• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

IMPORTANT NATIONAL RECIPROCITY ACTION

Status
Not open for further replies.

JTHunter2

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2017
Messages
431
Location
Planet Earth
Bikenut, you have a valid point there.
Considering how "well" the government has handled things like Conrail, Amtrak, the Post Office, the VA, etc., you may be right.
:(
 

Thundar

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Messages
4,946
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
I have to ask, Thundar, are you opposed to national permit recognition?

Nonsense, I carry my nationally recognized "permit", always. I have my copy of the Declaration of Independence and Federal Constitution in my pocket, with a tab for the 2A. When the cop in Chesapeake, Virginia asked if I had a permit for that (OC chromed 44 Special on my hip) I said "sure do" and handed him my pocket constitution.

The reality is that National Permit Recognition does not advance the right. It recognizes P4P. We should work hard at clear recognition of the existence of the right outside of the home. Until we do this, our right to bear arms can be decimated by oppressive lawmakers and petty dictators wearing black robes that are only too happy to do harm to those that wish to exercise their civil rights.

P4P is the great freedom denier of modern gun rights movement, as evil a scheme as separate but equal.

I wish that constitutional carry were universal in America, but it is not. Open your eyes and see how the path toward real gun rights is with open carry and the recognition of the right beyond the home. Fighting for more P4P and believing it to be an extension/affirmation of our rights is fools gold. Always has been, always will be.

Live Free or Die,
Thundar
 
Last edited:

gutshot II

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2017
Messages
782
Location
Central Ky.
Nonsense, I carry my nationally recognized "permit", always. I have my copy of the Declaration of Independence and Federal Constitution in my pocket, with a tab for the 2A. When the cop in Chesapeake, Virginia asked if I had a permit for that (OC chromed 44 Special on my hip) I said "sure do" and handed him my pocket constitution.

The reality is that National Permit Recognition does not advance the right. It recognizes P4P. We should work hard at clear recognition of the existence of the right outside of the home. Until we do this, our right to bear arms can be decimated by oppressive lawmakers and petty dictators wearing black robes that are only too happy to do harm to those that wish to exercise their civil rights.

P4P is the great freedom denier of modern gun rights movement, as evil a scheme as separate but equal.

I wish that constitutional carry were universal in America, but it is not. Open your eyes and see how the path toward real gun rights is with open carry and the recognition of the right beyond the home.
Fighting for more P4P and believing it to be an extension/affirmation of our rights is fools gold. Always has been, always will be.

Live Free or Die,
Thundar

I agree with the parts that I have put in bold font. I think it should be the objective of all of us. While you and others work on getting that done, others will continue to work for some smaller, less all encompassing changes, one at a time, so that you can have the benefits of those small changes during the decades that it will take to get what you want done. By the way how old are you? I hope you are a very young man, if you expect to live long enough to see any results on your plan.
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
National reciprocity enacted by one administration could be rescinded by the next administration by the stroke of a pen. The several sovereign states' rights is a fine teergruben (tarpit) against federal interference.

Hypothetically; Trump enacts national reciprocity, and Kamala Harris succeeds him with a progressive Congress and limp SCOTUS. Do you doubt that she would impose martial law to gain complete gun control?

A law, duly passed by congress and signed by the president cannot be undone by a singular signature.

The courts can overturn. Or congress and new POTUS can repeal. Beyond that, the worst a president can do under normal circumstances is simply direct his AG to make enforcement of that law his lowest, last priority.

As for martial law, any president who is inclined to do so and who thinks he can get away with it with a liberal congress and limp SCOTUS will be neither encouraged nor deterred by a national recognition law.
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
Nonsense, I carry my nationally recognized "permit", always. I have my copy of the Declaration of Independence and Federal Constitution in my pocket, with a tab for the 2A. When the cop in Chesapeake, Virginia asked if I had a permit for that (OC chromed 44 Special on my hip) I said "sure do" and handed him my pocket constitution.

When you report on how this works for you in DC, Maryland, Illinois, NYC, Boston, NJ, and San Fransisco, then I'll believe that you believe you actually have a nationally recognized practical ability to OC a firearm. But please don't actually try it. I do not intend to encourage any violation of laws and I don't want to see you facing harsh--unjust, unconstitutional, but harsh--legal penalties.

The reality is that National Permit Recognition does not advance the right. It recognizes P4P. We should work hard at clear recognition of the existence of the right outside of the home. Until we do this, our right to bear arms can be decimated by oppressive lawmakers and petty dictators wearing black robes that are only too happy to do harm to those that wish to exercise their civil rights.

P4P is the great freedom denier of modern gun rights movement, as evil a scheme as separate but equal.

I wish that constitutional carry were universal in America, but it is not. Open your eyes and see how the path toward real gun rights is with open carry and the recognition of the right beyond the home. Fighting for more P4P and believing it to be an extension/affirmation of our rights is fools gold. Always has been, always will be.

I've seen some 40+ States move from no-permits or discriminatory permits to non-discriminatory permits and in the process we now have nearly 17 million persons in this nation with permits to carry and millions of gun owners actually carrying a gun on some semi-regular basis at least.

Among those 40+ States that have moved from no-permit or discriminatory permit to non-discriminatory permit, some 13 have moved to some form of permit-free carry. Not only have they joined Vermont, but in many cases surpassed Vermont in terms of the practical ability to carry a gun for self-defense. Vermont has more locations off limits than some other States. And these non-discriminatory permit issuance States that have moved to permit-free carry, have retained permits for carrying in federal Gun Free School Zones and/or for their citizens to have recognition to carry in other States that still require permits.

Now, those are facts and history that cannot be argued.

Exactly how many States have you seen move from a more restrictive set of laws on carrying guns to permit-free OC without moving through the non-discriminatory permit process first? Which States are they? And how did that political process work?

We all want permit-free carry (I want both OC and CC, permit free, nationwide). I want to get there as soon as I can. I'm open to any lawful, honorable course that has a proven history of success. Show me the history to back up your claims of what you think is possible in the future, and I'm all on board.

Until then, incrementalism has worked very well to advance not only RKBA to where it is, but also to advance rights and privileges for homosexuals, racial minorities, the disabled, environmental protections, and a host of other left wing causes. It looks to me to be the most reliable path to where we want to be.
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
The following is my take on national reciprocity. Feel free to disagree.....

I am against any national reciprocity law from Daddy Fed. I believe that once Daddy Fed has the power to regulate carry permits through the commerce clause.. and requiring all states to recognize the permits from other states IS regulating carry permits and sets the precedent of having the authority for further regulating... the most restrictive states will demand Daddy Fed come up with a uniform system of criteria/restrictions that must be met in order to qualify for a carry permit that would be acceptable, and fair, to all the states. And the most restrictive states would demand those criteria/restrictions at least be the same as the one's those states already have.

I also have no doubt that when Congress flips to Democrat and/or someone like Hillary gets elected they would use the power of the commerce clause granted by a national reciprocity law to make carry permit restrictions so strict as to effectively legislate permits out of the reach of ordinary folks. But still within reach of the rich elite like themselves.

And while begging Daddy Fed to give another privilege might seem attractive from a right now point of view it has already been shown that, while it might take longer, it is very possible for folks who are willing to work at it to gain permitless carry in individual states one state at a time.

I disagree.

In case you haven't noticed, the Feds are already regulating carry permits. Or did you forget that while Utah is more than happy to recognize your Iowa or Ohio or any other permit on completely equal footing to a Utah permit, the Feds make a criminal for walking within 1000 feet (as the crow flies) of any K-12 school in Utah unless you have a permit issued by Utah. That is current and existing gun law and it exists under authority of the commerce clause.

All congress has to do to make permits beyond the reach of most everyone is to simply change the keep out zone from 1000 feet to 10,000 or 20,000 feet (which is much closer to the range at which a stray bullet could, in theory, present a risk to any innocent child it hit) and then not exempt those with permits from the State in which the school is located. Those two changes to the current Federal GFSZ law would render most of our permits and any ability to OC in most incorporated areas entirely moot. How many square feet of your town can you find that are not within 3 miles of a K-12 school?

What protects us from congress making such changes, or from re-enacting the scary looking gun ban and not granting a grandfather clause, is not the lack of some "precedence". What protects us from such gun grabs is the memory of Congressmen about what happened to the Democrat majority after passing the scary looking gun ban of 1994. The passage of that law resulted in the Democrats losing control of the US House of Representatives for the first time in 40 years.

Notice what even the extreme-left Mother Jones had to say about the issue in this 2012 article discussing Obama's efforts to re-enact the 1994 scary looking gun ban:

[T]here was a stiff cost [to the 1994 gun ban]. When Congress passed the assault weapons ban, the NRA vowed vengeance. Months later, the Republicans, backed by the still-outraged NRA, romped the Democrats in the midterm election, gaining 54 seats and control of the House for the first time in 40 years. Clinton, for one, believed that voting for the the assault weapons ban had cost about 20 House Democrats their seats—meaning that the measure had caused a political backlash that led to a GOP the majority in the House. If Obama and others confront the NRA, they had better expect—and prepare for—a battle that will reach a crescendo on November 4, 2014.

Obama got Obamacare. Even with both houses of congress in Democrat hands, he was not able to get any legislative gun control.

Most every common man or woman who buys a gun for self defense becomes another vote against gun control. Most every common man or woman who gets the opportunity to start legally carrying a gun for self defense in public becomes another vote against every losing that ability. They may not become hard-core libertarians or even Republicans. But once a person has experienced the ability to legally own and carry a gun for self defense, s/he doesn't often vote to surrender that.

THAT, that political power, is that protects and gains increased statutory respect for our RKBA.

I also note that congress exercising all kinds of authority to require anti-discrimination protections, protections for the disabled, environmental regulations, etc ad naseum has not much been useful in terms of congress ever turning around and forcing discrimination, requiring the disabled by mistreated, or mandating the environment be polluted. That is history, not some misunderstanding of what "precedence" does or doesn't bind congress.
 

Thundar

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Messages
4,946
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
He who does not risk cannot win

When you report on how this works for you in DC, Maryland, Illinois, NYC, Boston, NJ, and San Fransisco, then I'll believe that you believe you actually have a nationally recognized practical ability to OC a firearm. But please don't actually try it. I do not intend to encourage any violation of laws and I don't want to see you facing harsh--unjust, unconstitutional, but harsh--legal penalties.



I've seen some 40+ States move from no-permits or discriminatory permits to non-discriminatory permits and in the process we now have nearly 17 million persons in this nation with permits to carry and millions of gun owners actually carrying a gun on some semi-regular basis at least.

Among those 40+ States that have moved from no-permit or discriminatory permit to non-discriminatory permit, some 13 have moved to some form of permit-free carry. Not only have they joined Vermont, but in many cases surpassed Vermont in terms of the practical ability to carry a gun for self-defense. Vermont has more locations off limits than some other States. And these non-discriminatory permit issuance States that have moved to permit-free carry, have retained permits for carrying in federal Gun Free School Zones and/or for their citizens to have recognition to carry in other States that still require permits.

Now, those are facts and history that cannot be argued.

Exactly how many States have you seen move from a more restrictive set of laws on carrying guns to permit-free OC without moving through the non-discriminatory permit process first? Which States are they? And how did that political process work?

We all want permit-free carry (I want both OC and CC, permit free, nationwide). I want to get there as soon as I can. I'm open to any lawful, honorable course that has a proven history of success. Show me the history to back up your claims of what you think is possible in the future, and I'm all on board.

Until then, incrementalism has worked very well to advance not only RKBA to where it is, but also to advance rights and privileges for homosexuals, racial minorities, the disabled, environmental protections, and a host of other left wing causes. It looks to me to be the most reliable path to where we want to be.

Utah,

Your argument conflates correlation with causation. What we have not had was a winning federal civil rights case that turned squarely on the equal legal footing of bear arms with keeping arms. It appears that there is opportunity in the current DC court of appeals case, but it still has a long way to go before it gets to SCOTUS. Sometimes it is better and more effective to launch the major and decisive attack (my preference for decisive) instead of conducting endless skirmishes (your incremental approach). It has, and can work. Heller I and MacDonald are prima facie evidence that decisive can be decisive.

I recognize that acting decisively can mean losing decisively. Remember the NRA trepidation with Heller I. Thank God GOA pushed forward, risked and won. My personal answer to risk is a quote from the father of the American Navy "He who does not risk cannot win."

Live Free or Die,
Thundar
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
Your argument conflates correlation with causation.

That applies to stats, not to a history of political achievement. Again, can you point to any history of States moving from no-carry to permit-free carry without going through the territory of non-discriminatory carry?

I don't think it is political feasible, or at least hasn't been in the last 2 decades. You need votes/voters to support a position like that. Non-discriminatory permits have brought millions of new people into the gun carrying fraternity.

What we have not had was a winning federal civil rights case that turned squarely on the equal legal footing of bear arms with keeping arms. It appears that there is opportunity in the current DC court of appeals case, but it still has a long way to go before it gets to SCOTUS. Sometimes it is better and more effective to launch the major and decisive attack (my preference for decisive) instead of conducting endless skirmishes (your incremental approach). It has, and can work. Heller I and MacDonald are prima facie evidence that decisive can be decisive.

I recognize that acting decisively can mean losing decisively. Remember the NRA trepidation with Heller I. Thank God GOA pushed forward, risked and won. My personal answer to risk is a quote from the father of the American Navy "He who does not risk cannot win."

In the wake of Heller I, Wrenn makes great sense. But notice how heavily the DC Appeals court leans on Heller. Wrenn would be a non-starter without Heller. Similar cases out of Illinois, in the 7th Circuit rely on Heller and McDonald.

But I have to wonder what would have happened had Heller come before the SCOTUS in 1970, or even 1980, or 1990 when only a couple of States allowed common citizens to carry a concealed gun for self-defense. Short of having a court full of hard-core, conservatives or orginalists/textualists (which we never have in modern times) what are the odds that Heller gets a 5-4 majority in favor of any individual right to keep and bear arms if the case comes prior to the massive wave of non-discriminatory permits and advances in legal scholarship on the 2nd amendment driven by increasing public interest in armed self-defense of the 15 years prior to Heller? And let us remember, even with Roberts and Scalia (rather than whomever Al Gore would have appointed), the win in Heller was rather limited. The SCOTUS simply could not go very much beyond a usable gun in your home and admitting an individual (rather than "collective" or State "right") to own guns and keep that 5 justice majority. I presume Kennedy was the least committed to going any further. If the NRA is too conservative, too timid (and they are), there are those who are far too aggressive and foolish. The GOA's timing was right. Twenty years earlier and we'd have been in trouble had the court taken the case.

The fact is, we can recover from small losses a lot easier and sooner than we can recover from large losses. He who risks foolishly will lose big and we'll have our rights limited for another generation or beyond.

Passing a national reciprocity act doesn't hurt RKBA. Indeed, it advances social and legal acceptance of the armed citizen as normal. I'd prefer it be a simple 2nd and 14th amendment bill rather than appeal to the commerce clause. But for congress to act positively to defend any practical ability for common citizens to go armed across State lines would be a major win. It provides one more evidence to the court that the 2nd amendment does protect an individual right to go armed, and does so against State level infringements.

And let us remember, we have effectively the same SCOTUS that gave us the very limited win in Heller. Scalia is replaced by Gorsuch. We still have 4 solid gun haters and Kennedy as the deciding vote. Do you really think Kennedy is going to vote to force States to allow everyone to carry a gun without even a criminal background check? Not what do you think he should do. We are agreed on that. Look at his history of rulings where he clearly supplants constitutional limits and requirements with his own social agenda. Tell me you really think he is going to support mandatory, nationwide, permit-free carry at this time?

Now, if we can replace Kennedy or Gingsburg with another Scalia/Gorsuch, then we can talk about swinging for the bleachers. Until then, it seems pretty clear that there is no better than a 50-50 chance of getting a win rather than a major loss.

Charles
 

Ghost1958

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2015
Messages
1,265
Location
Kentucky
Just saw this. Wonder if the pro National reciprocity folks eyes have been opened by fix NICS getting attached to it right out of the gate?


Better hope this Trojan horse burns fellas.
 
B

Bikenut

Guest
Originally Posted by Bikenut The following is my take on national reciprocity. Feel free to disagree.....

I am against any national reciprocity law from Daddy Fed. I believe that once Daddy Fed has the power to regulate carry permits through the commerce clause.. and requiring all states to recognize the permits from other states IS regulating carry permits and sets the precedent of having the authority for further regulating...the most restrictive states will demand Daddy Fed come up with a uniform system of criteria/restrictions that must be met in order to qualify for a carry permit that would be acceptable, and fair, to all the states. And the most restrictive states would demand those criteria/restrictions at least be the same as the one's those states already have.

I also have no doubt that when Congress flips to Democrat and/or someone like Hillary gets elected they would use the power of the commerce clause granted by a national reciprocity law to make carry permit restrictions so strict as to effectively legislate permits out of the reach of ordinary folks. But still within reach of the rich elite like themselves.


And while begging Daddy Fed to give another privilege might seem attractive from a right now point of view it has already been shown that, while it might take longer, it is very possible for folks who are willing to work at it to gain permitless carry in individual states one state at a time.
I disagree.

In case you haven't noticed, the Feds are already regulating carry permits. Or did you forget that while Utah is more than happy to recognize your Iowa or Ohio or any other permit on completely equal footing to a Utah permit, the Feds make a criminal for walking within 1000 feet (as the crow flies) of any K-12 school in Utah unless you have a permit issued by Utah. That is current and existing gun law and it exists under authority of the commerce clause.

All congress has to do to make permits beyond the reach of most everyone is to simply change the keep out zone from 1000 feet to 10,000 or 20,000 feet (which is much closer to the range at which a stray bullet could, in theory, present a risk to any innocent child it hit) and then not exempt those with permits from the State in which the school is located. Those two changes to the current Federal GFSZ law would render most of our permits and any ability to OC in most incorporated areas entirely moot. How many square feet of your town can you find that are not within 3 miles of a K-12 school?

What protects us from congress making such changes, or from re-enacting the scary looking gun ban and not granting a grandfather clause, is not the lack of some "precedence". What protects us from such gun grabs is the memory of Congressmen about what happened to the Democrat majority after passing the scary looking gun ban of 1994. The passage of that law resulted in the Democrats losing control of the US House of Representatives for the first time in 40 years.

Notice what even the extreme-left Mother Jones had to say about the issue in this 2012 article discussing Obama's efforts to re-enact the 1994 scary looking gun ban:

[T]here was a stiff cost [to the 1994 gun ban]. When Congress passed the assault weapons ban, the NRA vowed vengeance. Months later, the Republicans, backed by the still-outraged NRA, romped the Democrats in the midterm election, gaining 54 seats and control of the House for the first time in 40 years. Clinton, for one, believed that voting for the the assault weapons ban had cost about 20 House Democrats their seats—meaning that the measure had caused a political backlash that led to a GOP the majority in the House. If Obama and others confront the NRA, they had better expect—and prepare for—a battle that will reach a crescendo on November 4, 2014.

Obama got Obamacare. Even with both houses of congress in Democrat hands, he was not able to get any legislative gun control.

Most every common man or woman who buys a gun for self defense becomes another vote against gun control. Most every common man or woman who gets the opportunity to start legally carrying a gun for self defense in public becomes another vote against every losing that ability. They may not become hard-core libertarians or even Republicans. But once a person has experienced the ability to legally own and carry a gun for self defense, s/he doesn't often vote to surrender that.

THAT, that political power, is that protects and gains increased statutory respect for our RKBA.

I also note that congress exercising all kinds of authority to require anti-discrimination protections, protections for the disabled, environmental regulations, etc ad naseum has not much been useful in terms of congress ever turning around and forcing discrimination, requiring the disabled by mistreated, or mandating the environment be polluted. That is history, not some misunderstanding of what "precedence" does or doesn't bind congress.
I consider your response to be an elaborate exercise in justifying chasing after the carrot of yet another privilege magnanimously granted by Daddy government while ignoring the history of how Daddy government's carrots are always attached to a stick.

I also disagree with the naive notion that most common folk who buy a gun become a vote against gun control since I have heard the comment "Yes I know I have the right to carry a gun. All I need to do is get a permit." from such common folk. And that mind set does not show an inclination to go against more control but indicates following gun control laws, new or old, would be quite acceptable.

The reason I refer to the government as "Daddy" is because so many supposed adults can't seem to get past the notion that they need "Daddy's" permission to exercise a right. And instead of fighting to regain the ability to exercise the right itself they will actively pursue, and offer arguments to justify, gaining "Daddy's" permission.

Never forget "Daddy" government's permission always comes with the stick of punishment if a person strays from what Daddy says is allowed.

I keep warning that once Daddy Fed takes control of carry permit reciprocity then the most restrictive States will demand "Daddy" set the rules for qualifying to have a permit nationwide just so everything is standardized. Most likely in favor of those restrictive States. But whenever I mention that I get responses ranging from posts defending the need to have this new privilege to lengthy dissertations that attempt to paint national reciprocity as some kind of path to Constitutional carry.

There is no respect for the RKBA if it is necessary to ask Daddy government for permission to be allowed.

I await more arguments that basically defend asking "Daddy" to be "allowed".
 
Last edited by a moderator:

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
I consider your response to be an elaborate exercise in justifying chasing after the carrot of yet another privilege magnanimously granted by Daddy government while ignoring the history of how Daddy government's carrots are always attached to a stick.

And I consider your response to be a relatively brief exercise in justifying opposition to any form of incremental gains--socially or legally--despite the 30 year proven history of using it to improve the statutory situation.

I also disagree with the naive notion that most common folk who buy a gun become a vote against gun control since I have heard the comment "Yes I know I have the right to carry a gun. All I need to do is get a permit." from such common folk. And that mind set does not show an inclination to go against more control but indicates following gun control laws, new or old, would be quite acceptable.

And yet, they tend to vote against those who would impose additional restrictions on their gun ownership or their carrying of a gun. They may not understand true principles the way you do. But they are generally voting the right way. If you waited for everyone to magically vote perfectly, we'd still be living under laws whereby most of us would be criminals for carrying a self defense gun in public.

The reason I refer to the government as "Daddy" is because so many supposed adults can't seem to get past the notion that they need "Daddy's" permission to exercise a right. And instead of fighting to regain the ability to exercise the right itself they will actively pursue, and offer arguments to justify, gaining "Daddy's" permission.

Do you obey current statutory laws? Or do you violate them? Do you advocate others obey the law or are you advocating for others to violate the law to exercise what you see as a right that cannot be properly limited by statutes?


Never forget "Daddy" government's permission always comes with the stick of punishment if a person strays from what Daddy says is allowed.

I keep warning that once Daddy Fed takes control of carry permit reciprocity then the most restrictive States will demand "Daddy" set the rules for qualifying to have a permit nationwide just so everything is standardized. Most likely in favor of those restrictive States. But whenever I mention that I get responses ranging from posts defending the need to have this new privilege to lengthy dissertations that attempt to paint national reciprocity as some kind of path to Constitutional carry.

I've yet to see the purist provide any workable path to constitutional carry. Simply demanding our rights be respected is not a proven path. An appeal to force is a very risky and unpleasant path. Incrementalism has brought 13 States to one degree of permit free carry or another.

Fact is, the most restrictive States, most hard core politicians have been wanting the feds to impose bad laws on good States since the GCA of '68. The scary looking gun ban of '94 was a low point. The federal GFSZ law already imposes controls on State permits.

The feds doing something that helps people legally carry across State lines does not give them any more power than they already have. Until you are willing to address this issue directly, you are merely engaging in ever more emphatic assertion.


I await more arguments that basically defend asking "Daddy" to be "allowed".

I'm sure you'll provide more arguments that are thinly veiled advocacy for violation of current statutes, making ignorant claims about what precedence might be set by a federal law, and otherwise being devoid of any historic data, political success, or rational arguments.
 
B

Bikenut

Guest
Originally Posted by Bikenut I await more arguments that basically defend asking "Daddy" to be "allowed".


I'm sure you'll provide more arguments that are thinly veiled advocacy for violation of current statutes, making ignorant claims about what precedence might be set by a federal law, and otherwise being devoid of any historic data, political success, or rational arguments.
Judging by the times of my post and your reply to my post I only had to wait 16 minutes for yet another argument defending asking "Daddy" to be "allowed" complete with ridicule and insults exactly as I, and others, have come to expect from you.

As is said by many in the retail business:

Have a nice day.
 
B

Bikenut

Guest
Originally Posted by Bikenut The reason I refer to the government as "Daddy" is because so many supposed adults can't seem to get past the notion that they need "Daddy's" permission to exercise a right. And instead of fighting to regain the ability to exercise the right itself they will actively pursue, and offer arguments to justify, gaining "Daddy's" permission.
Do you obey current statutory laws? Or do you violate them? Do you advocate others obey the law or are you advocating for others to violate the law to exercise what you see as a right that cannot be properly limited by statutes?
I actually do obey the law(s) (including not violating trespass law by ... sneaking... my gun in where the property owner has a no gun rule/policy thinking it's OK as long as I don't get caught) because I believe it is better to fight government gun control laws on the State level than it is to suck up begging for yet another new law from Daddy Fed thinking more government control and oversight is some kind of path to Constitutional carry.

But you go right ahead and believe that asking a bigger Daddy (Daddy Fed) for permission will force the smaller Daddy (Daddy State) to "allow" folks to carry across State lines will result in incrementally getting rid of carry permits entirely.

Here is a workable path from someone you might consider a purist:
If folks want their carry permits to be recognized in all 50 States the way their driver licenses are recognized it would be much better to work with the individual States and get them to enter into an agreement among themselves like they did with driver licenses than it would be to beg for yet another level of government oversight and control by getting Daddy Fed involved. But that takes time, effort, and money from individuals while begging Daddy Fed would be fast and cheap by comparison.

I eagerly await yet more arguments justifying gaining "Big Daddy's" permission.

Edited to add:

Again, Have a nice day.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
Judging by the times of my post and your reply to my post I only had to wait 16 minutes for yet another argument defending asking "Daddy" to be "allowed" complete with ridicule and insults exactly as I, and others, have come to expect from you.

And only 5 minutes after that for you to respond just as I predicted. You didn't even have time to read my verbose post and digest it. Just to bang out another trite response.

I'm not asking feds for permission. I'm expecting them to take a first step to enforcing the 2nd and 14th amendments.
 
Last edited:

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
Here is a workable path from someone you might consider a purist:
If folks want their carry permits to be recognized in all 50 States the way their driver licenses are recognized it would be much better to work with the individual States and get them to enter into an agreement among themselves like they did with driver licenses than it would be to beg for yet another level of government oversight and control by getting Daddy Fed involved. But that takes time, effort, and money from individuals while begging Daddy Fed would be fast and cheap by comparison.

A lot of us have spent a lot of time and effort working at the State level. That is why we now have 40 States with shall issue and 13 with some form of permit free carry.

But you keep banging out your trite little responses about "daddy" this or "daddy" that. I believe the 2nd amendment actually means something, as does the 14th. Congress has full authority to protect gun owners from felony charges in States hostile to our rights, just as it has full authority to ensure that racial minorities' rights to vote are not abridged by areas full of racial bigots.

Would you oppose a bill from Congress or a ruling from the SCOTUS that said every State had to recognize the 2nd Amd RKBA fully and completely without requiring any permit at all?
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
I actually do obey the law(s) (including not violating trespass law by ... sneaking... my gun in where the property owner has a no gun rule/policy thinking it's OK as long as I don't get caught)

I too obey all applicable laws. And before making sideways accusations about violating trespass laws, you might familiarize yourself with Utah's commercial trespass laws. Discreetly ignoring a private, anti-gun policy at a commercial business is no more a violation of our commercial trespass laws than is declining to let a Walmart greeter check your receipt on the way out the door or popping into a nice restaurant to make a reservation despite not currently wearing the coat and tie that their signage says is required of all customers.

Your descend into snide accusations strongly suggests to me that you are no longer dealing with honest disagreement over national laws, but are engaging in personality issues. That is a very small minded thing to do. Platitudes about a nice day notwithstanding. Mature adults do not so conduct themselves, IMO, and my $0.02 worth. (in case meaningless platitudes turn insults into permissible postings)
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,315
Location
here nc
I too obey all applicable laws. snipp...

Discreetly ignoring a private, anti-gun policy at a commercial business is no more a violation of our commercial trespass laws than is declining to let a Walmart greeter check your receipt on the way out the door...

snippp...

piper how did you word it in your 11 June 15 post:
quote: I don't OC in Costco. But I am often casual enough about my "concealing" that unless we want to accept that nobody notices a poorly concealed gun, my firearm has been noticed in Costco.

http://vb.opencarry.org/forums/show...highlight=private+property+rights,+utbagpiper

yes that is this individual's definition of discreetly...(it is ask me!)

as for your comparison between poorly concealing a firearm where you have specifically signed a contract with the costco enterprise stating you would abide by their policies and ignoring Walmart's recently instituted policy regarding showing your receipt on departure from the store which you didn't contractually agree to is like comparing kumquats with watermelons.
 
Last edited:
B

Bikenut

Guest
Originally Posted by Bikenut

Judging by the times of my post and your reply to my post I only had to wait 16 minutes for yet another argument defending asking "Daddy" to be "allowed" complete with ridicule and insults exactly as I, and others, have come to expect from you.

And only 5 minutes after that for you to respond just as I predicted. You didn't even have time to read my verbose post and digest it. Just to bang out another trite response.

I'm not asking feds for permission. I'm expecting them to take a first step to enforcing the 2nd and 14th amendments.
If you support national reciprocity you are asking for Daddy's permission.

Nice to see you admit your posts are verbose. Sad to see you ass u me that it must take those of less than stellar intellect than yourself more than 5 minutes to see through said verbose response.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
B

Bikenut

Guest
Originally Posted by Bikenut
Here is a workable path from someone you might consider a purist:
If folks want their carry permits to be recognized in all 50 States the way their driver licenses are recognized it would be much better to work with the individual States and get them to enter into an agreement among themselves like they did with driver licenses than it would be to beg for yet another level of government oversight and control by getting Daddy Fed involved. But that takes time, effort, and money from individuals while begging Daddy Fed would be fast and cheap by comparison.
A lot of us have spent a lot of time and effort working at the State level. That is why we now have 40 States with shall issue and 13 with some form of permit free carry.

But you keep banging out your trite little responses about "daddy" this or "daddy" that. I believe the 2nd amendment actually means something, as does the 14th. Congress has full authority to protect gun owners from felony charges in States hostile to our rights, just as it has full authority to ensure that racial minorities' rights to vote are not abridged by areas full of racial bigots.

Would you oppose a bill from Congress or a ruling from the SCOTUS that said every State had to recognize the 2nd Amd RKBA fully and completely without requiring any permit at all?
Yes a lot of US! have, and still do, spend a lot of time, effort, and money fighting gun control laws on the State level.

And if you cannot understand that begging the Federal government for permission is similar to begging Daddy for permission to stay out late then you just keep on posting those verbose dissertations that amount to very little of import and contain a great deal of thinly veiled .... dis.

Your concept that Congress has full authority to protect gun owners from felony charges in States hostile to our rights IS expecting someone with more authority (Daddy) than the States to give yet another privilege in exchange for handing the Federal government more power to oversee and control carrying across State lines.

If you have the right then you don't need permission from the States or the Feds. If you have to ask for permission then you don't have the ability to exercise the right without suffering punishment from the very entity that is giving permission. And asking a bigger Daddy with more authority than the Daddy States for permission is not a road to ending that permission scheme of the States. All it does is trade one Daddy for another.

I would/will not support any Federal action that only further erodes the right to bear arms but I would/will support each and every State getting rid of their carry permit schemes through the actions of local activists.

And trying to justify handing Daddy Fed the authority to control carry permits by comparing national reciprocity to racism is a not unexpected attempt to play the race card. If you have to go that route you have, at least for me, lowered yourself to the level of all those who play the race card.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top