can still get into discussion of politics, just no vote recommendations.

 

As a simple example, the Catholic Churchs talk about abortion all the time, telling their congregation about the sin, etc. that's not an issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

No, always. Not to be confused with the federal government trumping states' rights.

If the federal government trumped a states rights to regulate milita, would that be bad too?

 

Yes it would be. The states can not regulate a militia in a way that violates "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" though or they would be violating the Constitution.

 

The Congress shall have Power To ...provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If the federal government trumped a states rights to regulate milita, would that be bad too?

Yes it would be. The states can not regulate a militia in a way that violates "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" though or they would be violating the Constitution.

Do you lose much sleep over that, handjob?

I can demonstrate, to a point, that they didn't get too sweaty about "infringement" from state or federal authority. But I notice that you do.

 

The authority structure, I have read, was that each state militia reported to state authority within their state. They reported to the president as soon if they crossed their own state line.

 

 

SMOKING GUN

I've asked Tom about the significance of the details below, but have never noticed an answer.

What was in place in colonial times is not unlike what is proposed today. Rural was not hit with any restrictions that I found.

 

Source below: Justice Breyer's Heller dissent, probably from historian Cornell

GunControlinColonialTimes_zps24627805.pn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no right to be married. Yes, in my business I can choose to do or not do business with whomever I want.

 

 

 

 

Really, what business is that? So you can turn away women or blacks or jews if you want?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

There is no right to be married. Yes, in my business I can choose to do or not do business with whomever I want.

 

 

 

 

Really, what business is that? So you can turn away women or blacks or jews if you want?

Nazi memorabilia, maybe?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You might also look up what regulate actually meant in 1789.

 

This^

 

 

Rarely understood by the grabbinistas who would dearly like to misrepresent the 2A.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

SMOKING GUN

I've asked Tom about the significance of the details below, but have never noticed an answer.

What was in place in colonial times is not unlike what is proposed today. Rural was not hit with any restrictions that I found.

 

Source below: Justice Breyer's Heller dissent, probably from historian Cornell

GunControlinColonialTimes_zps24627805.pn

 

 

We have lots of laws saying when and where you can fire guns and I generally don't object to them.

 

The laws regarding loaded guns were fire-control measures, not like modern gun control at all because they were needed back then and the same rules are not needed for that purpose now.

 

That leaves the "Governor's Special License" issue, which I suggest should be discussed in the good and substantial reason thread. That one is the only one that is at all like modern gun control.

 

Most of the gun control laws to which I object concern banning and confiscating guns. Any record of either of those activities in colonial times? I mean besides Lexington, Concord, the Powder Alarm, etc. Ones perpetrated by Americans, in other words, not Brits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back to the original q. What would it take to get reciprocity?

 

Supremes say other locales must recognize each other?

A state level working committee that develops minimums aka drivers licenses, and then each of the 50 pass a law (not likely)

A federal law preempting state laws (really not likely)

 

Any possibility of the Supremes forcing the issue?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

SMOKING GUN

I've asked Tom about the significance of the details below, but have never noticed an answer.

What was in place in colonial times is not unlike what is proposed today. Rural was not hit with any restrictions that I found.

 

We have lots of laws saying when and where you can fire guns and I generally don't object to them.

 

The laws regarding loaded guns were fire-control measures, not like modern gun control at all Source, please. Safety precautions played into this, of course.

Loaded guns weren't allowed in outhouses, for example--their beef was about the projectiles of loaded guns, and fire too.

 

 

because they were needed back then and the same rules are not needed for that purpose now. Safety applies equally to both time periods. Specific gun restrictions back then applied to rural taverns, but not so much for fire reasons (or churches and council meetings would be listed as restricted). Guns were known to be dangerous back then, too.

 

That leaves the "Governor's Special License" issue by TR prnouncement only! which I suggest should be discussed in the good and substantial reason thread. That one is the only one that is at all like modern gun control. 1.This statement is untrue, since No loaded guns indoors and no shooting in the city for any reason, two listed on the poster art, are desired today, and impossible.

2.The colonialists were'n't facing an unreasonable culture armed with exotic weapons. They wouldn't have liked it any better than Shannon Watts does.

 

Most of the gun control laws to which I object concern banning and confiscating guns. Any record of either of those activities in colonial times? I mean besides Lexington, Concord, the Powder Alarm, etc. Ones perpetrated by Americans, in other words, not Brits.

 

 

If these individual gun rights were fiercely held by BofR contemporaries, yet guns were denied in their cities and buildings, where are the editorial objections in the city papers of the day?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back to the original q. What would it take to get reciprocity?

 

Supremes say other locales must recognize each other?

A state level working committee that develops minimums aka drivers licenses, and then each of the 50 pass a law (not likely)

A federal law preempting state laws (really not likely)

 

Any possibility of the Supremes forcing the issue?

What would reciprocity entail? Would two states have to adopt the stricter or more lax law? Say a sophisticated state like Alabama repealed all gun laws, in effect allowing 2 year olds to open carry in Walmarts; would neighboring Georgia have to abide? Even if Georgians thought 2 year olds have no business carrying in a Walmart?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You might also look up what regulate actually meant in 1789.

 

This^

 

 

Rarely understood by the grabbinistas who would dearly like to misrepresent the 2A.

 

 

Is it like a secret handshake, or can you lay this esoteria out for us?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back to the original q. What would it take to get reciprocity?

 

Supremes say other locales must recognize each other?

A state level working committee that develops minimums aka drivers licenses, and then each of the 50 pass a law (not likely)

A federal law preempting state laws (really not likely)

 

Any possibility of the Supremes forcing the issue?

 

I think the Supremes want to address Hawaii, to deal with TR's checklist.

Follow a closed registry (in a successful low-gun, lowgun crime environment) and test the "show cause" for guns vs. right for guns.

 

Back to the original q. What would it take to get reciprocity?

 

I think the key would be to set a state standard, your middle option.

But the loose states won't accept tight, and the tight states won't have loose.

So my take is that reciprocity is not viable. (Nor is it sociallyor morally desirable, IMO.)

To divide and conquer, the stoopid NRA wanted to fight 51 jurisdictions. They got their wish.

Now they cry about "inconvenience", for weapons which are not needed in interstate travel. Big deal.

It's a classic crybaby move, for a destructive end result.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back to the original q. What would it take to get reciprocity?

 

Supremes say other locales must recognize each other?

A state level working committee that develops minimums aka drivers licenses, and then each of the 50 pass a law (not likely)

A federal law preempting state laws (really not likely)

 

Any possibility of the Supremes forcing the issue?

I suspect it would require the Supremes to decide it's redundant with the Constitution and therefore cannot be regulated away. This in contract to driver's licenses which aren't covered by the Constitution proper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back to the original q. What would it take to get reciprocity?

 

Supremes say other locales must recognize each other?

A state level working committee that develops minimums aka drivers licenses, and then each of the 50 pass a law (not likely)

A federal law preempting state laws (really not likely)

 

Any possibility of the Supremes forcing the issue?

 

Many many states already offer reciprocity and yes they have spelled out what the mins are. Its not that hard. For instance, when I got my CCW - by virture of the NV licensing requirements - I automatically received reciprocity in something like 10-15 other states. There were other states where some additional hoops had to be jumped through to get it in their state. UT for instance required some extra test and a few sheckles extra for admin. Since UT was a border state to NV, I got the extra UT license.

 

I think the issue would be if a state made it so onerous that getting reciprocity would be nigh on impossible for other states to comply. That's where I think the supremes would weigh in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

You might also look up what regulate actually meant in 1789.

 

This^

 

 

Rarely understood by the grabbinistas who would dearly like to misrepresent the 2A.

 

 

Is it like a secret handshake, or can you lay this esoteria out for us?

 

 

Certainly I could, but then I'd be denying you the joy of discovering it on your own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

SMOKING GUN

I've asked Tom about the significance of the details below, but have never noticed an answer.

What was in place in colonial times is not unlike what is proposed today. Rural was not hit with any restrictions that I found.

 

We have lots of laws saying when and where you can fire guns and I generally don't object to them.

 

The laws regarding loaded guns were fire-control measures, not like modern gun control at all

 

Most of the gun control laws to which I object concern banning and confiscating guns. Any record of either of those activities in colonial times? I mean besides Lexington, Concord, the Powder Alarm, etc. Ones perpetrated by Americans, in other words, not Brits.

 

 

Source, please.

 

If these individual gun rights were fiercely held by BofR contemporaries, yet guns were denied in their cities and buildings, where are the editorial objections in the city papers of the day?

 

 

I see no reason to give you more sources showing that guns and powder back then were not as safe as modern ones. All you will do is claim they are bad and refuse to look at them, so why bother?

 

I take it from the non-answer that you can't find colonial examples of banning and confiscation of guns. Neither can I. That's not what "well regulated" meant back then, nor should it be what it means today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

SMOKING GUN

I've asked Tom about the significance of the details below, but have never noticed an answer.

What was in place in colonial times is not unlike what is proposed today. Rural was not hit with any restrictions that I found.

 

We have lots of laws saying when and where you can fire guns and I generally don't object to them.

 

The laws regarding loaded guns were fire-control measures, not like modern gun control at all

 

Most of the gun control laws to which I object concern banning and confiscating guns. Any record of either of those activities in colonial times? I mean besides Lexington, Concord, the Powder Alarm, etc. Ones perpetrated by Americans, in other words, not Brits.

 

 

Source, please. A specific quote or two is needed here. Something that presents your position: that 1780 gun law was entirely fire-related. It makes no sense: I suspect projectile danger, human nature, and drinking played into those city laws.

 

If these individual gun rights were fiercely held by BofR contemporaries, yet guns were denied in their cities and buildings, where are the editorial objections in the city papers of the day?

 

 

I see no reason to give you more sources showing that guns and powder back then were not as safe as modern ones. All you will do is claim they are bad and refuse to look at them, so why bother? Take the pity party elsewehere, we are discussing facts here. I read both of your 3800 word essays (two were off-topic) and the seven page Clayton as well. Your David Hardy is a paid NRA advocate, according to his own business card. He behaves condescendingly within his 2nd A hooey with the neutral scholars, BTW.

 

I take it from the non-answer that you can't find colonial examples of banning and confiscation of guns. See Post 36. "The colonialists were'n't facing an unreasonable culture armed with exotic weapons. They wouldn't have liked it any better than Shannon Watts does."

 

Neither can I.This is the zinger of a female third-grader.

 

That's not what "well regulated" meant back then, nor should it be what it means today.

 

 

(Guys, very sorry for all the red ink. The blocks will not separate for me right now.)

Actually, Tom, YOU were the one who evaded a question. A pretty good one. Since weapons in houses were rendered unusable by law (that is, they had to be unloaded), where are the editorial complaints in the 1780-era newspapers, about individual gun rights being tramped upon by tyrants or anyone else?

I think that around 1780 citizens weren't too uptight about individual rights (even in PA and CT, with their clearly "individual" rights state constitutions). I suspect the emphasis and confusion has been placed by others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

You might also look up what regulate actually meant in 1789.

 

This^

 

 

Rarely understood by the grabbinistas who would dearly like to misrepresent the 2A.

 

 

Is it like a secret handshake, or can you lay this esoteria out for us?

 

 

Certainly I could, but then I'd be denying you the joy of discovering it on your own.

 

 

Translation:

"We in the SA Gun Club are so smug, so esoteric, that we needn't explain our thoughts and beliefs."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Among the most staggeringly moronic arguments ever made by liberal authoritarians is that the Founding Fathers only intended for the Second Amendment to apply to muskets. But would progressives even allow us to have muskets? Not in deep blue New Jersey, as Gordon van Gilder learned:

 

He had an unloaded antique 300-year-old flintlock pistol in his glove compartment, and he told a sheriff’s deputy about it.

That was his undoing. …

 

The retired teacher is facing a possible 10 years in prison — and the jeopardization of his pension — all because New Jersey state law classifies antique firearms the same way it classifies regular guns…

 

“Beware of New Jersey,”
. “Don’t come here. Don’t live here.”

 

 

It would be wise to apply that advice to any part of the country where the Constitution is no longer honored, conspicuously including neighboring New York.

Our rights are protected in part by the 2A and are in jeopardy because of people like Jokeawf. Be prepared.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So Nanny,

 

Do you want a Federal law or interpretation to take away a States ability to self-govern?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So Nanny,

 

Do you want a Federal law or interpretation to take away a States ability to self-govern?

 

I think the Constitution guides what the states can an cannot do, and there have been several recent rulings by the Federal Courts such as in California preventing some of the more outrageous firearm restrictions. That has to happen to make sure that our basic rights are protected. But as that gets ironed out, it would be better for the states to come to agreement on reciprocity among themselve, IMO, and it is moving in that direction as more and more states liberalize their firearms laws.

 

What do you think? I'd just as soon keep the Federal Government role to a minimum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you read the thread, I think a state agreement is the best way to go, but doubt it will happen across all 50 without the force of the feds. In this case, it would be the Feds again saying a right exists, and the states need to comply. Similar to what's going to happen re: Homo marriage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you read the thread, I think a state agreement is the best way to go, but doubt it will happen across all 50 without the force of the feds. In this case, it would be the Feds again saying a right exists, and the states need to comply. Similar to what's going to happen re: Homo marriage.

 

There is no right to homo marriage, so I don't grog that analogy. The Feds should keep their noses out of the whole marriage issue and the gun issue also. But that said, the Federal Courts may have something to say, and should if the states step over the line (eg. McDonald and Heller).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Is there a right to marriage?

 

No Federal right.

 

the Supremes seem to disagree and we'll find out soon enough. My bolding... "nor to deny any person...."

 

Since marriage is a civil "contract" between 2 adults - denying a gay couple that contract seems to be in contradiction of the 14th.

 

 

Are gays "persons?"

Is Marriage a civil contract?

Is Marriage a contract between 2 people?

 

If yes to the above, given the 14th, how do they not have a constitutional right to the same contracts as hetero couples?

 

I'm interested in your legal opinion.

 

 

 

 

Amendment XIV Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Is there a right to marriage?

No Federal right.

So what was DOMA about?

I was oppose to DOMA.

 

That's nice, but was it addressing a federal right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Is there a right to marriage?

No Federal right.

So what was DOMA about?

I was oppose to DOMA.

 

That's nice, but was it addressing a federal right?

 

 

No. It was an attempt to use the power of the Federal Government to impose one group's ideas of marriage on the country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

No. It was an attempt to use the power of the Federal Government to impose one group's ideas of marriage on the country.

 

Yes, and preserve the right to marriage to a select group.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm disappointed. I ask Nanny a direct question - he just ignores it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

You might also look up what regulate actually meant in 1789.

 

This^

 

 

Rarely understood by the grabbinistas who would dearly like to misrepresent the 2A.

 

 

Is it like a secret handshake, or can you lay this esoteria out for us?

 

 

Certainly I could, but then I'd be denying you the joy of discovering it on your own.

 

 

Translation:

"We in the SA Gun Club are so smug, so esoteric, that we needn't explain our thoughts and beliefs."

 

 

Dorado, on 17 Feb 2015 - 12:17 PM, said:

That's correct

What did you find out?

 

 

 

(From Joe) That Sol recognized this long ago.Sol--youdonotunderstantthegunissue_zps2f

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Is there a right to marriage?

 

No Federal right.

 

the Supremes seem to disagree and we'll find out soon enough. My bolding... "nor to deny any person...."

 

Since marriage is a civil "contract" between 2 adults - denying a gay couple that contract seems to be in contradiction of the 14th.

 

 

Are gays "persons?"

Is Marriage a civil contract?

Is Marriage a contract between 2 people?

 

If yes to the above, given the 14th, how do they not have a constitutional right to the same contracts as hetero couples?

 

I'm interested in your legal opinion.

 

 

 

 

Amendment XIV Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

 

 

Any two people have the right to enter into any contract they want, provided the contract is legal, and be entitled to the expectation that the law pertaining to that contract will be fairly enforced. Contract law is typically state law.

 

I don't think the state ought to be involved in marriage at all beyond that and, as a rule, marriage should otherwise be the province of the churches etc and the people involved. Why should the state, much less the Federal Government get involved in the personal business of individuals as regards marriage?

 

The primary reason we have a Constitution and Bill of Rights is precisely to limit Governmental intrusion into our private affairs. It is also happens to be the reason liberals don't like the Constitution very much -- kind of gets in their way.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

whether you "believe" the state should anything more to do with Marriage is irrelevant. There are a couple hundred years of laws using the term "Marriage" to define a legal contract. What this is all about is equal treatment under the law.

 

What folks do in their churches is their business and not relevant to the discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

You might also look up what regulate actually meant in 1789.

 

This^

 

 

Rarely understood by the grabbinistas who would dearly like to misrepresent the 2A.

 

Is it like a secret handshake, or can you lay this esoteria out for us?

 

Certainly I could, but then I'd be denying you the joy of discovering it on your own.

 

Translation:

"We in the SA Gun Club are so smug, so esoteric, that we needn't explain our thoughts and beliefs."

 

Dorado, on 17 Feb 2015 - 12:17 PM, said:

That's correct

What did you find out?

 

 

(From Joe) That Sol recognized this long ago.Sol--youdonotunderstantthegunissue_zps2f

 

 

That's just dumb.

You must be crazy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Pinocchio This is a form of delusion, where you think you are completely right and don't have to argue something, but rather challenge others to disprove you. It is childish.

You have made no case. Only a blanket assertion with no argument.

Pasted from <http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=142774&page=6>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tom Ray, we began to discuss the founding fathers' gun control above. See post 44.

You are claiming that all gun laws in 1781 were related solely to fire, but have not sourced that. Let's continue.

 

A few things we want today (like no unloaded guns indoors, no guns in taverns, and no shooting in cities) were granted to the FF.

Can you source any outrage wrt "tyranical" laws disabling weapons in 1770's communities?

 

 

 

 

Breyer Dissent, Heller.

To the contrary, colonial history itself offers important examples of the kinds of gun regulation that citizens would then have thought compatible with the “right to keep and bear arms,” whether embodied in Federal or State Constitutions, or the background common law. And those examples include substantial regulation of firearms in urban areas, including regulations that imposed obstacles to the use of firearms for the protection of the home...

 

Insofar as the Framers focused at all on the tiny fraction of the population living in large cities, they would have been aware that these city dwellers were subject to firearm restrictions that their rural counterparts were not. See supra, at 4–7. They are unlikely then to have thought of a right to keep loaded handguns in homes to confront intruders in urban settings as central.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZD1.html>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's just dumb.

You must be crazy.

 

 

He is a sad sack that plays bad music nobody wants to listen to and who is a closeted gun lover who carries all sorts of guilt and baggage because he thinks it means he is responsible for little kids getting shot. His brain is mush. Trying to make sense of any of his posts will just make you crazy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

That's just dumb.

You must be crazy.

 

 

He is a sad sack that plays bad music nobody wants to listen to and who is a closeted gun lover who carries all sorts of guilt and baggage because he thinks it means he is responsible for little kids getting shot. His brain is mush. Trying to make sense of any of his posts will just make you crazy.

 

 

 

Kinda like trying to get Stevie Wonder to decide on a paint color for the living room......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Is there a right to marriage?

 

No Federal right.

the Supremes seem to disagree and we'll find out soon enough. My bolding... "nor to deny any person...."

 

Since marriage is a civil "contract" between 2 adults - denying a gay couple that contract seems to be in contradiction of the 14th.

 

 

Are gays "persons?"

Is Marriage a civil contract?

Is Marriage a contract between 2 people?

 

If yes to the above, given the 14th, how do they not have a constitutional right to the same contracts as hetero couples?

 

I'm interested in your legal opinion.

 

 

 

 

Amendment XIV Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Any two people have the right to enter into any contract they want, provided the contract is legal, and be entitled to the expectation that the law pertaining to that contract will be fairly enforced. Contract law is typically state law.

 

I don't think the state ought to be involved in marriage at all beyond that and, as a rule, marriage should otherwise be the province of the churches etc and the people involved. Why should the state, much less the Federal Government get involved in the personal business of individuals as regards marriage?

 

The primary reason we have a Constitution and Bill of Rights is precisely to limit Governmental intrusion into our private affairs. It is also happens to be the reason liberals don't like the Constitution very much -- kind of gets in their way.....

Seems to me that once the Feds recognized the institution of marriage through laws and convention, it became a fundamental right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You might also look up what regulate actually meant in 1789.

 

This^

 

 

Rarely understood by the grabbinistas who would dearly like to misrepresent the 2A.

 

Is it like a secret handshake, or can you lay this esoteria out for us?

 

Certainly I could, but then I'd be denying you the joy of discovering it on your own.

 

Translation:

"We in the SA Gun Club are so smug, so esoteric, that we needn't explain our thoughts and beliefs."

Dorado, on 17 Feb 2015 - 12:17 PM, said:

That's correct

What did you find out?

 

 

(From Joe) That Sol recognized this long ago.Sol--youdonotunderstantthegunissue_zps2f

 

 

That's just dumb.

You must be crazy.

 

 

Geez, this post got all formattywhacked by my S4 phone.

 

It lacks the aesthetic symmetry it once had. How did that happen?

 

EDIT: whoa, it sort of fixed itself. wierd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

Is there a right to marriage?

No Federal right.

the Supremes seem to disagree and we'll find out soon enough. My bolding... "nor to deny any person...."

 

Since marriage is a civil "contract" between 2 adults - denying a gay couple that contract seems to be in contradiction of the 14th.

 

 

Are gays "persons?"

Is Marriage a civil contract?

Is Marriage a contract between 2 people?

 

If yes to the above, given the 14th, how do they not have a constitutional right to the same contracts as hetero couples?

 

I'm interested in your legal opinion.

 

 

 

Amendment XIV Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Any two people have the right to enter into any contract they want, provided the contract is legal, and be entitled to the expectation that the law pertaining to that contract will be fairly enforced. Contract law is typically state law.

 

I don't think the state ought to be involved in marriage at all beyond that and, as a rule, marriage should otherwise be the province of the churches etc and the people involved. Why should the state, much less the Federal Government get involved in the personal business of individuals as regards marriage?

 

The primary reason we have a Constitution and Bill of Rights is precisely to limit Governmental intrusion into our private affairs. It is also happens to be the reason liberals don't like the Constitution very much -- kind of gets in their way.....

Nanny can't answer a simple question. Does the 14th force the govt to treat people equally under the law?

 

Simple question really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Tom Ray, we began to discuss the founding fathers' gun control above. See post 44.

You are claiming that all gun laws in 1781 were related solely to fire, but have not sourced that. Let's continue.

 

A few things we want today (like no unloaded guns indoors, no guns in taverns, and no shooting in cities) were granted to the FF.

Can you source any outrage wrt "tyranical" laws disabling weapons in 1770's communities?

 

 

 

 

Sure, but the examples are incidents like Lexington and Concord, in which the British were not just disabling, but banning and confiscating guns. There was quite a bit of outrage. It was part of what started a whole war, in fact.

 

I can find no examples of colonial era Americans banning and confiscating guns so find no support for your idea that "well regulated" in the context of a militia means disarmed by the government.

 

As for the fire safety and public nuisance laws you're interested in talking about, we should really discuss them in the Heller thread, but here you go...

 

...The other laws Justice Breyer cites are gunpowder-storage laws that he concedes did not clearly prohibit loaded weapons, but required only that excess gunpowder be kept in a special container or on the top floor of the home. Post, at 6–7. Nothing about those fire-safety laws undermines our analysis; they do not remotely burden the right of self-defense as much as an absolute ban on handguns. Nor, correspondingly, does our analysis suggest the invalidity of laws regulating the storage of firearms to prevent accidents.

 

Justice Breyer points to other founding-era laws that he says “restricted the firing of guns within the city limits to at least some degree” in Boston, Philadelphia and New York. Post, at 4 (citing Churchill, Gun Regulation, the Police Power, and the Right to Keep Arms in Early America, 25Law & Hist. Rev. 139, 162 (2007)). Those laws provide no support for the severe restriction in the present case. The New York law levied a fine of 20 shillings on anyone who fired a gun in certain places (including houses) on New Year’s Eve and the first two days of January, and was aimed at preventing the “great Damages … frequently done on [those days] by persons going House to House, with Guns and other Firearms and being often intoxicated with Liquor.” 5 Colonial Laws of New York 244–246 (1894). It is inconceivable that this law would have been enforced against a person exercising his right to self-defense on New Year’s Day against such drunken hooligans. The Pennsylvania law to which Justice Breyer refers levied a fine of 5 shillings on one who fired a gun or set off fireworks in Philadelphia without first obtaining a license from the governor. See Act of Aug. 26, 1721, §4, in 3 Stat.at Large 253–254. Given Justice Wilson’s explanation that the right to self-defense with arms was protected by the Pennsylvania Constitution, it is unlikely that this law (which in any event amounted to at most a licensing regime) would have been enforced against a person who used firearms for self-defense. Justice Breyer cites a Rhode Island law that simply levied a 5-shilling fine on those who fired guns in streets and taverns, a law obviously inapplicable to this case. See An Act for preventing Mischief being done in the town of Newport, or in any other town in this Government, 1731, Rhode Island Session Laws. Finally, Justice Breyer points to a Massachusetts law similar to the Pennsylvania law, prohibiting “discharg[ing] any Gun or Pistol charged with Shot or Ball in the Town of Boston.” Act of May 28, 1746, ch. X, Acts and Laws of Mass. Bay 208. It is again implausible that this would have been enforced against a citizen acting in self-defense, particularly given its preambulatory reference to “the indiscreet firing of Guns.” Ibid. (preamble) (emphasis added).

A broader point about the laws that Justice Breyer cites: All of them punished the discharge (or loading) of guns with a small fine and forfeiture of the weapon (or in a few cases a very brief stay in the local jail), not with significant criminal penalties.29 They are akin to modern penalties for minor public-safety infractions like speeding or jaywalking. And although such public-safety laws may not contain exceptions for self-defense, it is inconceivable that the threat of a jaywalking ticket would deter someone from disregarding a “Do Not Walk” sign in order to flee an attacker, or that the Government would enforce those laws under such circumstances. Likewise, we do not think that a law imposing a 5-shilling fine and forfeiture of the gun would have prevented a person in the founding era from using a gun to protect himself or his family from violence, or that if he did so the law would be enforced against him. The District law, by contrast, far from imposing a minor fine, threatens citizens with a year in prison (five years for a second violation) for even obtaining a gun in the first place.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Tom Ray, we began to discuss the founding fathers' gun control above. See post 44.

You are claiming that all gun laws in 1781 were related solely to fire, but have not sourced that. Let's continue.

 

A few things we want today (like no unloaded guns indoors, no guns in taverns, and no shooting in cities) were granted to the FF.

Can you source any outrage wrt "tyranical" laws disabling weapons in 1770's communities?

 

 

 

 

Sure, but the examples are incidents like Lexington and Concord, in which the British were not just disabling, but banning and confiscating guns. There was quite a bit of outrage. It was part of what started a whole war, in fact. By 1781 the Brits were gone. Security was barely established, but city gun laws applied, anyway. The laws were modest, but they were there. They were considered necessary, evidently. No outrage?

 

I can find no examples of colonial era Americans banning and confiscating guns We can get off that, while addressing the incapacitation of home defense weapons, per laws listed on the poster art. Need to see it again?

Certain urban tyrants, by 1781, made loaded guns illegal, but were never called out, evidently. so find no support for your idea that "well regulated" in the context of a militia means disarmed by the government. My idea? What a preposterous, inaccurate, and pompous statement. I am speechless.

 

Well regulated, I suppose, meant being somewhat trained, establishing the following of directions of Volunteer officers, not being indiscriminate about gun supply to undesirables, checking the attitudes of pro-vigilante elements, not being yahoos, securing weapons, developing and maintaining gear in a timely fashion, and other stuff too.

 

As for the fire safety and public nuisance laws you're interested in talking about, we should really discuss them in the Heller thread, but here you go...

 

...snipped: unsourced history, for proper study.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

That's just dumb.

You must be crazy.

 

 

He is a sad sack that plays bad music nobody wants to listen to and who is a closeted gun lover who carries all sorts of guilt and baggage because he thinks it means he is responsible for little kids getting shot. His brain is mush. Trying to make sense of any of his posts will just make you crazy.

 

 

"plays bad music nobody wants to listen to"

I dunno about that. Len I can pull ear-magic right out of the thin air, just me, any time, anywhere...without even plugging in.

Think about that.

Have you heard me solo? Seen my group?

My band plays gigs in clubs twice a month, more if we want.

We have a five hour act covering several genres. Lots of looks; I might surprise you.

The band is made of successful men who came up to me one at a time, looked me in the eye, and said "I want to play your music with you."

Four of us. Low-key, stable men with modern rides and fine ol' gals. We've been together five years, it's a blast.

No other man has ever sung a song on our stages, but I don't even consider myself a singer.

One joint had us come in weekly...for 44 months. Most places want us back.

The best part is that we're tight, but have never practiced.

Did you get the last part? We don't even have to work to pull this off.

Pinch me, Len.

Haters gonna hate. Music taught me that, in high school.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jocal, I told you before: I'll get off the banning and confiscation subject the day after you and your elk do.

 

If you don't want to talk about it, talk to someone else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jocal, I told you before: I'll get off the banning and confiscation subject the day after you and your elk do.

 

If you don't want to talk about it, talk to someone else. Cute. Extra cute, in fact. Been chasin' you for days, pal.

 

Tom, good mornin'. It's exactly what we should be discussing. I have not shied away.

It has been pretty clean so far. The heart of our discussion is here.

 

However, do I have to dance with a third-grade female?

Is a CCP thread the right place?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Can you source any outrage wrt "tyranical" laws disabling weapons in 1770's my bad, pls. edit to 1780's communities?

Outrage on the part of US citizens with no legal home self defense capability. Outrage against tyrannically un-loading weapons within city limits.

 

 

 

 

Sure, but the examples are incidents like Lexington and Concord, in which the British were not just disabling, but banning and confiscating guns. There was quite a bit of outrage. It was part of what started a whole war, in fact.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Jocal, I told you before: I'll get off the banning and confiscation subject the day after you and your elk do.

 

If you don't want to talk about it, talk to someone else. Cute. Extra cute, in fact. Been chasin' you for days, pal.

 

Tom, good mornin'. It's exactly what we should be discussing. I have not shied away.

It has been pretty clean so far. The heart of our discussion is here.

 

However, do I have to dance with a third-grade female?

 

 

That's the second time you've provided a link to the top of page two of that thread. Try linking to a specific post instead. I'm not going to respond to the whole page.

 

Or, just go visit the "good and substantial reason" thread and we can take it from there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is dodge number one for today, Tom. I will dial in the particular quotes in the future, but...

 

The linked page, from the third quote down, features you and me, discussing the heart of confiscation.

Tom, may I ask your assurance of a good faith discussion before we continue?

 

Your un-sourced history ??? in Post 76 is spinning, at least a little. He is coaching how to introduce D.C. gun limitations to contrast the founding fathers' gun control efforts. Poor comparison. You two are missing the point, by introducing confiscation confusion to 1781.

 

The public safety efforts in play are the point of FF gun control. Not confiscation, of course, and not tyrants, necessarily.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are over 12 million of us now, and the number is rising.

 

Concealed weapons permit holders like Shaneen Allen are going to continue to stray across state lines.

 

A handful of us will continue to try to carry our guns onto airplanes and get caught by the TSA each day. Given the TSA's high failure rate, a double-handful will actually carry our guns onto airplanes. The horror. I mean, of course, the horror of getting past security, fishing around for something in your carry-on prior to boarding, and finding your gun. DOH! Never happened to me, but stats show it must be happening several times each day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I drove from Texas to Florida last week to buy a boat. It sure was nice knowing all the states I traveled had reciprocity agreements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites