Time for change....

This forum is for discussion of general issues regarding Concealed Carry in your everyday life. This forum is not intended to be political or for discussing legislation.

Moderators: Coordinators, Moderators

Do you agree?

Poll ended at Wed Jan 24, 2018 1:04 pm

Do you agree with these concepts?
6
43%
Are these ideas rediculous?
8
57%
 
Total votes : 14

Re: Time for change....

Postby JustaShooter » Sun Dec 31, 2017 7:28 am

Sevens wrote:Still cannot find a "national reciprocity" answer that doesn't trample on States' rights.

I am not in favor of it.


Sevens, since the 2nd Amendment has been incorporated to the States, I don't see how this tramples States' rights at all. To me it is a completely legitimate use of the Federal government's powers.

Could you explain your thinking?
Christian, Husband, Father
NRA Life Member
NRA Certified Range Safety Officer
NRA Certified Pistol & Rifle Instructor

Want to become more active with OFCC and help fight for your rights? Click Here!
User avatar
JustaShooter
OFCC Coordinator
OFCC Coordinator
 
Posts: 4592
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2013 3:08 pm
Location: Akron/Canton Area

Re: Time for change....

Postby djthomas » Sun Dec 31, 2017 10:22 am

JustaShooter wrote:Sevens, since the 2nd Amendment has been incorporated to the States, I don't see how this tramples States' rights at all. To me it is a completely legitimate use of the Federal government's powers.

And further, traveling to another state for any purpose directly impacts interstate commerce. In almost every situation you are taking dollars from your state and spending them in another. At the very least you are receiving some benefit from the other state, such as the use of their roads.

This is far more direct than some of the more obtuse interstate commerce definitions that have been allowed to stand by SCOTUS. My favorite being that growing wheat on your own property for your own use can be federally regulated because if you didn't grow your own you would have to buy it from a marketplace that involves interstate commerce. And by not doing so you're affecting interstate commerce by not participating in it. By that argument I could decide I don't like wheat at all, not grow it and not buy it and still be subject to federal scrutiny.

If crap like that can be upheld as a proper use of the 10th amendment then I fail to see how something related to people spending real actual dollars in interstate commerce can't be.

I also note with a bit of irony how folks who work themselves into a lather over states rights tend to get real quiet when it's time to talk about municipal home rule in Ohio as it relates to firearms.
Never ask if you can carry at a non-posted place, but always ask why you cannot at one that is!
Just because they offer call ahead seating doesn't mean you call ahead for carry permission.
User avatar
djthomas
 
Posts: 5843
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2006 11:09 am
Location: Medina County

Re: Time for change....

Postby Sevens » Sun Dec 31, 2017 10:40 am

Heh, can't tell if I am being referred to as "getting lathered up" :lol: but I can say that I'm confident that I don't have nearly the depth of understanding that you two gents have, but my position is simply that Ohioans have lived (grown, battled, suffered... use any adjectives that apply) to fight back for gun rights that were lost Federally many decades ago. Some States have fought (better, earlier, faster, again choose) and many States have done worse.

Giving up that control, a barrier built 50 times, in favor of a Federal mandate that ebbs & flows with POTUS/congressional (getrymandered) elections?

Hell no.

If you are asking me, "Hey Sevens, how about Alaska/Vermont gun & carry laws across the whole land from coast to coast?!" then sure, sign me up. Along with a slew of other fantastic dreams and ideas. You guys should cure cancer while you are getting all these fantastic things done, I'd like that also. Get Carmen out of the left lane too, please.
I like to swap brass... and I'm looking for .32 H&R Mag, .327 Fed Mag, .380 Auto and 10mm. If you have some and would like to swap for something else, send me a note!
User avatar
Sevens
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
 
Posts: 7402
Joined: Thu May 07, 2009 8:30 am
Location: Far East Side of CBus

Re: Time for change....

Postby Mr. Glock » Sun Dec 31, 2017 11:47 am

JustaShooter wrote:
Sevens wrote:Still cannot find a "national reciprocity" answer that doesn't trample on States' rights.

I am not in favor of it.


Sevens, since the 2nd Amendment has been incorporated to the States, I don't see how this tramples States' rights at all. To me it is a completely legitimate use of the Federal government's powers.

Could you explain your thinking?


http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2017/1 ... -act-1968/

Interesting article that applies the 14th Amendment to National Reciprocity on The Truth About Guns, and it seems to make some sense.

Overall, I reject the straw man argument of Federalism/states rights, as we are all way down the pike and well past that being a concern in most areas of the law. And anti-gunners don't seem to have any issues with it for, say, the AWB of 1994. And, driver's licenses are not a protected right but honored in each state too. You get the idea here.

I also reject the private property argument for the same reason, with so many protected classes (i.e. people) and so many laws regulating private property (spotted owl, affirmative action, protected speech etc etc etc), the rights of the private property owner have been so diminished that it is a false flag "purity" argument. If I'm in a CPZ and the owner is not providing armed security, than where is my personal right to life (as part of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness)? Wouldn't that fall under the non-aggression theory of pure individual rights philosophy, assuming their are tasks where I do not have the option of using a non-CPZ private enterprise?

I fully admit this is a position built on realism and accepting today's legal climate, as flawed as it is. Yes, I'd prefer if we all lived in society based fully on individual rights. But we don't, we live in a semi-socialist society. As such, we need to accept that reality to make gains for our rights, not get caught up in "angels dancing on the heads of pins" purity arguments.

Not directing this at anyone in particular, just writing out a few thoughts for discussion.
“Without dignity there is no liberty, without justice there is no dignity, and without independence there are no free men.”
- Patrice Lumumba
OFCC Patron, NRA Benefactor Life, GOA & Hot Stove League Member
User avatar
Mr. Glock
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
 
Posts: 8665
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 3:20 pm
Location: NE Ohio

Re: Time for change....

Postby scottb » Sun Dec 31, 2017 2:00 pm

Private property rights are diminishing. As in the below case in Oregon. Why should the government tell anyone with whom they must conduct business? Since when is sexual orientation a protected class?
http://www.khou.com/news/oregon-court-upholds-135000-fine-part-of-ruling-against-bakery-in-gay-wedding-cake-case/503107961
“Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.”― George Carlin
User avatar
scottb
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
 
Posts: 135
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2013 3:42 pm
Location: Wooster

Re: Time for change....

Postby Werz » Sun Dec 31, 2017 6:08 pm

schmieg wrote:This is what comes to mind:

Have Gun Will Travel

wire Palldin, San Francisco

Reminds me of the "silent notification" card I developed a few years ago:
Image
"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life."
-- Robert A. Heinlein, Beyond This Horizon
"Remember that protecting our gun rights still boils down to keeping a majority in the electorate, and that our daily activities can have the impact of being ambassadors for the gun culture ..."
-- BobK
Open carry is a First Amendment exercise.
User avatar
Werz
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
 
Posts: 5498
Joined: Sun Aug 16, 2009 2:37 am

Re: Time for change....

Postby MacDonald » Thu Jan 04, 2018 1:32 am

by Sevens » Sat Dec 30, 2017 10:01 pm
Still cannot find a "national reciprocity" answer that doesn't trample on States' rights.

I am not in favor of it.

Much of the rest of this seems to be bluster or irrational oversimplification of an anything-but-simple set of circumstances.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

State rights.
Perhaps you can enlighten me about which states/colonies the Bill of Rights was meant for.

I was under the impression that the BOR pertained to the ENTIRE country, and not meant to be state specific.
Am I in error?
John 3:16
Romans 1:16- "For I am not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ..."
NRA Lifetime Member
To be sure of hitting the target, shoot first and call whatever you hit the target.
"Live free or die: death is not the worst of evils" - John Stark
MacDonald
 
Posts: 229
Joined: Sun Mar 30, 2014 7:00 am
Location: Warren County

Re: Time for change....

Postby JustaShooter » Thu Jan 04, 2018 7:43 am

Sevens wrote:Giving up that control, a barrier built 50 times, in favor of a Federal mandate that ebbs & flows with POTUS/congressional (getrymandered) elections?

Hell no.


The only control being given up is that of deciding which state's license to recognize. States must recognize all other states' licenses. That's it.

Sevens wrote:If you are asking me, "Hey Sevens, how about Alaska/Vermont gun & carry laws across the whole land from coast to coast?!" then sure, sign me up.


Oh, and I forgot to mention, if you hail from a state that has seen the light and does not require a license at all to exercise their RKBA, then that right must also be recognized by every other state. I believe this is a significant step toward restoration of the 2A-guaranteed RKBA "across the whole land from coast to coast". I think Ohio (and most other states) will be constitutional carry within 5 years if this passes and becomes law.
Christian, Husband, Father
NRA Life Member
NRA Certified Range Safety Officer
NRA Certified Pistol & Rifle Instructor

Want to become more active with OFCC and help fight for your rights? Click Here!
User avatar
JustaShooter
OFCC Coordinator
OFCC Coordinator
 
Posts: 4592
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2013 3:08 pm
Location: Akron/Canton Area

Re: Time for change....

Postby schmieg » Thu Jan 04, 2018 1:45 pm

MacDonald wrote:
State rights.
Perhaps you can enlighten me about which states/colonies the Bill of Rights was meant for.

I was under the impression that the BOR pertained to the ENTIRE country, and not meant to be state specific.
Am I in error?

The BOR was not meant for any States when adopted. It was included as a limitation on the federal government's powers. The BOR was applied to the States later by the Supreme Court through the 14th Amendment.
-- Mike

"The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." - Ayn Rand
User avatar
schmieg
OFCC Coordinator
OFCC Coordinator
 
Posts: 5169
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 11:11 pm
Location: Madeira, Ohio

Re: Time for change....

Postby chaos321 » Tue Jan 09, 2018 9:04 am

Sevens wrote:Still cannot find a "national reciprocity" answer that doesn't trample on States' rights.

I am not in favor of it.

Much of the rest of this seems to be bluster or irrational oversimplification of an anything-but-simple set of circumstances.


All states are forced to accept drivers licenses, as well as marriage licenses, why not concealed carry licenses?
chaos321
 
Posts: 116
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2009 11:19 pm
Location: Bellefontaine

Re: Time for change....

Postby schmieg » Tue Jan 09, 2018 12:42 pm

chaos321 wrote:
Sevens wrote:Still cannot find a "national reciprocity" answer that doesn't trample on States' rights.

I am not in favor of it.

Much of the rest of this seems to be bluster or irrational oversimplification of an anything-but-simple set of circumstances.


All states are forced to accept drivers licenses, as well as marriage licenses, why not concealed carry licenses?

States are not forced to accept drivers licenses. They have agreed to do so voluntarily by entering into an interstate compact regarding the matter. Marriage licenses differ from CHL's and drivers licenses in that they are a one time issue (theoretically anyway) acknowledging the capactiy of the parties to marry under that state's laws and setting forth a limited period of time during which they may accomplish that goal. The status is the resultant marriage and the license at that point is a record. If you aren't carrying your marriage license and one piece of identification, you are still married, no matter what state you are in (my wife never lets me forget that). This falls under the full faith and credit clause. A CHL falls more into the lines of a license to practice medicine, law, barbering and those are not necessarily valid over state lines unless a state agrees to accept them.
-- Mike

"The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." - Ayn Rand
User avatar
schmieg
OFCC Coordinator
OFCC Coordinator
 
Posts: 5169
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 11:11 pm
Location: Madeira, Ohio

Previous

Return to Ohio Concealed Carry Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 6 guests