Page 2 of 2

Re: Time for change....

Posted: Sun Dec 31, 2017 7:28 am
by JustaShooter
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?

Re: Time for change....

Posted: Sun Dec 31, 2017 10:22 am
by djthomas
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.

Re: Time for change....

Posted: Sun Dec 31, 2017 10:40 am
by Sevens
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.

Re: Time for change....

Posted: Sun Dec 31, 2017 11:47 am
by Mr. Glock
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/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

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.

Re: Time for change....

Posted: Sun Dec 31, 2017 2:00 pm
by scottb
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-u ... /503107961

Re: Time for change....

Posted: Sun Dec 31, 2017 6:08 pm
by Werz
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

Re: Time for change....

Posted: Thu Jan 04, 2018 1:32 am
by MacDonald
by Sevens ยป 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?

Re: Time for change....

Posted: Thu Jan 04, 2018 7:43 am
by JustaShooter
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.

Re: Time for change....

Posted: Thu Jan 04, 2018 1:45 pm
by schmieg
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.

Re: Time for change....

Posted: Tue Jan 09, 2018 9:04 am
by chaos321
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?

Re: Time for change....

Posted: Tue Jan 09, 2018 12:42 pm
by schmieg
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.