• 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.
  • 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.

Let us please,not get caught up in National Resprosity again.

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
6,774
Location
here nc
#21
wow, one must wonder if the burr/hamilton duel started off so genteelly, good day to you burr, and back attcha hamilton?

1547076146943.png
 

Ghost1958

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2015
Messages
113
Location
Kentucky
#22
No. I'll include the part I'm addressing, including contextual surrounding. Nothing more.

You do not get to dictate how others respond to your posts, OC for ME. What do you think this is? Your personal kingdom? It's a message forum! Please treat others here accordingly, with the respect they deserve.



No. Cherry-picking, also known as the fallacy of incomplete evidence, is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position. It has little or nothing to do with responding to individual segments of a person's post on a message forum. I will admit, however, that it can certainly seem that way if when one person is providing salient argument and the other continually ignores the argument, instead choosing bits and pieces at which to either poke fun or worse, denigrate the other person.



Absolutely.



To paraphrase, you opine that national reciprocity is the feds attempt to negate/undermine/bypass/circumvent our Second Amendment in order to regulate either CC, OC, or both via law enforcement.

IF that were actually the fed's goal, then absolutely, that would be a clear violation of "the supreme Law of the Land."

Where you and I disagree, OC for ME, is that you assume any bill supporting national reciprocity would, absolutely, be used to govern carry, to turn it into a privilege.

I vehemently disagree, for a number of reasons.

I happen to know a (small) number of members of Congress personally. I happen to know how they really feel about our Second Amendment and gun control.

I know that some would like to ban firearms altogether, wrongly believing inanimate objects themselves are responsible for violence and that a ban would solve violent crime. These people are incapable of learning from history, much less observing ongoing factual evidence.

I know that some are for increasing gun control while others are for reducing it.

I know that some support very limited gun control in certain, exceptional circumstances.

And I know one or two would be very happy with either bills or court decisions that made it a crime to interfere with anyone's right to keep and bear arms in any way.

The point is, OC for ME, you cannot dismiss all legislature based on preconceived notions. You have to look at the bill. You have to examine it's wording, it's sponsors. A reciprocity bill could be used as another venue. But it could also be directed solely towards enforcing the Constitutional rights of the people by reaffirming the 2nd, 9th, and 10th amendments.

I strongly disagree with anyone who automatically shoots from the hip merely because something could be used for ignoble purpose. After all, consider what you're carrying on your hip. Consider how the antis feel about that. Your approach to a national reciprocity bill is precisely the same approach as the antis towards your firearm: Oooh! It's bad! Get rid of it!

I'm serious, OC for ME: You're approaching reciprocity bills with the same degree of misunderstanding, ignorance, and vehement hate that haters approach the idea of citizens carrying firearms.

You're also assuming that I would support any reciprocity bill. Absolutely not true. I would support a bill that enforced our 2A rights. I would oppose any bill that attempted use this as a means to degrade our 2A rights, morph our rights into privileges, or increase local, county, state, or federal authority as to who, what, when, where, how, or why we carry.

Quite the opposite.

Nor do I make the mistake of assuming that just because a bill is entitled "national reciprocity" that it will always trend towards the worst. That's a highly unrealistic and pessimistic tack.

I believe if it was written by Representative Pelosi or Senator Feinstein, that would almost certainly be true. However, if it was written by someone who respects the Second Amendment as it is written, that would almost certainly be false.

Now, would such a bill get off the ground in today's Congress? No. Perhaps if power shifts back in 2020. We'll see.

Written properly, a national reciprocity bill could just as easily be a 2A-protective measure that essentially tells the states to stop violating everyone's Constitutional rights and freedoms, and as a federal regulation governing the protection of Constitutional rights, it carries penalties for states and persons within the state who violate it. I see it operating on the same principle as anti-discrimination laws in the workplace which give discrimination victims access to the courts for suits against law-violating businesses.



The feds have already done that on many levels, most notably, anti-discrimination laws as I previously mentioned.



Sorry, OC for ME, but once again, you do not get to dictate how others manage their posts. In the case of the snippet of which you speak, no, that was not from you, nor did I attribute it to you (see enclosed graphic). But it's my choice, not yours, as to whether or not I choose to reply to multiple posters in my post.



Have a nice day, OC for ME. Or not. Your choice.

Trouble is the Fed can't penalize a state or city for ignoring a federal NR law anymore than they can for being sanctuary cities or states

Fed has no constitutional authority to force a state to recognize it's decrees.

That is simply how it is And even the Fed acknowledges it.
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,749
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
#23
"The theory of nullification has never been legally upheld by federal courts."

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullification_(U.S._Constitution)

Examples:

Between 1798 and the beginning of the Civil War in 1861, several states threatened or attempted nullification of various federal laws. None of these efforts were legally upheld. The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions were rejected by the other states. The Supreme Court rejected nullification attempts in a series of decisions in the 19th century, including Ableman v. Booth, which rejected Wisconsin's attempt to nullify the Fugitive Slave Act. The Civil War ended most nullification efforts.

In the 1950s, southern states attempted to use nullification and interposition to prevent integration of their schools. These attempts failed when the Supreme Court again rejected nullification in Cooper v. Aaron, explicitly holding that the states may not nullify federal law.
 

Ghost1958

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2015
Messages
113
Location
Kentucky
#24
"The theory of nullification has never been legally upheld by federal courts."

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullification_(U.S._Constitution)

Examples:

Between 1798 and the beginning of the Civil War in 1861, several states threatened or attempted nullification of various federal laws. None of these efforts were legally upheld. The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions were rejected by the other states. The Supreme Court rejected nullification attempts in a series of decisions in the 19th century, including Ableman v. Booth, which rejected Wisconsin's attempt to nullify the Fugitive Slave Act. The Civil War ended most nullification efforts.

In the 1950s, southern states attempted to use nullification and interposition to prevent integration of their schools. These attempts failed when the Supreme Court again rejected nullification in Cooper v. Aaron, explicitly holding that the states may not nullify federal law.
Correct. But that's a different thing entirely.

As all thru our history abd settled case law.

A state my refuse to recognise or enforce any Federal law it wishes.

Now. Federal LE can come into that state and enforce federal law and the State cant stop them.

But at no time in no location can the Fed require a state to enforce federal law if it does not wish too.

A recent example is Sanctuary cities.

ICE can enforce fed law in say CA.

But CA nor any state county or city unit of gov in it can be forced by the fed to enforce fed law. Or recognize it.

The state is not "nullifying " anything. It is simply exercising it's constitutional right to not recognize nor enforce said fed decree.

As anti gun states WILL do with a NR decree.
 

KBCraig

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
4,563
Location
Granite State of Mind
#25
A recent example is Sanctuary cities.

ICE can enforce fed law in say CA.

But CA nor any state county or city unit of gov in it can be forced by the fed to enforce fed law. Or recognize it.

The state is not "nullifying " anything. It is simply exercising it's constitutional right to not recognize nor enforce said fed decree.

As anti gun states WILL do with a NR decree.
I've been trying to convince my fellow NH state representatives of this.

Some are all in on a bill to "ban sanctuary cities". I keep asking them: how do you ban not doing something that they're under no legal obligation to do? And do you really want to set that precedent of forcing local government to enforce federal issues *ahem*bumpstocks*ahem*?
 

Ghost1958

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2015
Messages
113
Location
Kentucky
#26
I've been trying to convince my fellow NH state representatives of this.

Some are all in on a bill to "ban sanctuary cities". I keep asking them: how do you ban not doing something that they're under no legal obligation to do? And do you really want to set that precedent of forcing local government to enforce federal issues *ahem*bumpstocks*ahem*?
Some conservative reps are pandering to voters who don't know any better.

The fed trying to force a state to recognize or enforce fed law is unconstitutional.
Any law passed trying to enable the fed to do so would be tossed out on the first court challenge on constitutional grounds.

As it should be.

Side note. Any state that wished too could ignore and not enforce the bump stock ban.
 

Top