What do you think of this system for national CCW reciprocity?

A full NICS check, plus a proficiency test: They need to be able to show that they can competantly handle, load, fire, and make safe a pistol to the satisfaction of a weapons instructor. For those who don't know this, a training class would be offered for a small extra fee. (Say, $20.)

Allow local police departments to file an objection within a given period of time, on a case by case basis; if they object when notified that such and such person has applied for a permit, then both the police and the applicant go in front of an arbiter (say, a judge) and the police explain why they have probable cause to think that such and such person is unsafe to carry a firearm.

This way the police have the ability to interject if, say, the individual has a history or connections that wouldn't trip the NICS, but people's licenses aren't held hostage by the police department getting sole decision in who gets one. There isn't the opportunity for cronyism and corruption in the permit process the way there is under "May issue" systems. (New York is a perfect example.) It makes sure someone knows how to handle their weapon, and trains those who don't, without being redundant for people who understand it well. The standards are simple, uniform, and easy to enforce.

but I don't think it would fly in those states that are working towards an outright ban, they'd suddenly become big fans of the 10th amendment (to the same degree as they fight against the 2nd).

Congress is empowered to enforce the 2nd Amendment against the states and to ensure full faith and credit. Cram it down the foot dragging states' throats, I say.

senators and representatives as well that are perfectly willing to support legislature that is blatantly unconstitutional.

Some of those states have Democratic legislatures and governors ... and voters ... and wouldn't they just be thrilled at this, and at any Democratic Party complicity in it.

I mean, I'm sure you're proposing that the Democratic Party stand up and demand what you're demanding.

And I'm sure you are very, very, very concerned about the fate of the Democratic Party.

with our rights, liberties and freedoms. Those first and foremost. Then the material well-being and safety of the citizens of the US.

Anyone who puts a political party above those two things is misguided at best, treasonous at worst.

You seem to be implying that party loyalty should trump our legally defined rights. We've all seen what happens to countries that follow that path. And I'm afraid I can't get on board with you on that one.

If the citizens of New York, Chicago and other municipalities choose to restrict gun ownership, Texas & Mississippi - and God knows Congressmen co=opted by the NRA - shouldn't have any say in the matter.

If you've got a hard-on for a boomstick, nobody is forcing you to live where you can't have one.

free speech, freedom of religion, trial by jury and the rest. That local laws can take precedence over the constitution, according to the will of the local populations.

Like in the south during segregation, if "those" people wanted to vote they could have moved to some place where that was allowed, nobody was forcing them to live where their rights were restricted.

No picking and choosing which constitutional rights go to which people.. the all apply to all people.


X. Amendment:

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.

You may notice something about the powers NOT delegated in there.

Trying to make them equivalent is absurd & insane. Such is the stupidity gun-lobby propaganda is reduced to.

Only you. Such is the stupidity the anti-gun lobby is reduced to.

I can't see anyone else doing it. I do see you making the predictable false allegation that someone did, of course.

then try adding something substantial to the conversation for a change.

Post you responded to:

Wanting the ability to kill another human being easily is not the same as wanting the right to vote.

Your post:

Who said anything about wanting to kill a human easily?

Who did? Nobody. Nobody except you.

Do you have one of those blind spots? Macular degeneration maybe? They only cover up the words that make what you're reading make sense, so you never see anything making sense?


Let me see whether I can help you with that.

Post 1: Wanting the ability to kill another human being easily

Post 2: Wanting to kill a human easily


Seeing it yet? Would making it even bigger help you?

So ... Who said anything about wanting to kill a human easily? Nobody. Except you.


html fixed ....

Typical bullshit from you.

perhaps numerated as well.

We could jot down all our rights on this document and make it the basis of all laws.

Of course I can think of no such thing.

If you're building a house and drop your hammer, I suppose you could pull your gun out of your holster and use it to hammer in a nail. :sarcasm:

Guns are designed for one purpose and one purpose only - KILLING

Tyranny of the majority mean anything to you?
What if that same majority voted not to allow gays to marry or even live?

...the restrictions on that right.

...you guys are really losing your touch; at least wait until half-way down the thread; use your imagination.

stupid and, er, intellectually dishonest allegations of gun control = racism, etc etc etc.

Predictable, ain't it?

whites attempting to keep newly freed slaves from acquiring firearms and threatening the status quo. So a fact in other words.

Kind of a like proposing a poll tax, it's not inherently racist, but that certainly how it was used historically.

Ties between reproductive organs and guns seem to exist only in the minds of deranged grabbers, projecting their own bizarre fantasies on to others. So an opinion in other words.

Can't really equate the two.

But speaking of reproductive organs ...

http://www.canadiancriminallaw.com/articles/articles%20pdf/Historical_Development_of_the_Offence_of_Rape.pdf

HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE OFFENCE OF RAPE

... The rape of an unattached virgin was, however, placed into an entirely different category. In this situation no one was put to death. The rapist was required to pay 50 shekels of silver to the girl's father, and the pair were commanded to marry one another. ... During these early days, the crime of rape was not considered so much an assault against the person of the woman as it was an attack on the property of the dominant male in her life father or husband, as the case may be. Recent writers have observed:

If a woman was raped, a sum was paid to either her husband or father, depending on who still exercised rights of ownership over her, and the exact amount of compensation depended on the woman's economic position and her desirability as an object of an exclusive sexual relationship. The sum was not paid to the woman herself; it was paid to her father or husband because he was the person who was regarded as having been wronged by the act.

Rape is simply theft of sexual property under the ownership of someone other than the rapist. When women are forms of private property, owned by fathers or husbands, with a value determined by their sexual and reproductive capacities, rape is an act of theft and trespass against the legal owner of the sexual property (that is, the woman) in question. In having intercourse with a woman who does not belong to him, a man is guilty of trespassing on the property of whoever does own her, and of stealing access to female sexuality to which he has no legal right. From the beginning, rape was perceived as an offence against property, not as an offence against the person on whom the act was perpetrated, and it has not lost the shrouds of these historical origins.

You will want to get going on explaining this to all the idiots who think sexual assault should be an offence in our day and age.

Rape laws are nothing but the patriarchy protecting its property!!!!




html fixed

as it occurred within our lifetime, in the US, just like gun control.

Are you sure there aren't any quotes from the Hammurabi code that you think are relevant to the 2nd amendment today?

Engaging in a battle of wits, all unarmed. Not even a mouse to give you cover. You know, the thing you click when you want to read something before you spout off and make yourself look like a moron because you didn't.

Some people even have this super secret new weapon called "Google". It gives you the tools for knowing what you're talking about before you attempt it.

If you can find the secret directions to Google, you can ask it to help you with this:

"united states" "marital rape"

Then you will be able to read things like:

"Until 1976, marital rape was legal in every state in the United States."

How can a man commit a criminal offence against something he owns?? He can't, of course!!

http://new.vawnet.org/category/Main_Doc.php?docid=248

The existence of some spousal exemptions in the majority of states indicates that rape in marriage is still treated as a lesser crime than other forms of rape and is evidence of societal patriarchy (DeKeseredy, Rogness, & Schwartz, 2004). This perpetuates marital rape by conveying the message that such acts of aggression are somehow less reprehensible than other types of rape. Importantly, the existence of any spousal exemption indicates an acceptance of the archaic understanding that wives are the property of their husbands and that the marriage contract is still an entitlement to sex (Russell, 1990).

And real rape is an offence against the owner of that property.

That's how it always was. Rape laws were always methods of controlling women. That is what they were invented for. That is what they were used for. They are misogynist in their very roots. And they can be no different today. Just like (sez the gun militants, and in case you're having trouble with that "analogy" thing) "gun control is racist" in its roots.

Abolish gun control!!!!

Abolish rape laws!!!!

Say one, you have to say the other. No way out.



typo fixed

:eyes:

"Rape laws were always methods of controlling women. "

I'm going to quote you on this. I'm sure you will deny ever having said it of course. That is only natural.

BTW, don't you always accuse pro-rights folks of being obsessed with rape in an attempt to prove their points? And here you are, obsessing over rape in a botched attempt to prove your point.

Your pro-rape stance will continue to baffle me. Personally I'm against it. Why are you not?

It seems you have some problem with it, but I wouldn't know what.

"Rape laws were always methods of controlling women. "
I'm going to quote you on this. I'm sure you will deny ever having said it of course. That is only natural.

I've said it REPEATEDLY in this forum. The evidence is there for YOU to find anytime you get off your lazy ass and decide to make an actual contribution to a discussion.

Rape laws ORIGINATED as methods of controlling women.
Rape laws ARE NOW used BY women to gain control over their own lives.

Gun control allegedly ORIGINATED as a method of controlling people of colour.
Gun control IS NOW used BY the African-American community to gain control over its own destiny.

So simple one of those bug things could understand it.

BTW, don't you always accuse pro-rights folks of being obsessed with rape in an attempt to prove their points?

Nope. I point out that they EXPLOIT WOMEN in an attempt to portray themselves as what they are not: concerned about the welfare of women.

Your pro-rape stance will continue to baffle me. Personally I'm against it. Why are you not?

Nothing that comes out of your filthy mouth will ever surprise me again. Unless you some day were to decide to say something true.

Well, he was typing, not talking. Should he go into a diatribe about the history of talking and how wrong you were to equate talking to typing and the history of talking..........you see, its about as relevant as your tangent into rape when discussing guns.

I would then go off on a tangent about how it was typed, not spoken so clearly that proves that . . .

And so on.

Iver enjoys tangents. I guess the actual debate hasn't been favorable to her.

Obfuscation is the trademark here, I think.

how noble.

I'm sure they'll be pleased that you are working tirelessly on their behalf to carry out white racists plans of disarming them and leaving them at the mercy of the government.

Next MLK you are.

Since your google is broken, allow me to help.

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=15

The following organizations have lent monetary, grassroots or some other type of direct support to anti-gun organizations. In many instances, these organizations lent their name in support of specific campaigns to pass anti-gun legislation such as the March 1995 HCI "Campaign to Protect Sane Gun Laws." Many of these organizations were listed as "Campaign Partners," for having pledged to fight any efforts to repeal the Brady Act and the Clinton "assault weapons" ban. All have officially endorsed anti-gun positions.

Black Mental Health Alliance
Congress of National Black Churches, Inc.
National Black Nurses` Association
National Political Congress of Black Women
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People

and then of course there are all the very many African-American people and members of other minorities who belong to the hundreds of other organizations on that list. Like:

National Urban League, Inc.
National Parent, Teachers Association*
National Urban Coalition
National SAFE KIDS Campaign

just to mention a fraction of them.


I'm sure they'll be pleased that you are working tirelessly on their behalf to carry out white racists plans of disarming them and leaving them at the mercy of the government.

They seem to be doing pretty well at organizing against the racist, misogynist gun militants and representing their own interests without me, I'd say.

especially on just this one issue. It is possible to join a group and not support all of it's actions.

Besides, I would expect a group dedicated to gun rights to oppose groups that are dedicated (at least in part) to wiping out gun rights.

As those groups you mention tend to be heavily tied to democrats it is only natural they would tend to parrot party lines.

This is of course another diversion on your part.

As those groups you mention tend to be heavily tied to democrats it is only natural they would tend to parrot party lines.

Huh. Lucky for you that you aren't one then, eh?

nor a republican.

I am forced to vote for members of political parties, that doesn't mean I have to tie myself personally to them.

That gives me the freedom to form decisions based on my own opinions and what is right, rather than what I am told by a party (which it was told by a special interest group).

On this issue the official democrat line is flat out wrong.

I'm not sure what you were trying to prove with that one. As this website doesn't require you follow the party lockstep on every issue.

A social democrat. I'm also a New Democrat, a member of the New Democratic Party.


That gives me the freedom to form decisions based on my own opinions and what is right, rather than what I am told by a party (which it was told by a special interest group).

Funny thing is, my party has never told me what to think.

How would that work? If it told me what to think and my brain refused, would my party card go poof?


On this issue the official democrat line is flat out wrong.

As I understand it, the adjectival form of the party's name is Democratic, and yes, it is capitalized.

Odd you should say that ...


I'm not sure what you were trying to prove with that one. As this website doesn't require you follow the party lockstep on every issue.

If you were a party member/supporter and you said things like:

As those groups you mention tend to be heavily tied to democrats it is only natural they would tend to parrot party lines.

you would obviously be calling yourself a stupid person with no integrity.

As it stands, you were only calling Democrats that.

and then tie the word to alot of different things, none having to do with the political party obviously being referenced in the US. Obfuscation.

"Funny thing is, my party has never told me what to think."

So are you saying you have opposed your favorite political party on some issues, or do you just naturally agree with everything they've ever done? If the former I'll report you for being ideologically impure and have you banned, if the latter then you are insane.

"As I understand it, the adjectival form of the party's name is Democratic, and yes, it is capitalized."

Don't really care. They can call themselves whatever they want, neither really much cares for actual democracy except that the forms must be followed. The democratic party isn't any more democratic than the republican party. Both have done terrible things so neither gets my unreserved support.

"If you were a party member/supporter and you said things like: . . . you would obviously be calling yourself a stupid person with no integrity. "

I have no integrity because I've said I don't support any political party, and as proof you have found a quote of me not supporting a political party. The sad thing is you really think you made a valid point here.

If you were intending to reference a political party in the US, why did you use the noun democrat?

If you were intending to reference a political party in the US, I would have expected you to use the proper noun Democrat. And its adjectival form, Democratic, not democrat.



They can call themselves whatever they want, neither really much cares for actual democracy except that the forms must be followed.

Oh dear oh dear.


"If you were a party member/supporter and you said things like: . . . you would obviously be calling yourself a stupid person with no integrity. "

I have no integrity because I've said I don't support any political party, and as proof you have found a quote of me not supporting a political party. The sad thing is you really think you made a valid point here.

What are these strange "."s?

Oh yeah: As those groups you mention tend to be heavily tied to democrats it is only natural they would tend to parrot party lines.

Funny how what I said doesn't look quite the same when you leave that out, eh? Why, you could almost pretend I was saying that you saying "I don't support any political party" would have amounted to calling yourself a stupid person with no integrity.

Why look! That's exactly what you ARE pretending I was saying!

It's an amazement.

(Hey, there you go. Now you can all say It's an amazement for the rest of the day.)

I mean all this time I thought you were being obtuse, it could really be you just don't understand normal human concepts.

I criticized those groups for following party lines.

I don't believe in following party lines as a matter of course.

You see a contradiction here. A rational person sees consistency.

You erroneously tried to call me out on a statement I had made under the assumption that it somehow didn't fit with that later statement.

I'll ask you: criticizing groups for parroting party lines does not jive with my refusal to follow party lines, how exactly?

I'm trying to walk you through this as you seem to be having difficulty communicating with adult humans.

I'll ask you: criticizing groups for parroting party lines does not jive with my refusal to follow party lines, how exactly?

I'm not going to even try to figure that out.

What I'll tell you is: you did not criticize anyone for parroting party lines.

You ALLEGED that the groups in question parrot party lines.
You actually don't get to "criticize" anyone based on your own UNSUBSTANTIATED and plainly FALSE ALLEGATIONS.

How about if I criticize you for beating your dog, now?

Would I not be perfectly right and upright for doing that?

and criticized them for that.

And you see a problem.

You see what everyone was talking about with the obfuscation?

Or do they speak a different version of english up there, where what you're doing actually makes sense?

and you "criticized" them based on YOUR ALLEGATION. Not based on fact or truth or reality.

I think it is appalling that you beat your dog.

compare rape to pinching, or property ownership.

How do you prove that someone is following party lines unless they admit it? I'd say if they go against the constitution, in favor of something that is not supported by the majority of people, to support something merely because there are political points to be scored.

No doubt you have some other, nonsensical metric by which you judge such things. Since you're with the crowd that sincerely believes bayonet lugs on a gun make it more likely to be used in a crime I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

How do you prove that someone is following party lines unless they admit it? I'd say if they go against the constitution, in favor of something that is not supported by the majority of people, to support something merely because there are political points to be scored.

No doubt you have some other, nonsensical metric by which you judge such things. Since you're with the crowd that sincerely believes bayonet lugs on a gun make it more likely to be used in a crime I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Me, I'd say that someone who obviously

(a) hasn't bothered to have an informed opinion, and adopts someone else's instead

or

(b) holds an opinion but abandons it in order to adhere to someone else's, solely in order to agree and not because of any change in their own opinion

could be described as parroting a party line.

And you still have no basis for alleging that any Democratic Party members/supporters do either of those.

Your own "I'd say" is just a made-up amalgam of crap plus crud.

With the usual adornment of efforts at irrelevant insult.

...exactly what relationship an article on Canadian rape laws has with the issue of CCW reciprocity in the United States?

I'm trying, but I just don't see the connection.

Could you clarify for us...
...exactly what relationship an article on Canadian rape laws has with the issue of CCW reciprocity in the United States?

if only

(a) it were an article on Canadian rape laws, and not an article on the history of rape laws, kinda like what it says it is.
Did the US originate on another planet, so that legal history from before 1776 is of no relevance to it?

(b) my post was not about "CCW reciprocity", it was a response to the disingenuous reference to the alleged racism inherent in gun control


I'm trying, but I just don't see the connection.

I'm not surprised you don't see the connection between something you made up and something nothing was intended to be connected to it or anything else.

Whether you're trying to do anything ... well, I'm sure you are.


If there's something you'd like help with that isn't just a pile of crap, let me know, do.



typo fixed

The history of rape law has nothing to do with this topic.

I am sorry you are unable to understand this.

To add to that, again, I hate to tell you but gun control in the United States (the only nation that matters in this discussion) most assuredly does have its roots in racism. While you may disagree with this, calling it disingenuous is hardly an adequate rebuttal.

In truth, after reading many of your posts, what I'd really like help with is understanding why you insist upon being so combative and disruptive, and why you insist upon using all manner of linguistic gymnastics in an attempt to obfuscate the issue rather than address it directly. You seem to be fairly intelligent, so there is reason to believe you could form cogent arguments that address the issues on point.

Unfortunately, as you said, you're only able to help me with something that isn't just a pile of crap - so I guess helping me understand your posts and motivation is simply not on your radar.

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=reasoning+analogy+children

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=reasoning+analogy+psychosis

wot e ver


In truth, after reading many of your posts, what I'd really like help with is understanding why you insist upon being so combative and disruptive, and why you insist upon using all manner of linguistic gymnastics in an attempt to obfuscate the issue rather than address it directly. You seem to be fairly intelligent, so there is reason to believe you could form cogent arguments that address the issues on point.

In truth (and this is actually true), I don't give a flying fuck.

The issue I was addressing was an allegation that gun control is a racist policy.

I addressed it.

Anything you'd like to say? You may as well understand at this early stage in your career that if what you want to say is about me, well ... I don't give a flying fuck.

If you'll give me an address, I'll send you the official fan club autographed photo, though.

...i'll just toss you on ignore. I suspect that will be easier than wading through countless off-topic rants. Too bad though - if you applied your intelligence to something other than vitriol and obfuscation, you could possibly add some serious weight to the anti-gun side of the debate.

If at some point you would like to offer something of substance, rather than random re-direction, please send me a private message and I'll remove you from ignore.

Huh. You learn something every day.

Perhaps you'll find something to fixate on other than moi.

Many have tried, few have succeeded, from the evidence.

everyone and have multiple posts arguing over and over?

Me, when I wrote:

In truth (and this is actually true), I don't give a flying fuck.

I was referring to what I quoted and said that in response to. Isn't it amazing how that works? It's called conversation, or dialogue, or discussion, or even debate.

One person says something, the other person replies by saying something ABOUT what that person said.

That wasn't what our new playmate did, though.

Our new playmate replied to something I said ABOUT SOMETHING by saying something ABOUT ME.

And in truth - yes indeed, just as I said - I don't give a flying fuck what that person or anybody else here thinks ABOUT ME.

I have never cared what plainly not very bright people with ethical deficiencies think about me.

Would you?

:rofl:

Nice try, but.... FAIL!

the more clearly people see the issue the more they oppose her. Much like creationists throwing out various hoaxes and reversals that scientists of gone through as proof that their side must be right. If you can introduce enough confusion and talking points that will take attention away from the weaknesses of your own argument.

...I'm starting to realize that. Havent been here long and have only read a few of his/her posts but I'm already wondering if I should just use the ignore function.

Haven't been here long

you've been here since ... today.

And as far as I can tell, pretty much your entire collection of 6 posts is devoted to moi.

How much do you think I should charge DU for attracting so many charming new members?

but when you have 1/5 of the posts on one topic alone it is kind of hard hot to respond to something you said. It is odd that you seem to take it personal though.

because she's too damn entertaining. But I have a high tolerance for obfuscation and BS.

So it's up to you.

...an excellent form of mental exercise, i have almost zero tolerance for BS.

I use the word "obfuscation" once and all of a sudden it's all the rage.

Let's see what I can seed the board with next ...

Frankly anyone who reads your posts and doesn't immediately think of the "o-word" is either A) not a native english speaker, B) not a very good one if he is, or C) likewise indoctrinated in to the gun-grabber cult.

I'm sure the whole jesus is god, and was the father of god at the same time thing makes perfect sense to devout christians. To those of us not working on faith it seems a little bizarre. Much like your logic.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=245974&mesg_id=246074

Just trying to gauge how long it takes after I use a fancy word for the adoring masses to pick it up and run with it.

I know how you love Google. I am beginning to think you need to see a doctor about your paranoia.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x138592#139834

Origin:
1525–35; < LL obfuscātus (ptp. of obfuscāre to darken), equiv. to L ob- ob- + fusc(us) dark + -ātus -ate 1
–verb (used with object), -cat⋅ed, -cat⋅ing.
1. to confuse, bewilder, or stupefy.
2. to make obscure or unclear: to obfuscate a problem with extraneous information.
3. to darken.

I'm not sure you're old enough to have claimed to have invented this word.

Besides, can you blame people for thinking of the dreaded o-word when they read your posts? What other word fits so neatly with your debating style? Perhaps if you'd like to see it less you should do it less.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

You took your Q (hahahaha) from post 51.

Remember Hansel and Gretl?

Follow those breadcrumbs.

My reply was collective: two natterers nattering the same word in sequential posts. Hard to miss.

How could you have taken the word from my post? You weren't born yet when I wrote it.

Really, its always an exercise in futility, but man o man, the stuff she comes up with and the direction she takes things are really out there. Its like doing drugs without doing drugs.

and you have seen it so many times before. Intellectual dishonesty is always predictable when one tries to deny the racist character of gun-control; intellectual dishonesty is always predictable when one pulls out the penis and waves it around.

:rofl:

outside their state of residence would still have to abide by all local laws and regulations. No cirumventing allowed.

But you already knew that, didn't you.

Hand-wringing, much?

The national reciprocity bill skirted the line by making it forced reciprocity but still left power to the states. Federal govt has no standing to either require CCW or set the conditions for that carry. Now someone will jump in with the interstate commerce bullcrap. Yes I agree technically the way SCOTUS had interpreted that section of code the govt can do virtually anything and call it interstate commerce. I won't support it though.

The problem with the Feds setting the conditions is the antis figured out a long time ago they don't have the resources to fight at the state level. 50 states vs 1 federal govt. If you are a minority fringe group with minimal numbers and limited funding where do you get the most bang for the buck.

By putting all the power in the federal govt and having fed govt set the standard it opens it up to defacto infringement.

Hypothetical

Today: NICS + test + training + $50 fee
Later: NICS + full fingerprints + test at govt testing center + qualification certification + $180 fee
Later: same as above but annual re certification + $240 fee + $60 per year fee.
Later: same as above but add a mandatory insurance policy, turn over medical records (for detailed mental health screening) + $480 fee + $60 annual fee + fingerprints redone each year ($50).
Later: same as above but weapons not on "safe gun list" are prohibited. Weapon needs to be test fired for ballistic fingerprint by police each year.

Firearm Permit in NYC is ~$400 per year, virtually impossible to get and takes months. It didn't go from no restriction to defacto infringement, the antis piled on it one amendment at a time.

By putting entire CCW system in hands of federal govt it is 50x easier for the antis to do the same thing nationwide.

I was musing about how we all know who loves them some states' rights, and what "states' rights" is code for.

I got confused for a minute, thinking that our Statistical was concerned about residents of states who didn't want some other states' gun-toters shoved down their throats. That I could understand, although it's not something I'd bother calling "states' rights".

But it seems I was wrong, so I was right.

We all know about "states' rights", and it doesn't take a foreigner to know about that.

Perhaps when 14th Amendment "incorporation" is established, there may be greater security from Federal anti-gun forces. Until then, the various states should make (through informal compact) their respective CCW laws more compatible and uniform.

I live in NJ and I can tell you that I wouldn't want to see our "system" applied nationally. I think firearm ownership is protected at the federal level by the 2A but the states (not the cities of NYC or Chicago) should set the standards for CCW. I'd like to see a common standard set for reciprocity but not by the federal government. The fed has already grabbed too much power.

As a matter of historical understanding and as Heller itself says, the Constitutional does not protect a right to bear concealed arms--at least not as a general rule. As a matter of policy, as much as I would like to see CCW crammed down the 2 outlying states' throats, it would be an uphill battle and debatably not supported by the Constitution.

The proposed national reciprocity bill was clearly within Congress' constitutional power, however, as you pointed out--full faith and credit.

A federally administered CCW program is very different from federally enforced reciprocity, and it does make CCW more vulnerable in the long term. You have a solid point.

Perhaps the best possible scenario is

1) Congressionally enforced full faith and credit--reciprocity among states that allow CCW
2) Supreme Court enforced right to bear arms--no state may ban both concealed carry and open carry

Then we will get to watch the tears and hand wringing. New York can either ban CCW and watch people carry openly in Manhattan (and face the wrath of politically connected billionaires and celebrities who would prefer not to) or allow shall-issue CCW.

Illinois and Wisconsin can either allow shall-issue CCW or be faced with open carry with all the bed wetting and breathless hysteria that would entail. I would like to watch "Da Mayah's" head explode when he gets the news--it would be a youtube classic.

Perhaps the tears of anti-gun militant extremists will be available in bottled form? I bet the imports (especially Canadian) would be the best quality!

There will be a lot of legal battles over the next couple decades.
Antis saw Heller as the end but it really is just the beginning.
I think shall issue vs. may issue is a harder case than complete bans.

Would be good to start in the 2 states that completely ban all forms of carry. That is very black and white.

...but like a driver's license, your CCW should be honored in every state.

.. than give any Tom, Dick, or Harry in Podunk PD the ability to delay licenses.

I could see Officer Fife in Bloomberg's administration doing a google search on Joe Public and objecting because his name matches another criminal. Even if it's a different person, they'd have to take time to go to court- how many folks would have the ability / time to address that in multiple districts (or from multiple officers?)

If the federal govt sets the rules, well then we might as well just do away with states ccw. And once we get to that point, the feds giveth and the feds can taketh away, all at once.

Can't share the details yet but suffice it to say that police aren't always aware of what is really going on and most of the time family members know a hell of a lot more about the person's history.

A spouse/partner etc. is required to be notified by an applicant for a firearms licence in Canada, and to sign the application acknowledging that s/he is aware of it. There is a hotline number on the form to call if there are any concerns.

That's in addition to references having to be provided, and checked.

What if the "family member" is an abusive spouse? Or is the crazy sibling from which one needs protection?

It is not up to another to decide which of your civil rights you choose to exercise.

Would you allow a family member to decide if you should be allowed to exercise your voting rights? Before you say its different - bear in mind the person put in office can be far more destructive than a misused firearm.

What if the "family member" is an abusive spouse? Or is the crazy sibling from which one needs protection?

What if nobody else in the world could figure that out and, gosh, deal with the issue when it arose, and even, gosh, have a mechanism for dealing with it? Like, gosh, having a way of reporting that one apprehends violence from another person, and gosh, having a way of verifying such claims by anyone who requested exemption from the notification requirement ...

Of course, it doesn't arise where I'm at. Disclosing that one was applying for a firearms permit in order to buy a gun to have around for use against an abusive spouse or crazy sibling or anybody else in the world would be a sure way not to get a firearms permit.


Would you allow a family member to decide if you should be allowed to exercise your voting rights?

Would you pretend to be this stupid in the real world?