National Reciprosity

[July Smith]

Cite the 2nd Amendment all you want, open/concealed carry is a privilege in most states.  The NRA-ILA has done more for me as a gun owning citizen, than any other politician or lobbying group I can think of.  Have they compromised, backed politicians, and made decisions I don't agree with?  Sure they have, but when it comes to the National Reciprocity I think it is a good idea.  Will it pass?  Unlikely, but I still back it.   

[Shooting Bull]

5 hours ago, Bart Solo said:

They have to pay money to buy the gun.  Why should they have to pay money to exercise their constitutional right?   By the way it isn't a poll tax.   A poll tax is a tax imposed on people to vote.  

 

I totally agree, but I am not talking about the right to own a firearm (absolutely protected under Heller.)   I am not talking about your right to use a firearm.  Nobody has a right to simply shoot a firearm in a direction that endangers others.  Try claiming your second amendment rights if your stray bullet hits a baby in a stroller.  I am talking about carrying a pistol on the street where any number of things can happen, many of them bad.   Heller says there can be reasonable restrictions on carry.   I think the shooting community should get out front in defining those reasonable restrictions.   Mandatory  training is a reasonable restriction. because it acknowledges the right to carry and removes the argument that all firearms should be banned under all circumstances.   

 

Look, I don't carry very often, but I do like to take long walks in the woods behind my house.  Lately we endured a rash of killings of old men like me walking trails in our community and we also have mountain lions in the area.   I want the right to carry a pistol for my personal protection when I am alone in the woods.  But I want to be sure the guy walking up to me, who is also armed,  knows how to properly store a concealed pistol.  How would you protect my rights or don't they matter.    

 

 

Yes, I understand that originally the "poll" in poll tax was referring to polling (voting).  These days it's also used as a generic term for charging a fee to exercise a constitutional right.

 

Now, as far as using a firearm.  It's already been decided that the 2nd Amendment covers not only the possession but use of firearms.  You don't get to say, "You can own as many as you like but can't use any of them unless you get this mandatory training first."  Sorry, doesn't work that way.  As far as your example of shooting a firearm in a direction that endangers others, there are already laws against that.  It seems as though you're trying to pass a law forbidding something that's already illegal.

[Shooting Bull]

29 minutes ago, Bart Solo said:

 

That is faint comfort to the person lying in the ground because they didn't know not do what anyone would know with basic training.  

 

I am sorry,  we all take training to make sure we know what we are doing and it is often required training. 

 

Really?  All of us?  Please cite the training I received prior to owning and using firearms.

 

I'm not at all saying training shouldn't take place.  What I will oppose with my dying breath is the government mandating it prior to my exercising this God given right.

[Blackwater 53393]

21 minutes ago, Bart Solo said:

 

That is faint comfort to the person lying in the ground because they didn't know not do what anyone would know with basic training.  

 

I am sorry,  we all take training to make sure we know what we are doing and it is often required training. 

 

I've said nothing against training!!  I've sought and received training in many things!!!  I knew from my own observation and attention to my surroundings how to handle a gun LONG before I received ANY instruction from someone else, how to safely carry, store, and operate a weapon/firearm. I didn't know how to weld or operate machinery until I was taught. I became a better singer after I got instruction from professionals in the field. I have nothing against training when it is needed and provided correctly.  I took drivers' education in high school because it gave me a break on my insurance. I learned to drive by observing others and applying those observations to operating, first a tractor, then a farm truck, and finally a car without any instruction. My uncle said to go get the tractor and I went and got the tractor. My dad told me to bring the truck and I brought the truck! I read the drivers' manual and took the tests years before I took drivers' education!!  My dad told me to, "Shoot that damned coyote!" and I went and got the rifle and shot the coyote!!  Other than "this is how it works," I had no real instruction in either case.

 

As I said in my previous post, I think that gun safety should be taught in schools, TO EVERYONE!!

 

You are more likely to shoot yourself than you are to be shot by someone else. Between accidental shootings as a result of poor gun handling and suicide, more people are killed by their own hand than by others, accidentally or otherwise!  The CDC and FBI statistics bear this out!!

 

What I'm opposed to is some politician or government bureaucracy telling me or anyone else that I can't protect myself or my loved ones until I've had their approval as the result of meeting their requirements or regulations or until I pay their de facto TAX!!

 

FINALLY!!  All the instruction and "training in the world will not prevent someone from being injured or killed unintentionally when bullets are put in flight. IT WILL HAPPEN!!! It will and HAS happened despite all the training and all the laws that make it illegal!!  Your argument begins to wear thin like those who screamed that right to carry and castle doctrine laws would result in "The streets running with blood!" in years past!!  I repeat, your fears are your own and no law or regulation or requirement will assuage them!  If laws and regulations remove your fears, you place your faith in false gods!! 

 

[Dorado]

Training is a wonderful thing. Mandating it is not.

Who sets what the minimum standards are? How much is that going to cost? Hundreds? Thousands? Who's going to regulate it? Mandating training is going to restrict gun ownership and the right of self-defense and gun ownership to only the elite. While I agree that every gun owner should seek out proper instruction and training, making it mandatory is another restriction that the Democrats can exploit with their lies and deceit. Why give them the opportunity?

[Dorado]

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/115-2017/h663?utm_campaign=govtrack_feed&utm_source=govtrack/feed&utm_medium=rss

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2017/roll663.xml

Quote

This was a vote to pass H.R. 38 in the House.

Congress 115^th Congress

Date Dec 6, 2017

Chamber House

Number #663

Question: On Passage of the Bill in the House

Result: Passed

According to the votes. H.R. 38 The National Concealed Carry Reciprosity Act has passed in the House. 231 vote Yea, 198 Ney, 4 not voting.

225 Republicans and 6 Democrats voted in favor of H.R. 38.

14 Republicans and 184 Democrats voted in decent.

 

[Colesville Bob, SASS # 27700]

      At least one member of my old cowboy club would rail against "assault weapons", and at our host gun club meetings, some members would make diane feinstein level comments also.  Could never understand how people that should know better could be so willing to mimic the anti gun, anti freedom leftists. 

       Obviously, training is necessary to safely use any firearm safely and effectively. Family, friends, and formal instruction can provide it. However, putting conditions on a natural right protected by the Bill of Rights is wrong. 

            Colesville Bob

        

[Subdeacon Joe]

On 12/5/2017 at 4:17 PM, Bart Solo said:

   I don't think there is anything wrong with a reasonable training requirement.  As long as it is reasonable.  Personally I don't mind keeping guns out of the hands of people who lack basic training. 

 

 

Sure!  We can have Feinstein, Schumer, Pelosi, Rosie, and Bloomberg draw up the training requirements!  After all, they say that all they want are some reasonable, common sense gun laws.

Sorry, but we can't afford to take even the tiniest step backwards.  We have "compromised" too much already.  We give Feinsteins and Schumers what they want, and in return get nothing.  Then, six months later, they are back at it, demanding we "compromise" again.  This goes for any of our civil rights.  They are off the political table:

 

Quote

"The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."

: Robert H. Jackson, US Supreme Court Justice West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943)

 

On this we need to follow Uncle Joe's Order No. 227:   Ни шагу назад!  

About 12, maybe 15 years ago I wrote (email) to Sen. Feinstein blasting her for some stupidity she was pushing.  Musta been a new person on her staph (sic)  because I got the "Thank you for supporting me" form letter, the "We must agree to disagree" form letter, and the text of some proposals she had on the back burner.   If you graduated from Harvard Law, magna cum laude, with a specialty in firearms law you might have been able to pass the written requirements.  And if you consistently shoot "Distinguished Expert" in competition, you had a slim chance of passing the practical test.  

No thank you to any of that.

As to the 

10 hours ago, Bart Solo said:

I am talking about carrying a pistol on the street where any number of things can happen, many of them bad. 

Yeah...tens of thousands are killed by honest citizens screwing up every year.   Sorry, but real life doesn't support your fears.  Yes, mistakes are made sometimes.  But, of the ~130,000,000 people who have ready access to firearms (a gun in the house), there are about 600 or so accidental/negligent deaths per year.   Yes, one is one too many, but there are not the rivers of blood the "reasonable restrictions" and "common sense" gun laws crowd salivate about.  Heck, over all there are, including suicides, roughly 120,000 deaths and injuries every year by means of firearm.  That is criminal, suicide, negligence, justifiable, and undetermined all rolled into one.  So, 120,000/130,000,000 comes out to 0.092%.  Not a whole lot.  

The other thing - why punish everyone?  Why not punish only the guilty?  The "reasonable" people often toss out a very short proof text of Schenck (1919) "But you can't shout fire in a crowded theater!!!!!!!"  Well....not quite.

 

“The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. It does not even protect a man from an injunction against uttering words that may have all the effect of force.” Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919)

 

If we translate Schenck to apply to the 2^nd, it would read something like “The most stringent protection of the rights to keep and bear arms would not protect a man in wantonly opening fire in a public place and causing death, injury, and panic.  It does not even protect a man who brandishes a firearm in public with the intent of causing fear and panic among the people.”

Which take care of your hypothetical of someone saying it's his 2nd Amendment right to randomly endanger others.  Odd that the only people who regularly make statements like that are the Feinsteins, Bloombergs, and Shumers of our political system.

 

 

[Bart Solo]

You might not believe this by we are losing in the court of public opinion because we come across as being irresponsible uncaring rubes.  I don't want people who don't know a damn thing about shooting or our rights to define what is "reasonable."   I want the shooting community to define "reasonable."  That is something a lot of people seem intent on throwing away.   

[Subdeacon Joe]

34 minutes ago, Bart Solo said:

 I want the shooting community to define "reasonable." 

 

 

That will never happen.  In the political climate of "compromise" and "bi-partisanship" the "reasonable restrictions" will be written by Feinstein, Mike Thompson, Chuckie Schumer, and the like.  The shooting community will be shut out.  

Or, take Congressman Mike Thompson.  He hunts.  He shoots trap and skeet.  He heads the Congressional Committee to Prevent Gun Violence.  He fights against us none the less - capacity limits, working towards a semi-auto ban, one gun a month, etc. 

[Blackwater 53393]

Anyone who believes that gun rights and gun rights activists are losing in the court of public opinion have NOT read or studied the most recent polls!!

 

I can’t quote them scripture and verse, but the trend in recent polls has been toward relaxing restrictions and limiting government intrusion and infringement!!

 

Perhaps the rubes are winning, or maybe the rest of the citizenry is becoming aware of the absurdity of the anti-gun rights politics and posturing by anti-gun liberals!!

[Marauder SASS #13056]

As is often the case in discussions, when you fall behind in logic, go with the emotional defense...

[Subdeacon Joe]

Here is the only proper response to "Why won't you compromise? We only want a few reasonable laws?"

[Shooting Bull]

Joe, that’s actually a 100% correct analogy. When gun grabbers say “compromise” they have no interest in any such thing. All they want is for us to give up something and get nothing in return. Then they paint us as being evil when we try to fight them. 

[Subdeacon Joe]

1 hour ago, Shooting Bull said:

Joe, that’s actually a 100% correct analogy. When gun grabbers say “compromise” they have no interest in any such thing. All they want is for us to give up something and get nothing in return. Then they paint us as being evil when we try to fight them. 

 

Thank you.  That gets posted several times a year. 

 

I think of it more like we both started at our end zones, "Meet us half way!" they said.  So we met at the 50 yard line.  Then we went back to our end zone and they stayed at the 50.  "Meet us half way!" they said again.   Do we met at the 25.  Then at the 12 1/2, 

 

Half way is now at about our 3 yard line.

[Dantankerous]

6 hours ago, Subdeacon Joe said:

 

Thank you.  That gets posted several times a year. 

 

I think of it more like we both started at our end zones, "Meet us half way!" they said.  So we met at the 50 yard line.  Then we went back to our end zone and they stayed at the 50.  "Meet us half way!" they said again.   Do we met at the 25.  Then at the 12 1/2, 

 

Half way is now at about our 3 yard line.

 

And no way are we punting.

 

[Tell Sackett SASS 18436]

Do ya'll really think national reciprocity will change anything? NY, NJ, CA, etc will just ignore it like the law that is supposed to protect travellers in other states. Surely you've heard the stories of what happens to travelers in NY with legally secured guns in hteir luggage? There's a law that is supposed to protect them, butit's ignored. They're arrested and their guns stolen and told to fight it in court. 

How will anything change?

[Dantankerous]

The idea of National Reciprocity does at face value seem ideal, necessary and fair.  

 

But, I wonder about how, when and  where this can and will eventually go south when the libs get control back with the Fed Gov in charge of making CCH/CCW laws. 

 

Seems to me THE LESS power the Fed Gov has over we the people, the better.

 

 

 

[Sedalia Dave]

13 hours ago, Dantankerous said:

The idea of National Reciprocity does at face value seem ideal, necessary and fair.  

 

But, I wonder about how, when and  where this can and will eventually go south when the libs get control back with the Fed Gov in charge of making CCH/CCW laws. 

 

Seems to me THE LESS power the Fed Gov has over we the people, the better.

 

 

 

 

DING DING DING we have a winner.

 

That sword (National Reciprocity) is going to have TWO VERY SHARP EDGES. and can cut both ways.

[Mud Marine,SASS#54686 Life]

FWIW, my DD-214 showed my pistol qualification. Strangely, my rifle qualification was not mentioned. I qualified Expert Pistol each time and received a Qaulification medal with Expert Pistol and date bars along with bayonet, Thompson, etc. bars but only received the Marksman Rifle bar in boot camp. Now,you get a separate medal forpistol and there are no other qualification medals. SEMPERFIDELIS!!!