The double standard

[fjpro2a]

Why is there such an uproar about the confusion that would be caused by a few States having slightly different laws concerning illegal immigration enforcement, but not a care in the world about the myriad gun laws that exist in the 50 States? With the millions of different gun laws, you are breaking the law in one State, but not breaking it in another. This exists in almost all States, Counties, Municipalities. Let's work towards getting a good (excellent) National Gun law that recognizes open carry, concealed carry, etc. The only exception I can think of is if an owner of private property posts a sign prohibiting firearms in his establishment. He has the right to post the sign and we have the right to picket. See how easy it is?

 

[Brion]

I'm all for all states to recognize the constitution for what it says and allow everyone to keep and bear arms. However to force all states into one national gun law and regulation removes the states rights argument. That's honestly the major problem with the immigration talks. It's the National Government tryint to tell the State what they are doing is wrong. If I were the gov. of Texas/Arizona/New Mexico/California I'd tell Obama and his cronies on camera to **** off.

 

[Uber_Olafsun]

In the gun case it would not be the Feds telling the states it would be the constitution telling them which they are supposed to listen to. Immigration is a federal thing but the Feds have not only dropped the ball but forgotten what sport they are playing.

 

[Brion]

Just because it's a federal thing doesn't mean in CAN'T be a state thing. The nation says 21 is the drinking age, but it's the state that enforces it. When you become a national citizen, you become a citizen of said state you got citizenship in.

National Guard is actually the State Guard, and the Gov. of each state can call them in to do whatever work he deems appropriate. I'm willing to call the border a state of emergency...

Illegals, GTFO!

 

[skidmark]

If you think about it, you understand why there are so many that do not want a national firearms carry law. Amomg other things, the feds are just not known to be your friend regarding anything, and especially not about guns.

I'll deal with the major and minor differences between the various laws across the states, thank you very much. At least that way the folks who live there have a chance to say something about them without the interference of all the folks from the other 56 states. While people who own guns may be a significant portion of the population they are by no means the majority, and the number who are actively involved in either fighting against further encroachment of our rights or actually regaining some of those rights currently encroached against is a monority of the total number of gun owners.

More importantly, I do not want the majority of peoplefrom some place like California telling me what to do here where I live in "not-California".

So, please, stop asking for federal firearm laws. Look at what we have gotten by that route so far and explain why any of it is good.

stay safe.

 

[Grapeshot]

.....snip.....
When you become a national citizen, you become a citizen of said state you got citizenship in.

You may be a citizen by birth or by legal process of the United States. There is no "citizenship" of any state.

 

[OldCurlyWolf]

You may be a citizen by birth or by legal process of the United States. There is no "citizenship" of any state.

Maybe not Virginia, it is a Commonwealth, but say that in many states further west and it could quite possibly end with your person leaking some blood in a non fatal way. It is not an opinion I recommend being vocal about.:cuss:

 

[RetiredOC]

Let's work towards getting a good (excellent) National Gun law that recognizes open carry, concealed carry, etc.

We have one.

 

[JamesCanby]

Maybe not Virginia, it is a Commonwealth, but say that in many states further west and it could quite possibly end with your person leaking some blood in a non fatal way. It is not an opinion I recommend being vocal about.:cuss:

Seriously? I am a citizen of the United States that happens to live in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Before I moved here, I resided in the State of Maryland. Where I live does not make me a citizen of that jurisdiction, because I am a citizen of the United States. I may be subject to my current jurisdiction's laws, but my rights as a citizen devolve from the U.S Constitution. When I travel in Europe, my passport says that I am a United States citizen, not a Virginian.

Make no mistake -- I am very happy residing in Virginia, especially as that residency gives me more freedom concerning my right to keep and bear arms compared to my former residence... but no matter where I live in this great country, I am, first and foremost, a U.S. citizen.

 

[OldCurlyWolf]

Seriously? I am a citizen of the United States that happens to live in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Before I moved here, I resided in the State of Maryland. Where I live does not make me a citizen of that jurisdiction, because I am a citizen of the United States. I may be subject to my current jurisdiction's laws, but my rights as a citizen devolve from the U.S Constitution. When I travel in Europe, my passport says that I am a United States citizen, not a Virginian.

Make no mistake -- I am very happy residing in Virginia, especially as that residency gives me more freedom concerning my right to keep and bear arms compared to my former residence... but no matter where I live in this great country, I am, first and foremost, a U.S. citizen.

ROTFLMAO. I was stating something so different from what you read, it is nearly on a different planet.

You have absolutely ZERO understanding of the people who live in the western (not the Left Coast) states. I suggest you go back and re-read both the post I quoted and what I wrote. You should probably do it very S L O W L Y. Possibly only one word at a time.

:lol:

 

[skidmark]

You are both right - or at least you are both correct.

One of the great tests of citizenship is - or used to be - the franchise to vote. Because you are a citizen of the nation you get to vote in the national elections. Because you are a citizen of the state* you get to vote in the state elections. Because you are a citizen of the municipality you get to vote in their elections.

* At one time "the state" (emphasis on the small-"s"-ness of "state") used to be the defining issue as these were the United states. Nowadays the emphasis seems to be on the plurality of the United States. We can thank, among many others, Mr. Lincoln for not preserving but actually creating the Union we now have, as opposed to the union we used to enjoy.

Yes, some of the states located West of New Yawk City are putting a lot more emphasis on the 10th Amendment than it used to get. But how all that ties in with whether or not we want a national handgun carry permit, based on a national law, often escapes me. The best I can come up with in tying the two together is that each state asserting its own soverignty while at the same time equally respecting the soverignty of all the other states should, at least in theory, give us coast-to-coast carry based on the permit our home state issued to us. Heck, they do it with drivers licenses and automobiles kill and maim more people each year than do all non-military/non-LEO firearms. (I started to write "civillian" but LEO falls under that heading, doesn't it?)

stay safe.

 

[user]

ROTFLMAO. I was stating something so different from what you read, it is nearly on a different planet.

You have absolutely ZERO understanding of the people who live in the western (not the Left Coast) states. I suggest you go back and re-read both the post I quoted and what I wrote. You should probably do it very S L O W L Y. Possibly only one word at a time.

:lol:

Well, Maryland is another planet, isn't it? The problem, I think, is that Maryland culture isn't the same as Virginia culture, and people raised in one place have trouble adapting to life in the other. Sort of like moving from Scotland to Wales - they have things in common, but they're worlds apart, culturally.

I've always seen myself as a citizen of the U.S. by reason of my Virginia citizenship, not the other way around. Virginia is my native land. The United States is a legal abstraction. And Maryland is another planet.

 

[Freedom First]

You are both right - or at least you are both correct.

One of the great tests of citizenship is - or used to be - the franchise to vote. Because you are a citizen of the nation you get to vote in the national elections. Because you are a citizen of the state* you get to vote in the state elections. Because you are a citizen of the municipality you get to vote in their elections.

* At one time "the state" (emphasis on the small-"s"-ness of "state") used to be the defining issue as these were the United states. Nowadays the emphasis seems to be on the plurality of the United States. We can thank, among many others, Mr. Lincoln for not preserving but actually creating the Union we now have, as opposed to the union we used to enjoy.

Yes, some of the states located West of New Yawk City are putting a lot more emphasis on the 10th Amendment than it used to get. But how all that ties in with whether or not we want a national handgun carry permit, based on a national law, often escapes me. The best I can come up with in tying the two together is that each state asserting its own soverignty while at the same time equally respecting the soverignty of all the other states should, at least in theory, give us coast-to-coast carry based on the permit our home state issued to us. Heck, they do it with drivers licenses and automobiles kill and maim more people each year than do all non-military/non-LEO firearms. (I started to write "civillian" but LEO falls under that heading, doesn't it?)

stay safe.

Good stuff Skid,

The farther the authority resides from the people, the less power those in authority should hold over the people. And DC is a long way from my house.

 

[hammer6]

Why is there such an uproar about the confusion that would be caused by a few States having slightly different laws concerning illegal immigration enforcement, but not a care in the world about the myriad gun laws that exist in the 50 States? With the millions of different gun laws, you are breaking the law in one State, but not breaking it in another. This exists in almost all States, Counties, Municipalities. Let's work towards getting a good (excellent) National Gun law that recognizes open carry, concealed carry, etc. The only exception I can think of is if an owner of private property posts a sign prohibiting firearms in his establishment. He has the right to post the sign and we have the right to picket. See how easy it is?

it's because the federal government recognizes the immigration law, but not the 2nd amendment. (by recognize immigration law i mean: they don't want anyone to do anything about it on their own)

technically, states can't make a law that overrides federal law, because the constitution is supreme. but on the other hand, no one cares about the RKBA, so the states do what they wish...

IF however, each state freely allowed one form of carry: unlicensed CC or OC, and then regulated the other, then that would be in compliance. right now, i think there's only 12 or 13 that do that....

 

[OldCurlyWolf]

Skidmark understands.

 

[since9]

I'm all for all states to recognize the constitution for what it says and allow everyone to keep and bear arms. However to force all states into one national gun law and regulation removes the states rights argument.

When you go back and read the contemporary writings of those who had a say in the contents of our Bill of Rights, you find that their intent was indeed to prevent the states from disarming the people. Our Founding Fathers realized that some state governments were ok with an armed citizenry so long as the need for one was immediate, but preferred a disarmed populace at all other times. The FF knew that a disarmed citizenry would lead to increased crime, government abuses, greater likelihood of attack, and civil unrest. Thus, back in the day when Senators were appointed by state legislatures, they amended our Constitution such that Congress would no longer be able to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms. They hoped the states would follow suit, and many did, with nearly identical verbiage in their own constitutions.

 

[SavageOne]

The Justice Dept. is against ineffective laws?

A federal judge just suspended an AL immigration law. The link is to an AP story. The Justice Dept. is one group who has filed suit against the law. One of the points of contention is the fact that the law would require proof of citizenship before a child could enroll in school. What caught my eye was the last line of the story. "Officials say it wouldn't prevent illegal immigrants from attending public school".

If officials of the Justice Dept. are so concerned about laws that won't prevent what they are intended for, why are they not fighting all the gun control measures on the books?



http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...ME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-08-29-15-04-10