Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 108

Thread: Rep. Richard Hudson (R-NC8) to meet with WH staff to push Nat値 CC Reciprocity

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,243

    Rep. Richard Hudson (R-NC8) to meet with WH staff to push Nat値 CC Reciprocity

    Last edited by Nightmare; 01-13-2018 at 07:25 AM.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  2. #2
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,820
    garbage in, garbage out. This bill is garbage.

    The why I read it I cannot conceal carry in Illinois and other places.

  3. #3
    Regular Member hammer6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,190
    yeah it sucks. but. it's a step in the right direction. the federal government telling the states they have to honor the permit is a step towards the government telling the states they can't require a permit. idk. hopefully.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    doubt is a distraction from reality. fear is acknowledging doubt as reality.

    it's time to tap in to a higher reality; the one you were made for.

  4. #4
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,748
    What the government gives the government can take away.

    No free lunch.

    OTOH - allow unfettered Constitutional Carry.
    Last edited by Grapeshot; 01-14-2018 at 04:08 PM. Reason: fixed
    Better to not open your mouth and be thought the fool, than to open it and remove all doubt.

    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training. Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  5. #5
    Regular Member XD40sc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    429
    When carry rights/privileges (however you view it) are under the purview of the Federal government, it will only take the signature of the next anti-gun president on an executive order to make null and void ALL carry rights/privileges.

  6. #6
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,328
    Purists balk. It would be convenient to be able to CC in those states that do not recognize our right to self defense with the implement of our choice. The mantra "What the government gives the government can take away." will always exist. Until SCOTUS decrees that we have a right to be free of any prior restraint on our RKBA our RKBA will always be at risk from the whims of a state legislature and the feds.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  7. #7
    Regular Member TXOC16's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    93
    This particular reciprocity bill, which has been bandied about and has languished in various forms throughout both houses of congress for the past few years is, by far, in the history of all National Reciprocity bills ever introduced, the worst and most distasteful reciprocity bill ever! Well, except for all the other National Reciprocity bills introduced before this one. Oh, wait...

    As is and will always be the case, when one approaches any issue as all-or-nothing, one should not express disappointment when the end result is the latter. "Killing it because it isn't perfect" is the same supposed reasoning many people use to justify the murder of unborn Down Syndrome children.

    There's no such thing as a perfect bill, just as there's no such thing as a perfect child.

    Pretty much all things in life work via incrementalism. Get used to it.

    Carry on.
    "We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force." - Ayn Rand

  8. #8
    Regular Member Bikenut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,775
    Quote Originally Posted by TXOC16 View Post
    This particular reciprocity bill, which has been bandied about and has languished in various forms throughout both houses of congress for the past few years is, by far, in the history of all National Reciprocity bills ever introduced, the worst and most distasteful reciprocity bill ever! Well, except for all the other National Reciprocity bills introduced before this one. Oh, wait...

    As is and will always be the case, when one approaches any issue as all-or-nothing, one should not express disappointment when the end result is the latter. "Killing it because it isn't perfect" is the same supposed reasoning many people use to justify the murder of unborn Down Syndrome children.

    There's no such thing as a perfect bill, just as there's no such thing as a perfect child.

    Pretty much all things in life work via incrementalism. Get used to it.

    Carry on.
    You are correct about incrementalism but it has been the government that incrementalism has benefitted. Please note that the multitude of gun control laws we have now didn't happen overnight but came about through "incrementalism".

    National reciprocity is NOT a step forward for the right to bear arms but IS yet another incremental step forward for the government's power to control guns.

    If you need permission called a permit then it is not a right but is a privilege controlled by whoever controls issueing the permit.
    Gun control isn't about the gun at all.... for those who want gun control it is all about their own fragile egos, their own lack of self esteem, their own inner fears, and most importantly... their own desire to dominate others. And an openly carried gun is a slap in the face to all of those things.

  9. #9
    Regular Member solus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    here nc
    Posts
    6,993
    Quote Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
    You are correct about incrementalism but it has been the government that incrementalism has benefitted. Please note that the multitude of gun control laws we have now didn't happen overnight but came about through "incrementalism".

    National reciprocity is NOT a step forward for the right to bear arms but IS yet another incremental step forward for the government's power to control guns.

    If you need permission called a permit then it is not a right but is a privilege controlled by whoever controls issueing the permit.
    well stated bikenut!

    remember the gun control act of 86 喪epealed some provisions of 68痴 control, () then imposed other restrictions regarding firearm ownership on our nation痴 citizens ()!
    "He who pays the piper calls the tunes..."

    Please do not get confused between my personality & my attitude. My personality is who I am ~ my attitude depends on who you are and how you act.

    Remember always, do not judge someone because they sin differently than you do!

    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

  10. #10
    Regular Member MamaLiberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Newcastle, Wyoming, USA
    Posts
    903

    Who's in control?

    The key here is whether or not you actually trust any level of non-voluntary government. I certainly don't. Remember that the ONLY purpose and goal of any kind of non-voluntary government is control. Control of everything and everyone. Do you think any of them will ever voluntarily give up that control? Not a chance.

    Do you think they will find a way to ever increase that control - often fooling those being controlled? I do.

    The desire/lust to control the lives and property of others is the ROOT of all evil. And there are far, far too many people outside of government employees who want to control YOU and your property. Don't be fooled, and don't be evil.
    Last edited by MamaLiberty; 01-15-2018 at 08:58 AM.
    I will not knowingly initiate force. I am a self owner.

    Let the record show that I did not consent to be governed. I did not consent to any constitution. I did not consent to any president. I did not consent to any law except the natural law of "mala en se." I did not consent to the police. Nor any tax. Nor any prohibition of anything. Nor any regulation or licensing of any kind.

  11. #11
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,820
    Please tell me what this bill will allow me to do that I can't do now? I cannot carry in Illinois now. Will this bill let me carry in Illinois? No.

    This bill is nothing more than window dressing.

  12. #12
    Regular Member MamaLiberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Newcastle, Wyoming, USA
    Posts
    903
    Quote Originally Posted by color of law View Post
    Please tell me what this bill will allow me to do that I can't do now? I cannot carry in Illinois now. Will this bill let me carry in Illinois? No.

    This bill is nothing more than window dressing.
    Exactly. It may temporarily simplify CC across some states, but it cannot "force" any state to accept your CC "license." All they have to do is eliminate their own CC acceptance "law," and that will be that.
    I will not knowingly initiate force. I am a self owner.

    Let the record show that I did not consent to be governed. I did not consent to any constitution. I did not consent to any president. I did not consent to any law except the natural law of "mala en se." I did not consent to the police. Nor any tax. Nor any prohibition of anything. Nor any regulation or licensing of any kind.

  13. #13
    Regular Member TXOC16's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    93
    Quote Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
    You are correct about incrementalism but it has been the government that incrementalism has benefitted. Please note that the multitude of gun control laws we have now didn't happen overnight but came about through "incrementalism".

    National reciprocity is NOT a step forward for the right to bear arms but IS yet another incremental step forward for the government's power to control guns.

    If you need permission called a permit then it is not a right but is a privilege controlled by whoever controls issueing the permit.
    Couldn't agree more that the loss of the ability to exercise our 2A rights has been due to governmental incrementalism, that's exactly how the government works (we didn't get to a $20,000,000,000,000+ national debt in one fell swoop), but it's also true that the restoration of those freedoms has been, likewise, overwhelmingly due to incrementalism. If the all-or-nothing crowd had had their way in Texas, and, oh, did they try, we would not now have Campus Carry, Open Carry, nor Concealed Carry. Instead, we have all three and as the pendulum has continued to shift, we are finally actually knocking at the door of Unlicensed Carry in this state.

    Like it or not, when it comes to the restoration of our 2A freedoms, it's a journey, not an event, and we with are dealing with government agents, in an arena where they get to set and enforce the rules. Yep, the deck is definitely stacked in their favor, but we somehow still manage to keep advancing the ball down the field in spite of that.

    And to continue the sports analogy, while I don't believe it to be on the order of a touchdown, I do think NR would most definitely be another first down for us, but this time on a national level.

    Oh, and I don't think anyone likes one bit having to pay a government entity for the "privilege" of being allowed to exercise a fundamental, God-granted, Constitutionally enumerated freedom, and I will continue to vigorously fight against such requirements and laws, but I'm also not turning in my CHL/LTC any time anytime soon as a matter of some sort of misguided "principle" either, are you?

    Carry on.
    "We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force." - Ayn Rand

  14. #14
    Regular Member Bikenut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,775
    Quote Originally Posted by TXOC16 View Post
    Originally Posted by Bikenut
    You are correct about incrementalism but it has been the government that incrementalism has benefitted. Please note that the multitude of gun control laws we have now didn't happen overnight but came about through "incrementalism".

    National reciprocity is NOT a step forward for the right to bear arms but IS yet another incremental step forward for the government's power to control guns.


    If you need permission called a permit then it is not a right but is a privilege controlled by whoever controls issueing the permit.
    Couldn't agree more that the loss of the ability to exercise our 2A rights has been due to governmental incrementalism, that's exactly how the government works (we didn't get to a $20,000,000,000,000+ national debt in one fell swoop), but it's also true that the restoration of those freedoms has been, likewise, overwhelmingly due to incrementalism. If the all-or-nothing crowd had had their way in Texas, and, oh, did they try, we would not now have Campus Carry, Open Carry, nor Concealed Carry. Instead, we have all three and as the pendulum has continued to shift, we are finally actually knocking at the door of Unlicensed Carry in this state.

    Like it or not, when it comes to the restoration of our 2A freedoms, it's a journey, not an event, and we with are dealing with government agents, in an arena where they get to set and enforce the rules. Yep, the deck is definitely stacked in their favor, but we somehow still manage to keep advancing the ball down the field in spite of that.

    And to continue the sports analogy, while I don't believe it to be on the order of a touchdown, I do think NR would most definitely be another first down for us, but this time on a national level.

    Oh, and I don't think anyone likes one bit having to pay a government entity for the "privilege" of being allowed to exercise a fundamental, God-granted, Constitutionally enumerated freedom, and
    I will continue to vigorously fight against such requirements and laws, but I'm also not turning in my CHL/LTC any time anytime soon as a matter of some sort of misguided "principle" either, are you?

    Carry on.
    Bold added by me for emphasis....

    If you will continue to fight against "the "privilege" of being allowed to exercise a fundamental, God-granted, Constitutionally enumerated freedom" then why would you be in favor of handing the Federal government more power to control the bearing of arms via national reciprocity? Please explain how giving a higher level of government the power for more control of bearing arms results in less government control of bearing arms?

    Make no mistake, any National Reciprocity legislation where the Federal government requires the States to recognize each other's carry permits IS regulating carry permits and sets the precedent that the Federal government has the authority to regulate carry permits.

    Ask yourself what would a predominately anti gun controlled Congress along with an anti gun President do with the power to regulate carry permits? And a predominately anti gun controlled Congress along with an anti gun President could happen any time after National Reciprocity has been passed.

    And just because some folks are pointing out the dangers of handing the Federal government the power to regulate carry permits doesn't mean they are taking an all or nothing position. It means they are pointing out that this particular idea of National Reciprocity doesn't have anything at all to do with the right to bear arms and everything to do with handing the Federal government more power to control the bearing arms.

    Please bear in mind that carry permits are NOT the right to bear arms! Quite the opposite in fact.
    Last edited by Bikenut; 01-15-2018 at 08:03 PM.
    Gun control isn't about the gun at all.... for those who want gun control it is all about their own fragile egos, their own lack of self esteem, their own inner fears, and most importantly... their own desire to dominate others. And an openly carried gun is a slap in the face to all of those things.

  15. #15
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,850
    Quote Originally Posted by MamaLiberty View Post
    The key here is whether or not you actually trust any level of non-voluntary government.
    And what exactly does "voluntary government" look like? Not in theory, but in actual operation?
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  16. #16
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,850
    Quote Originally Posted by TXOC16 View Post
    Couldn't agree more that the loss of the ability to exercise our 2A rights has been due to governmental incrementalism, that's exactly how the government works (we didn't get to a $20,000,000,000,000+ national debt in one fell swoop), but it's also true that the restoration of those freedoms has been, likewise, overwhelmingly due to incrementalism. If the all-or-nothing crowd had had their way in Texas, and, oh, did they try, we would not now have Campus Carry, Open Carry, nor Concealed Carry. Instead, we have all three and as the pendulum has continued to shift, we are finally actually knocking at the door of Unlicensed Carry in this state.

    Like it or not, when it comes to the restoration of our 2A freedoms, it's a journey, not an event, and we with are dealing with government agents, in an arena where they get to set and enforce the rules. Yep, the deck is definitely stacked in their favor, but we somehow still manage to keep advancing the ball down the field in spite of that.

    And to continue the sports analogy, while I don't believe it to be on the order of a touchdown, I do think NR would most definitely be another first down for us, but this time on a national level.

    Oh, and I don't think anyone likes one bit having to pay a government entity for the "privilege" of being allowed to exercise a fundamental, God-granted, Constitutionally enumerated freedom, and I will continue to vigorously fight against such requirements and laws, but I'm also not turning in my CHL/LTC any time anytime soon as a matter of some sort of misguided "principle" either, are you?
    +1
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  17. #17
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,820
    Like sands through the hourglass so are the statutes of our states.

    United States v. Cruikshank, 92 US 542, 553 - Supreme Court 1876
    典he second and tenth counts are equally defective. The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress.

    Heller affirms Cruikshank by stating:
    填nited States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, in the course of vacating the convictions of members of a white mob for depriving blacks of their right to keep and bear arms, held that the Second Amendment does not by its own force apply to anyone other than the Federal Government. The opinion explained that the right 妬s not a right granted by the Constitution [or] in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment . . . means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. 92 U. S., at 553.

    Heller also said:
    典he 杜ilitia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Anti-federalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens militia would be preserved.

    USSC has also declared the Second Amendment applies to the states (McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S._742), they too can稚 regulate the keeping and bearing of arms.

    Even though the USSC has made it clear that the federal and state governments lack any constitutional power to regulate the right to keep and bear arms, the USSC usurped that power by declaring that an absolute is not absolute at all. That being a legal fraud and until the USSC reverses that opinion the feds, states and the courts will treat your right as a privilege. And, they all know you will never use force to take back your right. They win, we lose.

  18. #18
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,850
    Quote Originally Posted by MamaLiberty View Post
    Exactly. It may temporarily simplify CC across some states, but it cannot "force" any state to accept your CC "license." All they have to do is eliminate their own CC acceptance "law," and that will be that.
    Except we now have federal appeals courts telling States they have to provide some means of legal carry outside the home. Eliminating all CC permit laws may well require States to allow permit free carry or to decriminalize OC.

    Under the 2nd and 14th amds, Congress has full authority to force States to allow possession of a firearm in public for self defense. Mandating permit-free carry would be great. But I suspect the federal courts will uphold congressional authority to mandate acceptance of carry permits across State lines. And that is really what this is all about. If the courts uphold such congressional authority to protect some very limited form of RKBA, then congress can move on to additional protections.
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  19. #19
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,850
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Purists balk. It would be convenient to be able to CC in those states that do not recognize our right to self defense with the implement of our choice. The mantra "What the government gives the government can take away." will always exist. Until SCOTUS decrees that we have a right to be free of any prior restraint on our RKBA our RKBA will always be at risk from the whims of a state legislature and the feds.
    +1

    And let us remember, we are not merely talking about "convenience". This is about the current, very real risk of being convicted of a felony and losing RKBA for life over the simple, non-violent act of crossing a State line with an otherwise perfectly legal firearm.

    This is far more than convenience. This is about a small but important step in protecting fundamental rights both in and from States that are overtly hostile to said rights.
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  20. #20
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,850
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    What the government gives the government can take away.
    Since we don't have nationwide reciprocity now, we have very little to lose.

    This bill grants no more authority to congress to reach in and regulate your existing State permit than it already has. Were congress to expand the exclusion zone of the gun free school zones from 1000 feet to 10,000 feet (a range at which many round remain dangerous), and then eliminate the exception for in-State permits, our permits would be become effective void in the vast majority of places most of us actually feel the greatest need for a firearm and where permits are most often required. How much of your home town is not within a 2 mile radius of a grade school, middle school, or high school?

    Anyone who thinks this bill grants congress any authority they don't have, or sets any kind of meaningful "precedence" that is likely to harm us, simply doesn't understand precedence very well.

    I'm open to rational arguments to the contrary. Repeated, emphatic assertions, no matter how pithy, are not very convincing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    OTOH - allow unfettered Constitutional Carry.
    I'm fully supportive. Who is going to sponsor such a bill and what are the odds we get it passed?

    Nobody and zero.

    Politics is the art of the possible. This is a possible, incremental step in the right direction. If the purists will avoid the circular firing squad.
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  21. #21
    Regular Member TXOC16's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    93
    Quote Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
    Ask yourself what would a predominately anti gun controlled Congress along with an anti gun President do with the power to regulate carry permits? And a predominately anti gun controlled Congress along with an anti gun President could happen any time after National Reciprocity has been passed.
    Of course anything could happen, but that's pretty much always the case with any law, existing or new. I think the more fundamental question that has to be asked is, at the moment the NR bill is signed into law, have our 2A freedoms been expanded or contracted? The answer, at least to me and for me, is quite obvious. As always, we will still have to work tirelessly and diligently to keep local, state, and federal Leviathans in check and at bay, just as we have to now do in myriad other areas (taxes come immediately to mind).

    Quote Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
    Please bear in mind that carry permits are NOT the right to bear arms! Quite the opposite in fact.
    I don't believe I ever even intimated otherwise. Our 2A rights, of course, are granted by God, enumerated by our Constitution, and then regularly infringed upon by all levels of government. I'm still not yet ready to turn in my CHL/LTC.

    Carry on.
    "We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force." - Ayn Rand

  22. #22
    Regular Member solus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    here nc
    Posts
    6,993
    Quote Originally Posted by TXOC16 View Post
    snipp...
    Our 2A rights, of course, are granted by God, snipp

    Carry on.
    sorry, TXOC16, which Deity are you specifically referring to as granting America's 2A rights? Would that have been: Tetragrammaton or Allah or Krishna or Elohim or ??? granted our 2A rights?

    did i miss that particular granting of that 'blessing', if you will, during religious studies of the KJ New Testament or The Holy Qu'ran or Vedas or Torah or perhaps in the newer Book of Mormon?

    historically, since part of the colonists were Quakers who believe the Bible was written by man and is known as the Infallible Holy Word of God since it is considered a collection of words about God.

    perhaps the founding fathers' Deism belief system felt while their Deity created the world, the other items would run their 'natural' course so in fact the 2A right hasn't been granted by God as stated ?

    ipse
    Last edited by solus; 01-15-2018 at 10:01 PM.
    "He who pays the piper calls the tunes..."

    Please do not get confused between my personality & my attitude. My personality is who I am ~ my attitude depends on who you are and how you act.

    Remember always, do not judge someone because they sin differently than you do!

    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

  23. #23
    Regular Member Bikenut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,775
    Quote Originally Posted by TXOC16 View Post
    Originally Posted by Bikenut
    Ask yourself what would a predominately anti gun controlled Congress along with an anti gun President do with the power to regulate carry permits? And a predominately anti gun controlled Congress along with an anti gun President could happen any time after National Reciprocity has been passed.
    Of course anything could happen, but that's pretty much always the case with any law, existing or new. I think the more fundamental question that has to be asked is, at the moment the NR bill is signed into law, have our 2A freedoms been expanded or contracted? The answer, at least to me and for me, is quite obvious. As always, we will still have to work tirelessly and diligently to keep local, state, and federal Leviathans in check and at bay, just as we have to now do in myriad other areas (taxes come immediately to mind).
    The thing is.. why make it easy for that could happen to happen just to gain an extra privilege disguised as increasing freedom? If it is a freedom why would permission in the form of a national reciprocity law allowing permits to be recognized be needed?

    If one is free to do something then one does not need permission. Please do not confuse being allowed to do something with the freedom to do it.

    Quote Originally Posted by TXOC16 View Post
    Originally Posted by Bikenut
    Please bear in mind that carry permits are NOT the right to bear arms! Quite the opposite in fact.
    I don't believe I ever even intimated otherwise. Our 2A rights, of course, are granted by God, enumerated by our Constitution, and then regularly infringed upon by all levels of government. I'm still not yet ready to turn in my CHL/LTC.

    Carry on.
    Yes the right to bear arms is regularly infringed upon by government and those who want national reciprocity are asking for even more infringement while thinking that more infringement will somehow result in more freedom just because that infringement comes from a different level of government.

    There is a difference between not wanting to turn in your carry permit and asking for yet another level of government control over that permit.

    By the way, if a person wants to carry their gun while traveling there are already many States that have voluntarily entered into reciprocity agreements amongst themselves without Federal influence/pressure just like what has happened with driver's licenses. There are also non resident permits available in many States. And those States that do not have those agreements need residents willing to work within their own State to gain those interstate agreements. Plus the residents of other States also need to support those unfortunate folks in those restrictive States.

    But doing the above costs individuals money along with personal time and effort. Time, money, and effort that doesn't have to be expended if Daddy Fed will grant the privilege of national reciprocity.

    I would caution folks to think about unintended consequences and future dangers of Federal control of carry permits before climbing on the "I want national reciprocity so I will have the freedom to use my permit that allows me to carry a gun across State lines bandwagon."

    And I hope folks will notice the contradiction between the words "freedom", and "permit", and "allows".
    Last edited by Bikenut; 01-15-2018 at 10:07 PM.
    Gun control isn't about the gun at all.... for those who want gun control it is all about their own fragile egos, their own lack of self esteem, their own inner fears, and most importantly... their own desire to dominate others. And an openly carried gun is a slap in the face to all of those things.

  24. #24
    Regular Member TXOC16's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    93
    Quote Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
    The thing is.. why make it easy for that could happen to happen just to gain an extra privilege disguised as increasing freedom? If it is a freedom why would permission in the form of a national reciprocity law allowing permits to be recognized be needed?
    Nothing in the NR bill makes what "could" happen any easier or more difficult. It simply requires states to honor carry licenses/permits as they do so now in a number of other areas. I'll ask again, at the moment of the signing of this bill, have our 2A freedoms (that is, our ability to exercise our God-given, Constitutionally enumerated rights, either without or, at least, with reduced negative consequences) been increased or decreased? The answer is obvious. Our rights never go away, but the fact is that our freedom to exercise those rights (as in government permission to do so) is most definitely subject to the whims of various levels of government incompetence, ignorance, and, all to often, outright evil.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
    If one is free to do something then one does not need permission. Please do not confuse being allowed to do something with the freedom to do it.
    I am confusing nothing, but I am afraid you are doing so. Yes, there are varying levels of freedom/allowances/rights, from unfettered, to mildly infringed, to somewhat restricted, to...well, you get idea. In this context, though, which involves government control and interference, "allowances" and "freedoms" are perfectly synonymous, whereas "rights" are not at all. If we are allowed to do something, we are free to do so. If we are free to do something, we are allowed to do so, all subject to the aforementioned government restrictions. The converse is also true. That said, although government entities can limit to the point of complete removal our freedoms and allowances, resulting in the restriction of the exercising of our rights, they can never remove them.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
    Yes the right to bear arms is regularly infringed upon by government and those who want national reciprocity are asking for even more infringement while thinking that more infringement will somehow result in more freedom just because that infringement comes from a different level of government.
    I'm sorry, but I'm simply failing to understand how increasing our ability/freedom/permission (which has no bearing whatsoever on our rights) to exercise our 2A rights is somehow an infringement. "Asking for," "could happen," etc., is simply speculation and supposition. I'm talking about what will definitively happen as a result of the bill's passage, not what possibly, may, could, or might happen.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
    By the way, if a person wants to carry their gun while traveling there are already many States that have voluntarily entered into reciprocity agreements amongst themselves without Federal influence/pressure just like what has happened with driver's licenses. There are also non resident permits available in many States. And those States that do not have those agreements need residents willing to work within their own State to gain those interstate agreements. Plus the residents of other States also need to support those unfortunate folks in those restrictive States.
    Since I live in Texas, I am the beneficiary of one of the most expansive reciprocity agreements in the U.S., however, I also fairly regularly travel to both New Jersey and New York, where the mere possession of ammunition has been criminalized and can land one in jail/prison for a lengthy term. Personally, I'm really not sure how that fact alone doesn't have every 2A-supporting, Constitution-loving, red-blooded American screaming for a NR bill. Even though I'm fortunate to live where I do by choice, my aforementioned travels are less so, but regardless of where I travel, I do not want to leave to the whim of every state legislature in the U.S. my God-given right to defend myself or my family.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
    But doing the above costs individuals money along with personal time and effort. Time, money, and effort that doesn't have to be expended if Daddy Fed will grant the privilege of national reciprocity.
    So, in other words, those subjects who, for whatever reason, happen to live in the states controlled by the most tyrannical rulers (and I've already mentioned a couple) either don't care enough or don't yet have enough skin in the game to be allowed to freely exercise their own 2A rights and, so, should merely accept their fate as a result of their own inaction?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
    I would caution folks to think about unintended consequences and future dangers of Federal control of carry permits before climbing on the "I want national reciprocity so I will have the freedom to use my permit that allows me to carry a gun across State lines bandwagon."

    And I hope folks will notice the contradiction between the words "freedom", and "permit", and "allows".
    And I would caution those same folks to look at what definitely will happen and be required as a result of the codification of this bill, rather than throwing the baby out with the bath water for fear of something that "might," "could," or "may" happen.

    In any event, you get the last word if you'd like it as I'm going to bow out of our exchange as we are clearly never going to see eye-to-eye, and, actually, this exchange fairly well illustrates why we are in the 2A rights mess we are as a nation.

    Carry on.

    ETA: For clarification purposes, I intended no offense whatsoever to Bikenut (my Vulcan 1700 told me to say that), and, quite frankly I appreciate his passion. What I mean by "fairly well illustrates" is that even though we 2A activists seem to be generally on the same side of the field, there appears to be this great divide between those who are willing to keep pounding away in order to keep advancing the ball a few yards at a time, with a well-calculated occasional big play thrown in (which is how we've gotten the wins that we have), and those who insist on throwing a Hail Mary each and every play and then taking their ball and going home if it doesn't result in a touchdown each time.
    Last edited by TXOC16; 01-16-2018 at 12:22 AM. Reason: The ETA stuff, of course.
    "We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force." - Ayn Rand

  25. #25
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,328
    This bill, as utbagpiper rightly states, will mitigate any future Shaneen Allen incidents. We continue to enjoy our right to exclude those anti-gun states from our itinerary while we travel whether the bill is signed into law or not. I transit through Illinois to return to my family farm in SC several times each year and this bill, if signed into law, will remove a potentially life altering legal entanglement.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •