National Reciprocity Action Needed - Page 5

National Reciprocity Action Needed

This is a discussion on National Reciprocity Action Needed within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Originally Posted by livewire9880 You think he thinks it'll make any difference? Or is it going to be better for him politically to stick to ...

Page 5 of 11 FirstFirst 123456789 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 161
Like Tree43Likes

Thread: National Reciprocity Action Needed

  1. #61
    Senior Member Array rmilchman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    790
    Quote Originally Posted by livewire9880 View Post
    You think he thinks it'll make any difference? Or is it going to be better for him politically to stick to his base?
    First I hate politics. If I was him I would be thinking I already have one party voting for me, this is my chance to sway some others.


  2. #62
    Member Array Chroode's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Panama City Beach, FL
    Posts
    246
    Quote Originally Posted by wjh2657 View Post
    Amazing. The same people who have been bitching about the "Feds" telling the states what kind of guns we can own( Feds stay out of my state gun laws bunch) are now screaming they want the Feds to tell the states where and when we can carry our guns (Feds stick noses in state laws bunch). You want the Feds to regulate firearms or you don't. No gray areas. If they can regulate carry permit recognition they later can regulate carry permit issue. It's called precedence and it will bite us in the rear if we let it pass.

    Me, I live in Tennessee. I left Chicago over 20 Years ago and I don't intend to go back. I would rather have Tennessee laws than Illinois laws. FEDS GO HOME!
    1+++

    The STATES are SOVERIGN. They CHOOSE to belong to the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

    That means that EACH STATE functions as its OWN COUNTRY except for COMMON DEFENSE and COMMERCE.

    The STATES CHOOSE to accept driver licenses but EACH STATE HAS IT'S OWN DRIVING RULES AND RESTRICTIONS. Some states do not recognize other states driver license requirements and will not issue a license to a driver that moves there from another state (FL will not transfer an AL motorcycle license).

    If you accept the fed telling the states to accept the gun permits, then that would be like saying they must accept ObamaCare.

    I say NO. It would only further diminish the states to make their own decisions. If you do not like the state you live in, then move to a better one or make your voice legally heard through your state representatives.

  3. #63
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,667
    Quote Originally Posted by Chroode View Post
    1+++

    The STATES are SOVERIGN. They CHOOSE to belong to the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

    That means that EACH STATE functions as its OWN COUNTRY except for COMMON DEFENSE and COMMERCE.
    Clearly our society is long and well beyond the phase where each state acts as its own country. This should be obvious to anyone who pays attention to current events. Moving around from one state to another is part of commerce.

    You think the states are sovereign or should be? What do you not understand about "one nation indivisible," in the pledge of allegiance?

  4. #64
    VIP Member Array livewire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    2,052
    Quote Originally Posted by Chroode View Post
    1+++

    The STATES are SOVERIGN. They CHOOSE to belong to the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

    That means that EACH STATE functions as its OWN COUNTRY except for COMMON DEFENSE and COMMERCE.
    No, you're thinking of Canada. Otherwise this would be called the "Independent States of America", that was discussed before we seceded from the British Empire.

  5. #65
    VIP Member
    Array ksholder's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    3,956
    Quote Originally Posted by Chroode View Post
    1+++

    The STATES are SOVERIGN. They CHOOSE to belong to the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

    That means that EACH STATE functions as its OWN COUNTRY except for COMMON DEFENSE and COMMERCE.

    The STATES CHOOSE to accept driver licenses but EACH STATE HAS IT'S OWN DRIVING RULES AND RESTRICTIONS. Some states do not recognize other states driver license requirements and will not issue a license to a driver that moves there from another state (FL will not transfer an AL motorcycle license).

    If you accept the fed telling the states to accept the gun permits, then that would be like saying they must accept ObamaCare.

    I say NO. It would only further diminish the states to make their own decisions. If you do not like the state you live in, then move to a better one or make your voice legally heard through your state representatives.
    Chroode - you are absolutely right that this is how this country was set up. In the pick the name you like:
    Civil War
    War Between the States
    War of Northern Aggression
    War of Secession
    War for Southern Independence
    War of Southern Aggression

    President Lincoln fundamentally changed the Constitution without actually changing the language of it. That war, and Lincoln's stance, put an end to the right of states to get out of the union. Clearly the founding fathers would never have been able to get the states to agree to the limited federal government if the states, which were the sovereign units could not get out of a failing federal government (if that had happened).

    While Lincoln succeeded in quashing succession, he did not succeed in (nor did he try to) expand the scope of the federal government to eliminate the states from having their own governments. Therefore, we are left with the states having less power than the founders envisioned, but they have not been totally eviscerated. In fact, the states are in our time, seeking to establish their power in the light of an aggressive and overbearing federal government clearly not envisioned by the founders – except for John Marshall, perhaps. I say – go states!!!
    HotGuns likes this.
    It's the Land of Opportunity, not the Land of Entitlements - Vote America!!!

    "When governments fear the people there is liberty. When the people fear the government there is tyranny." Thomas Jefferson

    You are only paranoid until you are right - then you are a visionary.

  6. #66
    VIP Member Array TedBeau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Bay City
    Posts
    2,286
    I understand the thinking that the Feds waste tons of money in red tape, and never manage to to get it right, yet I don't really see the logic of "only my State can tell me what/where how I carry". Lets take it a step farther.
    I live in Michigan, in the lower pennisula. There are many people in the upper pennisula that think that Michigan should be split into two states because the rual, wooded up north has more in common with Canada, ( and they are closer) than they do to Detroit.

    So lets say there is some Michigan law that they don't like, like no carry in a bar. This may make sense in a Detroit strip club, but not in a hunters hangout in Escanaba. So they declare indendence from Michigan. Next they find a law in the new state of Superior that they don't like in a particular county. So that county decides to quit the state. Then they find a law that someone in a township doesn't like, so that township decides to quit the county.

    At what point are they happy?

    What I am getting at is how small a unit of government does it take to get a like minded constituancy? If you will not submit to federal laws, why should you have to submit to state laws, why not only obey local township ordinances?

  7. #67
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,667
    Quote Originally Posted by TedBeau View Post
    I understand the thinking that the Feds waste tons of money in red tape, and never manage to to get it right, yet I don't really see the logic of "only my State can tell me what/where how I carry". Lets take it a step farther.
    I live in Michigan, in the lower pennisula. There are many people in the upper pennisula that think that Michigan should be split into two states because the rual, wooded up north has more in common with Canada, ( and they are closer) than they do to Detroit.

    So lets say there is some Michigan law that they don't like, like no carry in a bar. This may make sense in a Detroit strip club, but not in a hunters hangout in Escanaba. So they declare indendence from Michigan. Next they find a law in the new state of Superior that they don't like in a particular county. So that county decides to quit the state. Then they find a law that someone in a township doesn't like, so that township decides to quit the county.

    At what point are they happy?

    What I am getting at is how small a unit of government does it take to get a like minded constituancy? If you will not submit to federal laws, why should you have to submit to state laws, why not only obey local township ordinances?
    Very well put, but let's just add that if you won't submit to Federal laws you may well end up sharing a room with Ted (The Unibomber) Kaczinski. We are, whether or not a few disagree, "one nation indivisible" and we would pay a huge huge price if we were ever to forget that fact.

    Responding to K's post # 65. The premise of your first sentence is incorrect. But, let's suppose for just a moment that you are right and the fundamental nature of things was changed in 1863. What's Arizona's excuse? They came in to the Union knowing full well that the Federal government was supreme and secession wasn't on the table as an option. Same for Alaska and for Hawaii, and a few others.

    Those of you residing in states which entered the Union after 1863 really don't have much of an argument for your own state's claims of state rights. K, you are not exempt as Ohio entered the Union pre- Civil War, BUT, it chose to stand with and fight for an Indivisible Union.

  8. #68
    Member Array Chroode's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Panama City Beach, FL
    Posts
    246
    Quote Originally Posted by livewire9880 View Post
    No, you're thinking of Canada. Otherwise this would be called the "Independent States of America", that was discussed before we seceded from the British Empire.
    The Declaration of Independence
    IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
    The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

    We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

  9. #69
    VIP Member Array livewire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    2,052
    In that context, it's declaring that these states are free and independent from Britain, which, at the time the Declaration was written, we were still a member of. Declaring our Independence didn't make us independent, it started the war.

  10. #70
    Member Array Chroode's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Panama City Beach, FL
    Posts
    246
    United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    The phrase "the United States" was originally treated as plural—e.g., "the United States are"—including in the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, ratified in 1865. It became common to treat it as singular—e.g., "the United States is"—after the end of the Civil War. The singular form is now standard; the plural form is retained in the idiom "these United States".[15]

  11. #71
    Member Array Chroode's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Panama City Beach, FL
    Posts
    246
    Quote Originally Posted by livewire9880 View Post
    In that context, it's declaring that these states are free and independent from Britain, which, at the time the Declaration was written, we were still a member of. Declaring our Independence didn't make us independent, it started the war.
    States' rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    In the period between the American Revolution and the ratification of the United States Constitution, the states had united under a much weaker federal government, pursuant to the Articles of Confederation. The Articles gave the central government very little, if any, authority to overrule individual state actions. The Constitution subsequently strengthened the central government, authorizing it to exercise powers deemed necessary to exercise its authority, with an ambiguous boundary between the two co-existing levels of government. In the event of any conflict between state and federal law, the Constitution resolved the conflict[5] via the Supremacy Clause of Article VI in favor of the federal government, which declares federal law the "supreme Law of the Land" and provides that "the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." However, the Supremacy Clause only applies if the federal government is acting in pursuit of its constitutionally authorized powers, as noted by the phrase "in pursuance thereof" in the actual text of the Supremacy Clause itself:

    Alien and Sedition Acts

    Resolved, that the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that by compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes, delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force: That to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral party, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party....each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.

    Article I, section I Constitution only permitted Congress to lay and collect taxes of any kind "for the common defense and the general welfare,"

    Jefferson Davis used the following argument in favor of the equal rights of states:

    Resolved, That the union of these States rests on the equality of rights and privileges among its members, and that it is especially the duty of the Senate, which represents the States in their sovereign capacity, to resist all attempts to discriminate either in relation to person or property, so as, in the Territories—which are the common possession of the United States—to give advantages to the citizens of one State which are not equally secured to those of every other State.[7]

    MUST I KEEP GOING??????

    Each state is it's own little "country". Why do you think that sates recently have been looking into seceding from the U.S.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/0..._n_187490.html
    Gov. Rick Perry: Texas Could Secede, Leave Union
    He said when Texas entered the union in 1845 it was with the understanding it could pull out.
    Texas did secede in 1861, but the North's victory in the Civil War put an end to that.

  12. #72
    VIP Member Array livewire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    2,052
    The general idea was that originally, the states had rights to pass laws that affected the citizenry, but the Federal government would protect the borders, control interstate commerce where needed, and protect the rights of the citizenry from the states.

    Put another way, the only real rights provided to the Fed beyond the borders was to protect the the people's rights from overzealous states. They were to expand freedom.

    In the context of this bill, that's exactly what it does. It's probably the first bill in decades that actually follows this mandate.

  13. #73
    VIP Member
    Array ksholder's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    3,956
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    We are, whether or not a few disagree, "one nation indivisible" and we would pay a huge huge price if we were ever to forget that fact.
    Hop - where in any founding document can you find support for this notion? Please enlighten me on this. This comes from the pledge of allegiance which was penned by a socialst, Francis Bellamy, in 1893.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    Responding to K's post # 65. The premise of your first sentence is incorrect.
    Please elucidate. Just stating that my statement is wrong does not make it so. Please provide some factual basis that supports your position.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    But, let's suppose for just a moment that you are right and the fundamental nature of things was changed in 1863. What's Arizona's excuse? They came in to the Union knowing full well that the Federal government was supreme and secession wasn't on the table as an option. Same for Alaska and for Hawaii, and a few others.

    Those of you residing in states which entered the Union after 1863 really don't have much of an argument for your own state's claims of state rights. K, you are not exempt as Ohio entered the Union pre- Civil War, BUT, it chose to stand with and fight for an Indivisible Union.
    Just because a state came into the union after the Civil War does not mean that it agreed to abide by anything other than the constitution as amended in writing. Further, those states that fought in the Union army also were fighting for many different reasons. First the war was economic. Lincoln then brought in slavery when he needed more forces. One result of the Civil War - getting rid of slavery was a laudable outcome, however, the result of effectively staunching succession, for at least 145 years has allowed the federal government to grow to proportions that are clearly unconstitutional and will likely lead to another revolution. Hopefully, this one will be fought with ballots and not bullets - time will tell.
    It's the Land of Opportunity, not the Land of Entitlements - Vote America!!!

    "When governments fear the people there is liberty. When the people fear the government there is tyranny." Thomas Jefferson

    You are only paranoid until you are right - then you are a visionary.

  14. #74
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,667
    Quote Originally Posted by Chroode View Post
    The Declaration of Independence
    IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
    The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

    We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.
    You have been rather selective about what you chose to bold and what you chose to not bold. What happens to your argument when you bold, "these united Colonies." Of course the Declaration is irrelevant, to the constitutional question and to later historical reality, but within the declaration it clearly implies UNITY among the colonies.

    The Articles of Confederation were scrapped because they failed to provide the level of UNITY among the states needed to have ONE NATION.

  15. #75
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,667
    Quote Originally Posted by ksholder View Post
    Hop - where in any founding document can you find support for this notion? Please enlighten me on this. This comes from the pledge of allegiance which was penned by a socialst, Francis Bellamy, in 1893.



    Please elucidate. Just stating that my statement is wrong does not make it so. Please provide some factual basis that supports your position.



    Just because a state came into the union after the Civil War does not mean that it agreed to abide by anything other than the constitution as amended in writing. Further, those states that fought in the Union army also were fighting for many different reasons. First the war was economic. Lincoln then brought in slavery when he needed more forces. One result of the Civil War - getting rid of slavery was a laudable outcome, however, the result of effectively staunching succession, for at least 145 years has allowed the federal government to grow to proportions that are clearly unconstitutional and will likely lead to another revolution. Hopefully, this one will be fought with ballots and not bullets - time will tell.
    All good rationalization but off the historical mark. Again, those states which entered THE UNION late, knew full well that they were giving up sovereignty and independence for the benefit of belonging to a single country. For the late comers, they knew that the 13th and 14th amendments were part of the deal. Its "hilarious" to watch one of those states now try to say that the 14th really doesn't mean what it says.

    Here's the stark choice. We either live in ONE NATION with some semblance of unified law and consistency amongst the various states or we devolve into chaos. Take your pick.

Page 5 of 11 FirstFirst 123456789 ... LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. National Reciprocity part Deux
    By swinokur in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 84
    Last Post: February 27th, 2011, 12:12 PM
  2. CSPAN LIVE VID of the US Senate on National Reciprocity
    By dlclarkii in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 57
    Last Post: July 23rd, 2009, 01:31 AM
  3. National Right-To-Carry Reciprocity Bill Introduced
    By alelks in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: January 24th, 2009, 11:27 PM
  4. SC: H. 3212 action needed by Senate (Reciprocity bill)
    By SCGunGuy in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: May 29th, 2008, 09:10 PM
  5. National Reciprocity for Concealed Carry
    By ArmedAviator in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: April 16th, 2008, 11:25 AM

Search tags for this page

2011 national ccw carry
,
activism nationwide reciprocity 2011
,
check gun serial number
,
dod police concealed carry texas 2011
,
hb 822 congress
,
hb 822 national
,

hb 822 right to carry

,
hb822 discussion
,
medical ohio reciprocity tennessee criteria or standards -emergency
,

national reciprocity

,

national reciprocity 2011

,
national reciprocity bill 2011
,
national reciprocity bill 2011 vote date
,
national reciprocity not necessary
,
why is reciprocity needed
Click on a term to search for related topics.