User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 12/2/2016 9:38:14 PM EDT
[#1]
Slippery slope time. Your driver's license gives you the legal permission to operate a motor vehicle in any state in the Union, but you still have to obey the laws of that state. National reciprocity would end up the same way. States like New York or California, or the District of Columbia could easily pass legislation stating that it's against the law to have any ammunition within five feet of your firearm, and it would have to go through a Constitutionality challenge.
Constitutional Carry is the only real answer. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2016 9:38:34 PM EDT
[#2]
The same way drivers licenses are good in all states.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2016 9:40:25 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The Bill of Rights applies to all the states, not just the good ones. And the cities with their shitty laws, too. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2016 9:42:18 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Horseshit. Then why have State Constitutions if everyone has to obey the very same shit that the mob wants? And why have State Constitutions if the Supreme Clause is fucking supreme? God da-da-damn public education for the last 75 years. If you get married in OK, you are regarded as married in every state of the union. Get divorced in CT, you're divorced all over. Get a judgment against a deadbeat in Fla., you can domesticate the judgment in CA and go after him there. If you get convicted of a felony in Georgia, you're a convicted felon in Alabama, too. If the GA governor pardons you, you're pardoned in Alabama as well. That's what it means. It doesn't mean that the speed limit on 2-lane rural highways is 35 mph everywhere because it is in Michigan. Note: There is some question whether you're ranting about the Full Faith & Credit Clause or the Supremacy Clause. I assumed it was the former. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2016 9:43:21 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not sad. And does the recognition of my states rights supersede the states laws to where I am traveling? I can carry in banks in GA, I travel to NC right now and carrying in banks is illegal. Must NC recognize my states' lack of laws that allows me to carry in banks? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
It's sad that this has to be explained so many times, even on this site. Not sad. And does the recognition of my states rights supersede the states laws to where I am traveling? I can carry in banks in GA, I travel to NC right now and carrying in banks is illegal. Must NC recognize my states' lack of laws that allows me to carry in banks? So your state passed no law prohibiting carry in banks, but another state did, and you're having trouble distinguishing which state had a right to do one of those two things? Holy shit, man, this isn't hard. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2016 9:43:34 PM EDT
[#6]
The states should follow the Constitution. No infringing the rights stated there.
So, which is wrong? Forcing the states to recognize and follow the Constitution? Or allowing states to pick and choose which Constitutional rights they feel like "granting" their subjects? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2016 9:44:26 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Slippery slope time. Your driver's license gives you the legal permission to operate a motor vehicle in any state in the Union, but you still have to obey the laws of that state. National reciprocity would end up the same way. States like New York or California, or the District of Columbia could easily pass legislation stating that it's against the law to have any ammunition within five feet of your firearm, and it would have to go through a Constitutionality challenge. Constitutional Carry is the only real answer. Note that that would apply to Don Perata, Bloomberg, and the like as well. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2016 9:56:46 PM EDT
[#8]
I've been wary of national reciprocity as well.
Obviously it sounds like a great idea, but it's probably unconstitutional and it sets a terrible precedent. If California started issuing medical marijuana cards, should other states where people opposed marijuana legalization now be required to honor them? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2016 10:10:59 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
OP got off that silly National ID talk fast.  Not necessarily, I could still see that as being part of the compromise- Get all states to have the same training requirements, get the ID to prove you have met the federal requirements, boom- federal ID or t least federally backed ID. The information is still there. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2016 10:11:33 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I've been wary of national reciprocity as well. Obviously it sounds like a great idea, but it's probably unconstitutional and it sets a terrible precedent. If California started issuing medical marijuana cards, should other states where people opposed marijuana legalization now be required to honor them? Wait, your argument is that because drugs are illegal in some states, that states should have the right to prohibit carrying a firearm in that state? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2016 10:12:50 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not necessarily, I could still see that as being part of the compromise- Get all states to have the same training requirements, get the ID to prove you have met the federal requirements, boom- federal ID or t least federally backed ID. The information is still there. That's your compromise... not National Reciprocity. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2016 10:29:15 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Wait, your argument is that because drugs are illegal in some states, that states should have the right to prohibit carrying a firearm in that state? Are YOU high? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2016 10:35:04 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Wait, your argument is that because drugs are illegal in some states, that states should have the right to prohibit carrying a firearm in that state? And even though marijuana is protected under the BOR, it is still illegal in some states. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2016 10:35:17 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Are YOU high? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Wait, your argument is that because drugs are illegal in some states, that states should have the right to prohibit carrying a firearm in that state? Are YOU high? For arguing in favor of the rights of the people? Apparently. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2016 10:36:52 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Shall not be infringed/thread. this. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2016 10:40:57 PM EDT
[#16]
National carry is not good it will lead to national registration which leads to confiscation
This current political situation will only last 4-8 years. we must remain paranoid and prepared to fight |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2016 10:41:11 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Marijuana is protected under the BOR in spite of the fact that the federal government illegally restricted it. And even though marijuana is protected under the BOR, it is still illegal in some states. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Wait, your argument is that because drugs are illegal in some states, that states should have the right to prohibit carrying a firearm in that state? And even though marijuana is protected under the BOR, it is still illegal in some states. And shouldn't be illegal. I am fairly certain that criminalizing a simple plant isn't a 'right'... which means that this isn't a discussion about states' rights. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2016 10:43:12 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
National carry is not good it will lead to national registration which leads to confiscation This current political situation will only last 4-8 years. we must remain paranoid and prepared to fight "The federal government telling one state to 'fuck off' when it comes to not recognizing another state's legal process" is what we're talking about, not some registration scheme. Do you see the difference? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2016 10:46:42 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not necessarily, I could still see that as being part of the compromise- Get all states to have the same training requirements, get the ID to prove you have met the federal requirements, boom- federal ID or t least federally backed ID. The information is still there. Dude, Your hallucination is not a part of any grownups discussion on this issue. Literally no where and nobody has tried to bring a Nation ID card into the bills that have been written. You have made this up from nothing. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2016 10:46:49 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And shouldn't be illegal. I am fairly certain that criminalizing a simple plant isn't a 'right'... which means that this isn't a discussion about states' rights. This is in spite of the fact that the BOR protects marijuana. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2016 10:49:33 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
National carry is not good it will lead to national registration which leads to confiscation This current political situation will only last 4-8 years. we must remain paranoid and prepared to fight Nobody is talking about National Carry. We are trying to go with National Reciprocity. Big difference, educate yourself please and a hearty WELCOME to Wyoming.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2016 10:52:02 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The powers of the states are not derived from the Constitution. The states are older than the Constitution and created it. The states have the power to regulate guns because they are organic political entities with police powers. These powers are to some degree limited by the 2dAm and 14thAm incorporation. To illustrate, a state has the inherent power to outlaw misuse of guns throughout its territory. The federal government only has such power to the extent (if any) given by the Constitution and in places under specific federal jurisdiction. Thank you, this is rarely understood here. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2016 10:52:33 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I am not aware (could be ignorance, not being a smartass) of the Federal Law that says each state must recognize the drivers licenses of other states. Does it exist, or is it a handshake thing? It's not Federal law it is Article 4, section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, it's the reason why your drivers licenses are good everywhere in the U.S. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2016 10:53:40 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The Bill of Rights applies to all the states, not just the good ones. yeahp |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2016 10:54:09 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Can NC limit your 1st A rights or any other right? We are trained to look at the 2nd differently than other rights. Amazin inidint. we are noy TRAINED the 1st is designated "broad interpretation " the 2nd is not 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2016 10:57:01 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
WTF is this National ID of which you speak? National Reciprocity means a State must recognize another States carry permit. Don't like then don't get your States permit. The end state is full constitutional carry for all Americans but we will need to take a bite at a time. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I am all for being able to carry everywhere in America. Doesn't NATLRECPRCTY just mean that States' elected officials that banned CCW or reciprocity or ANYTHING can just be TRUMPed by the Feds? Don't even get me started on the NATIONAL ID that will be issued to us to allow us to carry freely cross borders if it passes. Do you even Registration BRO? You don't want your guns registered because registration leads to confiscation, but somehow your National ID that says you own a firearm somehow will never lead to confiscation once they are back in power? Do you not think blue helmets or any force would not use this new ID to track you down and take your freedom away? I have my own ways in dealing with National Reciprocity- those states don't get my tourist dollars. WTF is this National ID of which you speak? National Reciprocity means a State must recognize another States carry permit. Don't like then don't get your States permit. The end state is full constitutional carry for all Americans but we will need to take a bite at a time. FPNI. States recognize each other's drivers licenses. You're connecting dots that don't exist OP. End thread. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2016 11:00:00 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And in my opinion marijuana shouldn't be illegal, but that's irrelevant. The fact is, the federal government DOES NOT have the authority to restrict marijuana, and individual states DO have the authority to restrict marijuana. This is in spite of the fact that the BOR protects marijuana. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
And shouldn't be illegal. I am fairly certain that criminalizing a simple plant isn't a 'right'... which means that this isn't a discussion about states' rights. This is in spite of the fact that the BOR protects marijuana. Really? You've got to be trolling. There's no way in hell you believe that a simple majority of people have the right to kill or imprison the minority over a plant. My neighbor doesn't have the right. My neighborhood doesn't have the right. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2016 11:02:09 PM EDT
[#28]
Abortion.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2016 11:04:22 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Really? You've got to be trolling. There's no way in hell you believe that a simple majority of people have the right to kill or imprison the minority over a plant. My neighbor doesn't have the right. My neighborhood doesn't have the right. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
And shouldn't be illegal. I am fairly certain that criminalizing a simple plant isn't a 'right'... which means that this isn't a discussion about states' rights. This is in spite of the fact that the BOR protects marijuana. Really? You've got to be trolling. There's no way in hell you believe that a simple majority of people have the right to kill or imprison the minority over a plant. My neighbor doesn't have the right. My neighborhood doesn't have the right. What are you talking about? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2016 11:06:47 PM EDT
[#30]
So, you see, the puppy was like industry. In that, they were both lost in the woods. And nobody, especially the little boy - "society" - knew where to find 'em. Except that the puppy was a dog. But the industry, my friends, that was a revolution.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2016 11:09:32 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Really? You've got to be trolling. There's no way in hell you believe that a simple majority of people have the right to kill or imprison the minority over a plant. My neighbor doesn't have the right. My neighborhood doesn't have the right. Since the federal government is given no authority to restrict marijuana under the constitution, it is up to each state or to the people. If the people in an individual state support the restriction of marijuana and give the state government the authority to restrict marijuana, the state government has the authority to restrict marijuana. If you don't like it, you can always move to a state that doesn't ban marijuana. The states are a lab. States can learn from the successes and failures in other states. I believe that over time more states will naturally gravitate towards marijuana legalization. But states absolutely do retain the authority to restrict "a plant" if the people in the state give the state government the authority to restrict it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2016 11:13:16 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The Bill of Rights applies to all the states, not just the good ones. This right here. The BOR is a list of shit that tells the gov what it can and cant do and applies to all 50 states. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed means exactly that. The term shall is slowly being replaced the word "may" in legal circles, so therefore, the right to keep and bear arms may not be infringed (restricted, limited, curbed, checked, violated, transgressed). Any state or federal law that restricts firearm ownership and carry is in violation of the constitution. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2016 11:22:19 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Note that that would apply to Don Perata, Bloomberg, and the like as well. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Slippery slope time. Your driver's license gives you the legal permission to operate a motor vehicle in any state in the Union, but you still have to obey the laws of that state. National reciprocity would end up the same way. States like New York or California, or the District of Columbia could easily pass legislation stating that it's against the law to have any ammunition within five feet of your firearm, and it would have to go through a Constitutionality challenge. Constitutional Carry is the only real answer. Note that that would apply to Don Perata, Bloomberg, and the like as well. Except for the age-old doctrine of "One rule for thee, a different rule for me..." |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2016 12:29:19 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I am not aware (could be ignorance, not being a smartass) of the Federal Law that says each state must recognize the drivers licenses of other states. Does it exist, or is it a handshake thing? Already posted earlier by FLAL1A, the full faith and credit clause of the constitution proper: Article IV, S.1 USC: Section 1 "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof." Under the Full Faith & Credit Clause, Congress could require that any state which issues CCWs must honor CCWs issued by other states. I assume that the restrictions of the receiving state (e.g., no carrying in bars) would apply to out of state carriers, but since NY issues CCWs to big shots, it would have to recognize Joe Shit the Ragman's OK CCW just as it recognizes its own. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2016 12:39:21 AM EDT
[#35]
Quoted:
I am all for being able to carry everywhere in America. Doesn't NATLRECPRCTY just mean that States' elected officials that banned CCW or reciprocity or ANYTHING can just be TRUMPed by the Don't even get me started on the NATIONAL ID that will be issued to us to allow us to carry freely cross borders if it passes. Do you even Registration BRO? You don't want your guns registered because registration leads to confiscation, but somehow your National ID that says you own a firearm somehow will never lead to confiscation once they are back in power? Do you not think blue helmets or any force would not use this new ID to track you down and take your freedom away? I have my own ways in dealing with National Reciprocity- those states don't get my tourist dollars.  But then I think that any legal citizen should be allow to carry anywhere on public property with no permit.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2016 2:37:00 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Amendment 10 - The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Since the federal government is given no authority to restrict marijuana under the constitution, it is up to each state or to the people. If the people in an individual state support the restriction of marijuana and give the state government the authority to restrict marijuana, the state government has the authority to restrict marijuana. If you don't like it, you can always move to a state that doesn't ban marijuana. The states are a lab. States can learn from the successes and failures in other states. I believe that over time more states will naturally gravitate towards marijuana legalization. But states absolutely do retain the authority to restrict "a plant" if the people in the state give the state government the authority to restrict it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Really? You've got to be trolling. There's no way in hell you believe that a simple majority of people have the right to kill or imprison the minority over a plant. My neighbor doesn't have the right. My neighborhood doesn't have the right. Since the federal government is given no authority to restrict marijuana under the constitution, it is up to each state or to the people. If the people in an individual state support the restriction of marijuana and give the state government the authority to restrict marijuana, the state government has the authority to restrict marijuana. If you don't like it, you can always move to a state that doesn't ban marijuana. The states are a lab. States can learn from the successes and failures in other states. I believe that over time more states will naturally gravitate towards marijuana legalization. But states absolutely do retain the authority to restrict "a plant" if the people in the state give the state government the authority to restrict it. What authority? What authority does someone have to kill or imprison someone else over... a plant? Hint, they don't. Of course, since people don't have that authority, they cannot give that non-existent authority to the state. It's simple. It doesn't matter how many neighbors I get to follow me: I don't have the right to incarcerate you simply because you possessed a plant. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2016 2:57:17 AM EDT
[#37]
You know what I like? The fact that we can have meaningful conversations about real issues plaguing society, instead of meme wars about Hillary's saggy old ass. MAGA!!!!!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2016 3:21:19 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What authority? What authority does someone have to kill or imprison someone else over... a plant? Hint, they don't. Of course, since people don't have that authority, they cannot give that non-existent authority to the state. It's simple. It doesn't matter how many neighbors I get to follow me: I don't have the right to incarcerate you simply because you possessed a plant. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Really? You've got to be trolling. There's no way in hell you believe that a simple majority of people have the right to kill or imprison the minority over a plant. My neighbor doesn't have the right. My neighborhood doesn't have the right. Since the federal government is given no authority to restrict marijuana under the constitution, it is up to each state or to the people. If the people in an individual state support the restriction of marijuana and give the state government the authority to restrict marijuana, the state government has the authority to restrict marijuana. If you don't like it, you can always move to a state that doesn't ban marijuana. The states are a lab. States can learn from the successes and failures in other states. I believe that over time more states will naturally gravitate towards marijuana legalization. But states absolutely do retain the authority to restrict "a plant" if the people in the state give the state government the authority to restrict it. What authority? What authority does someone have to kill or imprison someone else over... a plant? Hint, they don't. Of course, since people don't have that authority, they cannot give that non-existent authority to the state. It's simple. It doesn't matter how many neighbors I get to follow me: I don't have the right to incarcerate you simply because you possessed a plant. Do I personally think Marijuana should be illegal? No. But according to the rules set by the Constitution, states (unlike the federal government) can restrict it. Nothing is preventing you from moving to a state that has legalized marijuana. If you want it to be legal in MS, then start contacting your representatives. If you think every state should be required to legalize marijuana, then push for a constitutional amendment that gives the federal govt the authority to force states to legalize it. Other than that, your only options are to deal with it, move to a country with legal marijuana and less economic freedom, or move to an unincorporated island in the pacific where there are no laws. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2016 3:27:16 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
As residents of the United States, we all live in states that are supposed to adhere to their respective state constitutions. We also live in a nation that has a federal govt that is supposed to adhere to the US constitution. Do I personally think Marijuana should be illegal? No. But according to the rules set by the Constitution, states (unlike the federal government) can restrict it. Nothing is preventing you from moving to a state that has legalized marijuana. If you want it to be legal in MS, then start contacting your representatives. If you think every state should be required to legalize marijuana, then push for a constitutional amendment that gives the federal govt the authority to force states to legalize it. Other than that, your only options are to deal with it, move to a country with legal marijuana and less economic freedom, or move to an unincorporated island in the pacific where there are no laws. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Really? You've got to be trolling. There's no way in hell you believe that a simple majority of people have the right to kill or imprison the minority over a plant. My neighbor doesn't have the right. My neighborhood doesn't have the right. Since the federal government is given no authority to restrict marijuana under the constitution, it is up to each state or to the people. If the people in an individual state support the restriction of marijuana and give the state government the authority to restrict marijuana, the state government has the authority to restrict marijuana. If you don't like it, you can always move to a state that doesn't ban marijuana. The states are a lab. States can learn from the successes and failures in other states. I believe that over time more states will naturally gravitate towards marijuana legalization. But states absolutely do retain the authority to restrict "a plant" if the people in the state give the state government the authority to restrict it. What authority? What authority does someone have to kill or imprison someone else over... a plant? Hint, they don't. Of course, since people don't have that authority, they cannot give that non-existent authority to the state. It's simple. It doesn't matter how many neighbors I get to follow me: I don't have the right to incarcerate you simply because you possessed a plant. Do I personally think Marijuana should be illegal? No. But according to the rules set by the Constitution, states (unlike the federal government) can restrict it. Nothing is preventing you from moving to a state that has legalized marijuana. If you want it to be legal in MS, then start contacting your representatives. If you think every state should be required to legalize marijuana, then push for a constitutional amendment that gives the federal govt the authority to force states to legalize it. Other than that, your only options are to deal with it, move to a country with legal marijuana and less economic freedom, or move to an unincorporated island in the pacific where there are no laws. 'Can' and 'have the right' aren't the same thing. We're talking past each other. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2016 3:34:27 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
'Can' and 'have the right' aren't the same thing. We're talking past each other. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Really? You've got to be trolling. There's no way in hell you believe that a simple majority of people have the right to kill or imprison the minority over a plant. My neighbor doesn't have the right. My neighborhood doesn't have the right. Since the federal government is given no authority to restrict marijuana under the constitution, it is up to each state or to the people. If the people in an individual state support the restriction of marijuana and give the state government the authority to restrict marijuana, the state government has the authority to restrict marijuana. If you don't like it, you can always move to a state that doesn't ban marijuana. The states are a lab. States can learn from the successes and failures in other states. I believe that over time more states will naturally gravitate towards marijuana legalization. But states absolutely do retain the authority to restrict "a plant" if the people in the state give the state government the authority to restrict it. What authority? What authority does someone have to kill or imprison someone else over... a plant? Hint, they don't. Of course, since people don't have that authority, they cannot give that non-existent authority to the state. It's simple. It doesn't matter how many neighbors I get to follow me: I don't have the right to incarcerate you simply because you possessed a plant. Do I personally think Marijuana should be illegal? No. But according to the rules set by the Constitution, states (unlike the federal government) can restrict it. Nothing is preventing you from moving to a state that has legalized marijuana. If you want it to be legal in MS, then start contacting your representatives. If you think every state should be required to legalize marijuana, then push for a constitutional amendment that gives the federal govt the authority to force states to legalize it. Other than that, your only options are to deal with it, move to a country with legal marijuana and less economic freedom, or move to an unincorporated island in the pacific where there are no laws. 'Can' and 'have the right' aren't the same thing. We're talking past each other. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2016 4:24:56 AM EDT
[#41]
As others have mentioned, states could create laws that can effectively tie our hands.
CA is the epitome of the problem. Even with national reciprocity, crossing the border with gen-4 glock with a standard capacity mag could put you in jail. The ccw law would have to supersede the host state's weapon laws, which I doubt would pass. I know guys on bordering states would gladly be able to drum up legal "travel guns", but we shouldn't have to do that stupid shit for a sidearm. What it comes back to is the feds telling the states what to do, which is still a two way street, depending on which party makes pushes the laws. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2016 11:36:38 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
As others have mentioned, states could create laws that can effectively tie our hands. CA is the epitome of the problem. Even with national reciprocity, crossing the border with gen-4 glock with a standard capacity mag could put you in jail. The ccw law would have to supersede the host state's weapon laws, which I doubt would pass. I know guys on bordering states would gladly be able to drum up legal "travel guns", but we shouldn't have to do that stupid shit for a sidearm. What it comes back to is the feds telling the states what to do, which is still a two way street, depending on which party makes pushes the laws. The federal government telling a state what they can't do? FED.GOV: 'Hey state, you're not allowed to throw people in jail for carrying a concealed weapon.' Do you have an example where that could be a bad thing in regards to malum prohibitum laws? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2016 12:04:11 PM EDT
[#43]
It is the Federal government's job to arbitrate disputes between the states.
Otherwise every time I drove to CA they could ticket me for not having a front license plate, even though AZ does not issue one. Every state has some sort of CCW permit, they need to recognize permits from other states. I suppose that if a tree hugger state abolished all drivers licenses they could refuse to recognize those from out of state? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2016 6:52:51 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not sad. And does the recognition of my states rights supersede the states laws to where I am traveling? I can carry in banks in GA, I travel to NC right now and carrying in banks is illegal. Must NC recognize my states' lack of laws that allows me to carry in banks? No, it would work like reciprocity does now. You have to obey the laws governing where you can carry for the state you are in. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2016 6:55:15 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And the cities with their shitty laws, too. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The Bill of Rights applies to all the states, not just the good ones. And the cities with their shitty laws, too. Not in Georgia and many other states. Those states have preemption laws that prevent cities from enacting a law that's more strict than state law. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2016 6:57:59 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I've been wary of national reciprocity as well. Obviously it sounds like a great idea, but it's probably unconstitutional and it sets a terrible precedent. If California started issuing medical marijuana cards, should other states where people opposed marijuana legalization now be required to honor them? Oh fucking horseshit. The precedence already exists for recognizing the legal acts of other states. This is not a Federal license, it's your existing state license now recognized by other states that didn't already recognize it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2016 6:59:43 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Thank you, this is rarely understood here. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The powers of the states are not derived from the Constitution. The states are older than the Constitution and created it. The states have the power to regulate guns because they are organic political entities with police powers. These powers are to some degree limited by the 2dAm and 14thAm incorporation. To illustrate, a state has the inherent power to outlaw misuse of guns throughout its territory. The federal government only has such power to the extent (if any) given by the Constitution and in places under specific federal jurisdiction. Thank you, this is rarely understood here. No, it's what you two believe. That doesn't make it a fact. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
