Glock Forum - GlockTalk banner
1 - 20 of 94 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
16 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
What is best for the gun community is not always best. From a Libertarian perspective the idea of the federal government forcing states to do what they don't want to seems wrong. It goes agains the grain of federalism. It could also set up a dangerous president that could be turned back against us.

To be clear, I love the idea of CCW, open carry, people allowed to take care of themselves, etc. Just because the pendulum of political power has swung to the right, doesn't mean that in 4-8 years time we couldn't see this blow up in our faces.

Perhaps the best solution is one of unilateral deregulation, decriminalization and freedom for all. Just one guys opinion.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,556 Posts
What is best for the gun community is not always best. From a Libertarian perspective the idea of the federal government forcing states to do what they don't want to seems wrong. It goes agains the grain of federalism. It could also set up a dangerous president that could be turned back against us.

To be clear, I love the idea of CCW, open carry, people allowed to take care of themselves, etc. Just because the pendulum of political power has swung to the right, doesn't mean that in 4-8 years time we couldn't see this blow up in our faces.

Perhaps the best solution is one of unilateral deregulation, decriminalization and freedom for all. Just one guys opinion.
Kinda funny that it always seems like a new guy from a gun unfriendly state will appear on the forum and be all for federalizing CC law and putting it under federal jurisdiction. Then the rest of the forum jumps in and points out the folly of his thought process. The Feds giveth and taketh away. It would work just like MJ sales, federal law says illegal, state law says legal. I could just imagine how jambed up one could get in say NJ or NYC if National CC became law and they decided that, like the MJ laws, they were going to do their own thing and follow what the state wants.
 

·
Senior Member
Joined
·
3,257 Posts
<incorrect data edited> If I am licensed to drive a car, and the origin of my driver's license is TX, that license is recognized in any state of the United States; (even in Mexico and Canada, but they don't count for this discussion)

I believe in the states' rights to self regulate... but the Second Amendment is a Constitutional Right that applies to ALL states, and while I believe the states have a right to regulate same, I don't believe they have the authority to undermine the Constitution and make exercising a right so egregious that it is impossible to do so. They can't say "you have the right to exercise free speech, but only if you ask permission first and that permission will come with all sorts of rules that will make it nearly impossible for you to say anything intelligible".

The precedent here should be, that like Freedom of Speech, the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, the right to not have to self incriminate, etc, and so on, do not need any other form of permission to exercise those rights (as long as they are lawfully exercised)... and are rights available to all citizens in ALL states of the United States... then ALL rights guaranteed by the Constitution should be treated as such, including specifically, the Second Amendment (as long as it is lawfully exercised). If ALL the other Amendments apply to ALL states, so too and equally, should the Second Amendment, and any declaration of the Federal Government to all the states is not over-reach. It is called Rule of Law, which basically states that all laws apply to all people at all times, equally. (Just don't tell Hillary Clinton that)

You speak of deregulation, decriminalization, and freedom for all; that's exactly the same thing as what you warn against blowing up in our faces.
 

·
If you're going through Hell, keep going.
Joined
·
32 Posts
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,797 Posts
How can it
What is best for the gun community is not always best. From a Libertarian perspective the idea of the federal government forcing states to do what they don't want to seems wrong. It goes agains the grain of federalism. It could also set up a dangerous president that could be turned back against us.

To be clear, I love the idea of CCW, open carry, people allowed to take care of themselves, etc. Just because the pendulum of political power has swung to the right, doesn't mean that in 4-8 years time we couldn't see this blow up in our faces.

Perhaps the best solution is one of unilateral deregulation, decriminalization and freedom for all. Just one guys opinion.
What is an example about coming back to bite use?

Fed law supersedes state law. They already made that clear with class III. How would 50 state federal carry be any different?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
965 Posts
At present, inertia is on the side of states' doing whatever they want with respect to firearms carry. Passage of some form of national reciprocity, however, will swing the inertial pendulum to an alternative scenario. In 4-8 years, overcoming the inertia of that alternative scenario will require a purposeful determination aimed at depriving folks of exercising their firearm-carry freedoms.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,399 Posts
I love how the Supreme Court tells states that they cannot restrict behavior that's not constitutionally protected, but states are free to restrict something spelled out in the Bill of freakin' Rights. I don't think we should have national CCW reciprocity as a federal law, rather I think we should have anti-gun state laws thrown out across the country by the SC. I realize I'm asking way too much, though.
 

·
With Liberty and Justice for all.
Joined
·
20,894 Posts
At present, inertia is on the side of states' doing whatever they want with respect to firearms carry. Passage of some form of national reciprocity, however, will swing the inertial pendulum to an alternative scenario. In 4-8 years, overcoming the inertia of that alternative scenario will require a purposeful determination aimed at depriving folks of exercising their firearm-carry freedoms.
So if the pendulum happens to swing back, we lose national reciprocity. That's all. Besides, as we all know, it is very difficult to get rid of a law once it is passed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
37,603 Posts
100% agree with national reciprocity. As noted, my DL is good anywhere. My ccw should be too, subject to any local laws, just like you would be in your issue state. This would allow people in antigun states to carry in their own state by getting a nonres permit like Utah or Fl.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rock_castle

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,768 Posts
If I am a physician in NY, I am licensed. My license says that I can practice as a doctor in any state of the United States.
Just as a technical point, each state has different licensing requirements and in general a license to practice medicine is NOT valid in another state (with some exceptions regarding bordering states). It's state dependent with different requirements depending on the state. Your MD/DO is valid in all 50 states and in some other countries... but in order to actually practice medicine, you need to be individually state licensed.

I would love for there to be National reciprocity for CCW though.
 

·
Senior Member
Joined
·
3,257 Posts
Just as a technical point, each state has different licensing requirements and in general a license to practice medicine is NOT valid in another state (with some exceptions regarding bordering states). It's state dependent with different requirements depending on the state. Your MD/DO is valid in all 50 states and in some other countries... but in order to actually practice medicine, you need to be individually state licensed.

I would love for there to be National reciprocity for CCW though.
Fair enough, correction noted.... but the point remains the same.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
59,811 Posts
The federal government didn't do much at all with drivers licenses. Of course there were a few changes that came into play with commercial drivers licenses when they standardized them. For instance before it was standardized, a chauffeur license with a written test was what was needed to drive a truck here. When they standardized it it was basically the same. Except the test was longer. And the driving test. And the medical certificate. And a couple other little minor things.

But I am sure just because the federal government threatened to withhold highway funds if they did not voluntarily comply the new commercial drivers license rules, the federal government would not threaten to withhold crime prevention funds if they decide that some sort of testing and vetting is needed like they do in New York City.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,951 Posts
The driver's license is from an interstate compact. Basically , to accept federal highway dollars, state's had to recognize other state's drivers lic and in addition, it also falls under interstate commerce.

The federal law on guns has already taken hold so this anti-federalist stance on guns doesn't hold water. It just means recipociry of state licensing.

The Feds already made LEOSA and it has been upheld more than once. The 1968 federal gun laws are nationwide and binding.

So far the new Federal gun free school law has held up

If this bill passes it will be a good thing. I have LEOSA already and still want this law passed
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,718 Posts
I'll echo Lord:
The issue is the Fed Govt can step in when a state is restricting constitutional rights...I would say the right to carry a gun (open or concealed) is protected by the 2A...but I'm not a lawyer either...however I think any common sensed patriot would agree...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
59,811 Posts
The driver's license is from an interstate compact. Basically , to accept federal highway dollars, state's had to recognize other state's drivers lic and in addition, it also falls under interstate commerce.

...
You don't see any possibility that when there is a less gun friendly administration or Congress that the federal government would suggest certain criteria for being granted a concealed carrying license the same way they did with commerical drivers licenses? You could not see the federal government suggesting a different threshold for some firearms law at the state level like they did when it was decided that .08 was the better choice for a DUI than .10?
 
  • Like
Reactions: janice6

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,951 Posts
Not the way the law is written. It would be under interstate commerce by saying some traveling interstate can carry as if he had an unrestricted permit in accordance with the laws of the state he is in. They already have LEOSA and armored car guard laws that let us carry across state lines.

They aren't making a standard for the CCW but saying you temporarily have to recognize the other state permit. Also we have nothing to lose. A federal standard to cross lines. They could do that now
 
1 - 20 of 94 Posts
Top