Support
Contact
Ace:
aceofspadeshq at gee mail.com
CBD:
cbd at cutjibnewsletter.com
Buck:
buck.throckmorton at protonmail.com
joe mannix:
mannix2024 at proton.me
MisHum:
petmorons at gee mail.com
J.J. Sefton:
sefton at cutjibnewsletter.com
aceofspadeshq at gee mail.com
CBD:
cbd at cutjibnewsletter.com
Buck:
buck.throckmorton at protonmail.com
joe mannix:
mannix2024 at proton.me
MisHum:
petmorons at gee mail.com
J.J. Sefton:
sefton at cutjibnewsletter.com
Representative Richard Hudson Introduces National Concealed Carry Reciprocity Bill to Congress
You can't have GAINZZZ without GUNZZZ.
On January 3--the first day of the 115th Congress---Representative Richard Hudson (R-NC-Good? I don't know. This bothers me on federalism grounds. States do in fact make compacts permitting just this sort of reciprocity -- I don't know why we need a federal law to do it. And the bill seems to offer up a thin reed indeed as a justification for federal jurisdiction -- the bill makes any gun shipped or sold in federal commerce legal to carry via these reciprocity rules. That part rankles me -- this very dubious theory that federal jurisdiction obtains in any case where any good or service has been sold across state lines, or anyone has even thought about crossing state lines, is plainly an unconstitutional end-around the states' power to make their own laws. I support the idea behind this, but I don't know about the method. I do know that states have compacts for reciprocity. It seems to me that a better method would be encouraging more of that, or streamlining the out-of-state licensing process, or the like. For example: if a state has a law that you need to attend courses to get your concealed license, and that course must be administered in-state, I could see Congress saying that that last requirement runs afoul of the Commerce Clause, and that, for example, Utah must permit Utah-certified instructors to give gun safety courses in Georgia, so that Georgians can more easily get their Utah permit. That seems to me something more in spirit of the real Commerce Clause -- breaking down states' attempts to create barriers to trade and one-state monopolies. With that kind of rule, a Georgia resident who wants to concealed-carry in every state that permits it could get licensed in many states by going to nearby instructors. But I don't know about bigfooting states' rights to determine that a concealed carry permit should only be held by someone who takes a couple of days of classes and say that they must permit anyone from a state without such a requirement to conceal-carry in that state.introduced national concealed carry reciprocity legislation. ... Hudson's legislation not only establishes national reciprocity for concealed permit holders but also national reciprocity for residents who live in states that require no permit for concealed carry. In the former situation the concealed carry permit of any state would be valid in every state and the "identification document" in possession of a resident of a constitutional carry state would serve as a permit to carry without a license in other states.
Comments
(Jump to bottom of comments)Posted by: Soothsayer Pro Elite at January 04, 2017 05:40 PM (4Ejxg)
2
States should be allowed to determine which other states get reciprocity themselves.
Posted by: Banana Splits Guy CON QUESO at January 04, 2017 05:40 PM (BucYa)
3
btw, it's Hudson not Hunter!
btw, it's Hudson not Hunter!
Posted by: Soothsayer Pro Elite at January 04, 2017 05:40 PM (4Ejxg)
4
I like Dick Hunter better!
I like Dick Hunter better!
Posted by: Soothsayer Pro Elite at January 04, 2017 05:41 PM (4Ejxg)
Posted by: Muldoon at January 04, 2017 05:41 PM (wPiJc)
6
Shall Not Be Infringed
Posted by: garrett at January 04, 2017 05:41 PM (eKeoR)
7
Maybe you're thinking of Cock Hudson?
Posted by: andycanuck at January 04, 2017 05:41 PM (lJXY3)
8
This bothers me on federalism grounds. States do in fact make compacts permitting just this sort of reciprocity -- I don't know why we need a federal law to do it.
That's where I stand as well. If states want reciprocity, they can do so and the federal government should stay the hell out of state business no matter how much I might like the results.
I love the concept of 50 different experimental labs trying different approaches, and a federal government as the go between not involved in each state. Every state is different, with different populations and different features, let them do their own thing and keep Washington DC out.
That's where I stand as well. If states want reciprocity, they can do so and the federal government should stay the hell out of state business no matter how much I might like the results.
I love the concept of 50 different experimental labs trying different approaches, and a federal government as the go between not involved in each state. Every state is different, with different populations and different features, let them do their own thing and keep Washington DC out.
Posted by: Christopher R Taylor at January 04, 2017 05:42 PM (39g3+)
9
Top 10!
Posted by: Weasel at January 04, 2017 05:43 PM (Sfs6o)
Posted by: Jill Stein, the green frog at January 04, 2017 05:43 PM (trdnR)
11
By making the enemy live up to its own rules, you stop them from using Weapons of Mass Destruction.
Letting the enemy use federalism selectively without doing it ourselves is unilateral disarmament.
We've already had 8 years of unilateral disarmament.
Letting the enemy use federalism selectively without doing it ourselves is unilateral disarmament.
We've already had 8 years of unilateral disarmament.
Posted by: Oschisms at January 04, 2017 05:43 PM (ZsN9X)
12
So the feds can block states from prohibiting abortion but not concealed carry?
Posted by: MAx at January 04, 2017 05:43 PM (/RZxG)
Posted by: pep at January 04, 2017 05:43 PM (LAe3v)
14
"This bothers me on federalism grounds. States do in fact make compacts permitting just this sort of reciprocity -- I don't know why we need a federal law to do it."
It is called the Second Amendment to the Constitution of these great United States of America.
It is called the Second Amendment to the Constitution of these great United States of America.
Posted by: Slapweasel, (Cold1), (T) at January 04, 2017 05:43 PM (6gk0M)
15
States should be allowed to determine which other states get reciprocity themselves.
Yep. Don't even fucking think about bringing that New York drivers license to Texas.
Yep. Don't even fucking think about bringing that New York drivers license to Texas.
Posted by: rickb223 at January 04, 2017 05:43 PM (dSqvH)
16
It also seems to beg the question that laws can be passed at the Federal level that infringe on the constitutional right to bear arms. Might be a slippery slope type situation.
I may be misreading this.
I may be misreading this.
Posted by: Muldoon at January 04, 2017 05:44 PM (wPiJc)
17
States Rights don't trump the Bill of Rights.
'Shall not be Infringed' is in no way ripe for interpretation.
'Shall not be Infringed' is in no way ripe for interpretation.
Posted by: garrett at January 04, 2017 05:44 PM (eKeoR)
18
Its a damb shame you have to pass a law that forces a State to abide by The Bill of Rights.
Its a damb shame you have to pass a law that forces a State to abide by The Bill of Rights.
Posted by: fixerupper at January 04, 2017 05:44 PM (JmjOe)
19
Haha I just realized I post like 10X a year
Posted by: MAx at January 04, 2017 05:44 PM (/RZxG)
20
Yay ccw everywhere!
I see what you're saying ace, but without bigfooting, would any of the blue states EVER sign on?
I see what you're saying ace, but without bigfooting, would any of the blue states EVER sign on?
Posted by: Deplorable votermom @vm on Gab at January 04, 2017 05:44 PM (Om16U)
21
And fuck the Feds.
Posted by: Weasel at January 04, 2017 05:44 PM (Sfs6o)
22
let them do their own thing and keep Washington DC out.
Posted by: Christopher R Taylor at January 04, 2017 05:42 PM (39g3+)
What about my state...NJ?
I cannot get a carry permit. It is impossible.
Are you cool with that?
Posted by: Christopher R Taylor at January 04, 2017 05:42 PM (39g3+)
What about my state...NJ?
I cannot get a carry permit. It is impossible.
Are you cool with that?
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at January 04, 2017 05:44 PM (rF0hx)
23
19 Probably still too many for many folks
Posted by: MAx at January 04, 2017 05:44 PM (/RZxG)
24
Not hoding my breath for it to pass but notbreathing right either
Posted by: Skip at January 04, 2017 05:45 PM (5sOEp)
25
But I don't know about bigfooting states' rights to determine that a
concealed carry permit should only be held by someone who takes a couple
of days of classes and say that they must permit anyone from a state
without such a requirement to conceal-carry in that state.
Unclean!!! Stone him!
concealed carry permit should only be held by someone who takes a couple
of days of classes and say that they must permit anyone from a state
without such a requirement to conceal-carry in that state.
Unclean!!! Stone him!
Posted by: pep at January 04, 2017 05:45 PM (LAe3v)
26
This is like Driver's Licenses. Not sure what the concern is? We don't let NY state not honor SC DL's because they don't require drivers ed.
Common sense
Common sense
Posted by: George at January 04, 2017 05:45 PM (trdnR)
27
22 Ditto in L.A. county Califo
Posted by: MAx at January 04, 2017 05:45 PM (/RZxG)
28
These same 'interstate commerce' reasons got the Feds sticking their noses into Ernest Hemingway's house in Key West and the care of the cats on the estate. Because the house is advertised as a tourist attraction throughout the US, the reasoning became that yes the Feds can micromanage how the estate takes care of the cats.
Posted by: Anna Puma at January 04, 2017 05:45 PM (idrE1)
29
Well, they forced through Gay marriage at the Federal level by claiming it's reciprocity was needed. How can they argue that 2nd amendment rights don't work the same way?
Posted by: nnptcgrad at January 04, 2017 05:46 PM (PzBTm)
30
I don't see a big distinction between the feds telling states they can't ignore the 2nd amendment and telling them they can't ignore the 15th amendment.
Posted by: Iowa Bob at January 04, 2017 05:46 PM (tu3iY)
31
US Constitution
Article IV, Section 1
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
Article IV, Section 1
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
Posted by: rickb223 at January 04, 2017 05:46 PM (dSqvH)
32
What about my state...NJ?
I cannot get a carry permit. It is impossible.
Individual states should not violate the US constitution, but that's not the job of the federal government, its the job of the citizens of states. The founding fathers were clear on this: the people hold the power to enforce the constitution, not the judges or lawyers.
I cannot get a carry permit. It is impossible.
Individual states should not violate the US constitution, but that's not the job of the federal government, its the job of the citizens of states. The founding fathers were clear on this: the people hold the power to enforce the constitution, not the judges or lawyers.
Posted by: Christopher R Taylor at January 04, 2017 05:46 PM (39g3+)
33
Federal should equal Freedom, while States are permitted to be dicks.
Posted by: Slapweasel, (Cold1), (T) at January 04, 2017 05:46 PM (6gk0M)
34
A bit OT, but I just saw on Twitter (I don't have an account, but I was checking it out anyway) that today every liberal I know just tweeted this (verbatim):
"Let's all quit Twitter and encourage everyone to do the same. Stop listening to the liar in chief-elect!"
Wasn't it just a few months ago that conservatives were abandoning twitter en masse? But they did so on a matter of principle.
What's funny about this leftist mass-walk-out is that it is wholly unnecessary -- they're not objecting to Twitter's policies, but rather simply trying to avoid looking at Trump's tweets. Isn't the simpler way to do that to just UNFOLLOW Trump?
But no, that would be too easy. And too unnoticed.
When a liberal does something, it MUST be with a gigantic FLOUNCE and massive HISSY FIT so that everyone sees what you're doing. In fact, the very point of doing it is for the purpose if BEING NOTICED for you superior virtue-signaling.
"Let's all quit Twitter and encourage everyone to do the same. Stop listening to the liar in chief-elect!"
Wasn't it just a few months ago that conservatives were abandoning twitter en masse? But they did so on a matter of principle.
What's funny about this leftist mass-walk-out is that it is wholly unnecessary -- they're not objecting to Twitter's policies, but rather simply trying to avoid looking at Trump's tweets. Isn't the simpler way to do that to just UNFOLLOW Trump?
But no, that would be too easy. And too unnoticed.
When a liberal does something, it MUST be with a gigantic FLOUNCE and massive HISSY FIT so that everyone sees what you're doing. In fact, the very point of doing it is for the purpose if BEING NOTICED for you superior virtue-signaling.
Posted by: zombie at January 04, 2017 05:46 PM (jBuUi)
35
I carry . In my pants.
Posted by: Reggie at January 04, 2017 05:46 PM (bc2Lc)
36
29 30 yip
Posted by: MAx at January 04, 2017 05:46 PM (/RZxG)
37
Shall Not Be Infringed
Posted by: garrett at January 04, 2017 05:41 PM (eKeoR)
Bingo.
So I guess we are the only two real conservatives around here.
Ace...get off my lawn!
Shall Not Be Infringed
Posted by: garrett at January 04, 2017 05:41 PM (eKeoR)
Bingo.
So I guess we are the only two real conservatives around here.
Ace...get off my lawn!
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at January 04, 2017 05:46 PM (rF0hx)
38
I cannot get a carry permit. It is impossible.
Are you cool with that?
Nope. The restrictions must be reasonable and relevant. Who determines those things? Well, ultimately, SCOTUS.
Are you cool with that?
Nope. The restrictions must be reasonable and relevant. Who determines those things? Well, ultimately, SCOTUS.
Posted by: pep at January 04, 2017 05:46 PM (LAe3v)
39
This has Pandora's Box written all over. One of those "it means well measures".
Posted by: Pepe at January 04, 2017 05:47 PM (7SUm3)
40
Ace:
Think of concealed carry licenses in the same way as marriage or drivers licenses.
I agree that using the commerce clause is the wrong way to do it, but the reason the feds are stepping in is because the governor of virginia just up and decided last year to void all existing reciprocity agreements. He got slapped down by his state legislature shortly thereafter, but it would be like california suddenly deciding that alabama drivers licenses were no good there because alabamans like to drive pickup trucks, and pickup trucks are racist!
Think of concealed carry licenses in the same way as marriage or drivers licenses.
I agree that using the commerce clause is the wrong way to do it, but the reason the feds are stepping in is because the governor of virginia just up and decided last year to void all existing reciprocity agreements. He got slapped down by his state legislature shortly thereafter, but it would be like california suddenly deciding that alabama drivers licenses were no good there because alabamans like to drive pickup trucks, and pickup trucks are racist!
Posted by: wizardpc at January 04, 2017 05:47 PM (Icukm)
41
>>>What about my state...NJ?
I cannot get a carry permit. It is impossible.
Are you cool with that?
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at January 04, 2017 05:44 PM (rF0hx)
Alcohol licenses and gas pumping are also fucked in Joisey, but not the fed responsibility to unfuck the state.
I cannot get a carry permit. It is impossible.
Are you cool with that?
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at January 04, 2017 05:44 PM (rF0hx)
Alcohol licenses and gas pumping are also fucked in Joisey, but not the fed responsibility to unfuck the state.
Posted by: Banana Splits Guy CON QUESO at January 04, 2017 05:47 PM (BucYa)
42
1st item on the Texas legislative agenda is a constitutional carry bill. I have yet to see anyone open carry.
Posted by: Ben Had at January 04, 2017 05:47 PM (E/pqw)
43
What about my state...NJ?
I cannot get a carry permit. It is impossible.
Are you cool with that?
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at January 04, 2017 05:44 PM (rF0hx)
--
Someone from PA with a CCW can't even drive through NJ without getting arrested.
I cannot get a carry permit. It is impossible.
Are you cool with that?
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at January 04, 2017 05:44 PM (rF0hx)
--
Someone from PA with a CCW can't even drive through NJ without getting arrested.
Posted by: Deplorable votermom @vm on Gab at January 04, 2017 05:47 PM (Om16U)
44
Speaking of guns..
watched BLOOD FATHER starring William Wallace last night.
I liked it -- good action flick, better than any of that Marvel crap.
I'll say this, tho: Mel Gibson must be pumping iron and/or taking steroids because he was pretty jacked. Very large, for him.
Speaking of guns..
watched BLOOD FATHER starring William Wallace last night.
I liked it -- good action flick, better than any of that Marvel crap.
I'll say this, tho: Mel Gibson must be pumping iron and/or taking steroids because he was pretty jacked. Very large, for him.
Posted by: Soothsayer Pro Elite at January 04, 2017 05:47 PM (4Ejxg)
45
They should have a special clause for Military personnel ...not only full carry in every State but ON BASE also.
Posted by: Nevergiveup at January 04, 2017 05:47 PM (SjImc)
46
if BEING NOTICED for you superior virtue-signaling.
=
of BEING NOTICED for your superior virtue-signaling.
=
of BEING NOTICED for your superior virtue-signaling.
Posted by: zombie at January 04, 2017 05:47 PM (jBuUi)
47
Well, they forced through Gay marriage at the Federal level by claiming it's reciprocity was needed. How can they argue that 2nd amendment rights don't work the same way?
Posted by: nnptcgrad at January 04, 2017 05:46 PM (PzBTm)
Xactly the point imo
Posted by: nnptcgrad at January 04, 2017 05:46 PM (PzBTm)
Xactly the point imo
Posted by: runner at January 04, 2017 05:47 PM (c6/9Q)
48
And what's my license to drive a motor vehicle, for which I had to qualify via testing, all about here, in comparison?
Isn't it recognized in other states? Of course it is.
But do we want those kinds of computerized records going on for CCW? My NY CCW is typed on paper using a typewriter, and bears no expiration date.
Isn't it recognized in other states? Of course it is.
But do we want those kinds of computerized records going on for CCW? My NY CCW is typed on paper using a typewriter, and bears no expiration date.
Posted by: the littl shyning man at January 04, 2017 05:47 PM (U6f54)
49
Mel Gibson had like 18" biceps in this flick. That's not the Mel I remember...
Mel Gibson had like 18" biceps in this flick. That's not the Mel I remember...
Posted by: Soothsayer Pro Elite at January 04, 2017 05:48 PM (4Ejxg)
50
'Shall not be Infringed' is in no way ripe for interpretation.
The First Amendment on its terms applied only to Congress. So the Second, by not including such limitation, should be interpreted as trumping state rights.
The First Amendment on its terms applied only to Congress. So the Second, by not including such limitation, should be interpreted as trumping state rights.
Posted by: wooga at January 04, 2017 05:48 PM (naT8w)
51
17 States Rights don't trump the Bill of Rights.
At least according to my reading ... prior to the Supreme Court invention of the notion of Incorporation ... that's EXACTLY how it worked.
That shit started in 1925.
At least according to my reading ... prior to the Supreme Court invention of the notion of Incorporation ... that's EXACTLY how it worked.
That shit started in 1925.
Posted by: SD at January 04, 2017 05:48 PM (07YWD)
52
And since this is a gun thread - I'm trying to find an aftermarket set of target stocks for a Colt Official Police revolver. I have a set of rubber Pachmayer's on it now which is truly a crime against humanity.
Posted by: Weasel at January 04, 2017 05:48 PM (Sfs6o)
53
What about my state...NJ?
I cannot get a carry permit. It is impossible.
Are you cool with that?
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at January 04, 2017 05:44 PM (rF0hx)
Well I've never seen you shoot, but I hear your aim at the urinal less a lot to be desired!
I cannot get a carry permit. It is impossible.
Are you cool with that?
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at January 04, 2017 05:44 PM (rF0hx)
Well I've never seen you shoot, but I hear your aim at the urinal less a lot to be desired!
Posted by: Nevergiveup at January 04, 2017 05:48 PM (SjImc)
54
Individual states should not violate the US constitution, but that's not
the job of the federal government, its the job of the citizens of
states. The founding fathers were clear on this: the people hold the
power to enforce the constitution, not the judges or lawyers.
By that standard, Jim Crow would be hale and hearty.
the job of the federal government, its the job of the citizens of
states. The founding fathers were clear on this: the people hold the
power to enforce the constitution, not the judges or lawyers.
By that standard, Jim Crow would be hale and hearty.
Posted by: pep at January 04, 2017 05:48 PM (LAe3v)
55
If a state has to recognize a gayrriage from another state, then dammit they should have to recognize my CC permit.
Posted by: Insomniac at January 04, 2017 05:48 PM (0mRoj)
56
Missouri just passed Constitutional Carry effective 1-1-17.
No permit needed to carry.
I still intend to get a permit so I can legally carry in States that require a permit.
Missouri just passed Constitutional Carry effective 1-1-17.
No permit needed to carry.
I still intend to get a permit so I can legally carry in States that require a permit.
Posted by: fixerupper at January 04, 2017 05:49 PM (JmjOe)
57
-Posted by: zombie at January 04, 2017 05:47 PM (jBuUi)
If you are asked about being a State by God..
YOU SAY "YES!!!"
If you are asked about being a State by God..
YOU SAY "YES!!!"
Posted by: Slapweasel, (Cold1), (T) at January 04, 2017 05:49 PM (6gk0M)
58
But do we want those kinds of computerized records going on for CCW? My NY CCW is typed on paper using a typewriter, and bears no expiration date.
Horse is already out of the barn. My Texas license is tied to my license plate number. Cop already knows before he ever walks up.
Horse is already out of the barn. My Texas license is tied to my license plate number. Cop already knows before he ever walks up.
Posted by: rickb223 at January 04, 2017 05:49 PM (dSqvH)
59
That part rankles me -- this very dubious theory that federal
jurisdiction obtains in any case where any good or service has been sold
across state lines
---
Except this is the situation where a citizen is the one crossing state lines temporarily. My rights shouldn't disappear as a result of driving over a state border.
If I choose to permanently reside in an unAmerican state, that's another matter.
Question, how are driver's licenses handled? Because it seems to me the same sort of reciprocity should occur.
jurisdiction obtains in any case where any good or service has been sold
across state lines
---
Except this is the situation where a citizen is the one crossing state lines temporarily. My rights shouldn't disappear as a result of driving over a state border.
If I choose to permanently reside in an unAmerican state, that's another matter.
Question, how are driver's licenses handled? Because it seems to me the same sort of reciprocity should occur.
Posted by: Methos at January 04, 2017 05:50 PM (3Liv/)
60
44
Speaking of guns..
watched BLOOD FATHER starring William Wallace last night.
I liked it -- good action flick, better than any of that Marvel crap.
I'll say this, tho: Mel Gibson must be pumping iron and/or taking steroids because he was pretty jacked. Very large, for him.
Posted by: Soothsayer Pro Elite at January 04, 2017 05:47 PM (4Ejxg)
He was fairly pumped in Braveheart.
Speaking of guns..
watched BLOOD FATHER starring William Wallace last night.
I liked it -- good action flick, better than any of that Marvel crap.
I'll say this, tho: Mel Gibson must be pumping iron and/or taking steroids because he was pretty jacked. Very large, for him.
Posted by: Soothsayer Pro Elite at January 04, 2017 05:47 PM (4Ejxg)
He was fairly pumped in Braveheart.
Posted by: Insomniac at January 04, 2017 05:50 PM (0mRoj)
61
"That part rankles me -- this very dubious theory that federal jurisdiction obtains in any case where any good or service has been sold across state lines, or anyone has even thought about crossing state lines, is plainly an unconstitutional end-around the states' power to make their own laws."
Principled constitutional arguments didn't seem to be getting us anywhere, so I move we go with the exercise in simple brute force, with a tiny fig leaf of legalism tacked on.
Just as Democrats have been doing for the last 75 years.
Principled constitutional arguments didn't seem to be getting us anywhere, so I move we go with the exercise in simple brute force, with a tiny fig leaf of legalism tacked on.
Just as Democrats have been doing for the last 75 years.
Posted by: torquewrench at January 04, 2017 05:50 PM (noWW6)
62
Anyone else notice Matt Damon keeps getting taller and taller? And so is Ben Affleck
He used to be, like, 5'8. Now Matt Damon is standing shoulder-to-shoulder to six-footers and towering over the women in his scenes.
Ben Affleck used to be, like, 5'10", but now he's, like, 6'2".
Anyone else notice Matt Damon keeps getting taller and taller? And so is Ben Affleck
He used to be, like, 5'8. Now Matt Damon is standing shoulder-to-shoulder to six-footers and towering over the women in his scenes.
Ben Affleck used to be, like, 5'10", but now he's, like, 6'2".
Posted by: Soothsayer Pro Elite at January 04, 2017 05:50 PM (4Ejxg)
63
Since its a gun thread,
Finally cast my own .723 cal balls for my smoothbore Brown Bess on Saturday. It was easy, did it outdoors and used a cheap stainless steel pot and a kitchen scoop I bought at a religious 2nd hand shop both for 7 bucks total. Have lots more lead to clean and need to make paper cartridges up.
Finally cast my own .723 cal balls for my smoothbore Brown Bess on Saturday. It was easy, did it outdoors and used a cheap stainless steel pot and a kitchen scoop I bought at a religious 2nd hand shop both for 7 bucks total. Have lots more lead to clean and need to make paper cartridges up.
Posted by: Skip at January 04, 2017 05:50 PM (5sOEp)
64
But I don't know about bigfooting states' rights to determine that a concealed carry permit should only be held by someone who takes a couple of days of classes and say that they must permit anyone from a state without such a requirement to conceal-carry in that state.
Is it really any more dangerous than recognition of a driver's license from a state that grants them to people without a requirement for some sort of driver's education course by a state that does require such training prior to issuance?
Is it really any more dangerous than recognition of a driver's license from a state that grants them to people without a requirement for some sort of driver's education course by a state that does require such training prior to issuance?
Posted by: Country Singer (Gab @Bert G) at January 04, 2017 05:50 PM (GUBah)
65
Who decides if the Robots can carry guns?
Posted by: Pepe at January 04, 2017 05:50 PM (7SUm3)
66
They should have a special clause for Military personnel ...not only full carry in every State but ON BASE also.
Posted by: Nevergiveup at January 04, 2017 05:47 PM (SjImc)
Oh...bullshit!
What makes military personnel more deserving of 2nd Amendment protections?
Posted by: Nevergiveup at January 04, 2017 05:47 PM (SjImc)
Oh...bullshit!
What makes military personnel more deserving of 2nd Amendment protections?
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at January 04, 2017 05:51 PM (rF0hx)
67
65 Who decides if the Robots can carry guns?
Posted by: Pepe at January 04, 2017 05:50 PM (7SUm3)
Ahem.
Posted by: Pepe at January 04, 2017 05:50 PM (7SUm3)
Ahem.
Posted by: SkyNet at January 04, 2017 05:51 PM (0mRoj)
68
33
Federal should equal Freedom, while States are permitted to be dicks.
I can't improve on such eloquence.
Federal should equal Freedom, while States are permitted to be dicks.
I can't improve on such eloquence.
Posted by: pep at January 04, 2017 05:51 PM (LAe3v)
69
Most of you are missing the real problem here. NO STATE should require a permit to carry a gun concealed or not concealed.
The second amendment says "keep and bear arms". If we were following the Constitution this would not be an issue.
The second amendment says "keep and bear arms". If we were following the Constitution this would not be an issue.
Posted by: Vic We Have No Party at January 04, 2017 05:51 PM (mpXpK)
70
as someone who can qualify for a CCW permit in almost any state EXCEPT the one i live in, i'm all for this.
i also want to see a federal law banning states from restricting firearms and accessories, such as magazines, that are perfectly legal in other states.
F #Failifornia and its stupid gun laws.
i also want to see a federal law banning states from restricting firearms and accessories, such as magazines, that are perfectly legal in other states.
F #Failifornia and its stupid gun laws.
Posted by: redc1c4 at January 04, 2017 05:51 PM (r7kgE)
Posted by: Yeti at January 04, 2017 05:51 PM (DMUuz)
72
Another way to look at it is various state restrictions on concealed carry are actually cases of local government overreach, and the federal law is a small step toward restoring or preserving Constitutional rights to citizens in certain states.
Posted by: weew at January 04, 2017 05:51 PM (6EH85)
73
>>States Rights don't trump the Bill of Rights.
>>'Shall not be Infringed' is in no way ripe for interpretation.
That's where I am.
>>'Shall not be Infringed' is in no way ripe for interpretation.
That's where I am.
Posted by: JackStraw at January 04, 2017 05:51 PM (/tuJf)
74
He was fairly pumped in Braveheart.
Not like this, tho. Mel actually looked like a real ex-con who just spent 9 years lifting weights all day.
He was fairly pumped in Braveheart.
Not like this, tho. Mel actually looked like a real ex-con who just spent 9 years lifting weights all day.
Posted by: Soothsayer Pro Elite at January 04, 2017 05:51 PM (4Ejxg)
75
"Cop already knows before he ever walks up."
And that data moves interstate.
As those of you who quite legally hold CCWs from other states will learn to your chagrin if you ever dare drive through the "garden state" of New Joisey.
And that data moves interstate.
As those of you who quite legally hold CCWs from other states will learn to your chagrin if you ever dare drive through the "garden state" of New Joisey.
Posted by: torquewrench at January 04, 2017 05:52 PM (noWW6)
76
Someone from PA with a CCW can't even drive through NJ without getting arrested.
Posted by: Deplorable votermom @vm on Gab at January 04, 2017 05:47 PM (Om16U)
-------
Illinois is a pain in the ass too. I drive around it if I can.
Posted by: Deplorable votermom @vm on Gab at January 04, 2017 05:47 PM (Om16U)
-------
Illinois is a pain in the ass too. I drive around it if I can.
Posted by: fixerupper at January 04, 2017 05:52 PM (JmjOe)
77
New Jersey is the key here. I'm sure most of you have heard of the out of staters arrested on the highways of NJ for simple possession of a firearm, that they have legal carry rights in their home state. Bullshit felony convictions and serious prison time stare them in the face, arrested on a FEDERAL FICKING HIGHWAY.
Where do they go to get justice? A NJ courtroom?
Tell me another one I'm rolling on the floor here.
New Jersey is the key here. I'm sure most of you have heard of the out of staters arrested on the highways of NJ for simple possession of a firearm, that they have legal carry rights in their home state. Bullshit felony convictions and serious prison time stare them in the face, arrested on a FEDERAL FICKING HIGHWAY.
Where do they go to get justice? A NJ courtroom?
Tell me another one I'm rolling on the floor here.
Posted by: Put that kid back where it came from or So Help Me at January 04, 2017 05:52 PM (HPNqc)
Posted by: Guy Mohawk at January 04, 2017 05:52 PM (ODxAs)
79
Wouldn't the only times this might be used be instances where someone has traveled out of his home state?
Posted by: cthulhu at January 04, 2017 05:52 PM (EzgxV)
80
The way I look at federalism is that until the other side cries "Uncle", I think we should pursue "conservative" policies even if they violate federalism.
So if the Left is willing to NOT force gay marriage in all 50 states by judicial fiat, I will also reconsider doing something similar with gun rights.
So if the Left is willing to NOT force gay marriage in all 50 states by judicial fiat, I will also reconsider doing something similar with gun rights.
Posted by: Maritime at January 04, 2017 05:52 PM (rx502)
81
But do we want those kinds of computerized records
going on for CCW? My NY CCW is typed on paper using a typewriter, and
bears no expiration date.
Posted by: the littl shyning man at January 04, 2017 05:47 PM (U6f54)
For years I used a receipt for a pistol permit, that is a permit to buy a pistol, as a CCW. Every cop I showed it to believed it was a carry permit.
going on for CCW? My NY CCW is typed on paper using a typewriter, and
bears no expiration date.
Posted by: the littl shyning man at January 04, 2017 05:47 PM (U6f54)
For years I used a receipt for a pistol permit, that is a permit to buy a pistol, as a CCW. Every cop I showed it to believed it was a carry permit.
Posted by: George at January 04, 2017 05:52 PM (trdnR)
82
Oh...bullshit!
What makes military personnel more deserving of 2nd Amendment protections?
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at January 04, 2017 05:51 PM (rF0hx)
OK, then Dentists! How about them apples!
What makes military personnel more deserving of 2nd Amendment protections?
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at January 04, 2017 05:51 PM (rF0hx)
OK, then Dentists! How about them apples!
Posted by: Nevergiveup at January 04, 2017 05:52 PM (SjImc)
83
Are there certification classes that are required before getting a ghey marriage license?
Posted by: Muldoon at January 04, 2017 05:52 PM (wPiJc)
84
32
Individual states should not violate the US constitution, but that's not the job of the federal government, its the job of the citizens of states.
Posted by: Christopher R Taylor at January 04, 2017 05:46 PM (39g3+)
Do you believe this should also apply to state voting laws based on skin color?
(WOW! I just realized that I sound like a liberal, accusing someone I disagree with of being a RASSIST !!!11!1!!!.)
That's not my intention, but I do believe that the feds have a role in forcing states to comply with the US Constitution, in cases where the state is not inclined to do so.
Individual states should not violate the US constitution, but that's not the job of the federal government, its the job of the citizens of states.
Posted by: Christopher R Taylor at January 04, 2017 05:46 PM (39g3+)
Do you believe this should also apply to state voting laws based on skin color?
(WOW! I just realized that I sound like a liberal, accusing someone I disagree with of being a RASSIST !!!11!1!!!.)
That's not my intention, but I do believe that the feds have a role in forcing states to comply with the US Constitution, in cases where the state is not inclined to do so.
Posted by: Iowa Bob at January 04, 2017 05:52 PM (tu3iY)
85
And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
Thanks, rickb. Sounds to me like a general law covering the circumstances under which full faith and credit shall be proved. In other words, completely kosher. Still leaves to the individual state to determine who can carry as a resident of that state, but means that NJ can't refuse to honor NH.
Thanks, rickb. Sounds to me like a general law covering the circumstances under which full faith and credit shall be proved. In other words, completely kosher. Still leaves to the individual state to determine who can carry as a resident of that state, but means that NJ can't refuse to honor NH.
Posted by: Sporkatus at January 04, 2017 05:53 PM (eXSOZ)
86
Demonstrate proficiency, that sort of thing?
Posted by: Muldoon at January 04, 2017 05:53 PM (wPiJc)
87
I have Pachmayers on my Colt Trooper and love them.
Posted by: Skip at January 04, 2017 05:53 PM (5sOEp)
88
79
Wouldn't the only times this might be used be instances where someone has traveled out of his home state?
Posted by: cthulhu at January 04, 2017 05:52 PM (EzgxV)
Well, yes. Hello?
Wouldn't the only times this might be used be instances where someone has traveled out of his home state?
Posted by: cthulhu at January 04, 2017 05:52 PM (EzgxV)
Well, yes. Hello?
Posted by: George at January 04, 2017 05:53 PM (trdnR)
89
Infringe : act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on
I am not aware of any Historical usage that differs from the current definition.
I am not aware of any Historical usage that differs from the current definition.
Posted by: garrett at January 04, 2017 05:53 PM (eKeoR)
90
States Rights don't trump the Bill of Rights.
'Shall not be Infringed' is in no way ripe for interpretation.
Posted by: garrett at January 04, 2017 05:44 PM (eKeoR)
This.
It's a right to keep an bare arms. Carrying is part and parcel of the 2nd Amendment.
'Shall not be Infringed' is in no way ripe for interpretation.
Posted by: garrett at January 04, 2017 05:44 PM (eKeoR)
This.
It's a right to keep an bare arms. Carrying is part and parcel of the 2nd Amendment.
Posted by: The Political Hat at January 04, 2017 05:54 PM (OzJeO)
91
If we were following the Constitution this would not be an issue.
Posted by: Vic We Have No Party at January 04, 2017 05:51 PM (mpXpK)
Okay...that makes three....Me, Garrett and Vic.
Any other real conservatives around here?
Posted by: Vic We Have No Party at January 04, 2017 05:51 PM (mpXpK)
Okay...that makes three....Me, Garrett and Vic.
Any other real conservatives around here?
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at January 04, 2017 05:54 PM (rF0hx)
92
83
Are there certification classes that are required before getting a ghey marriage license?
Posted by: Muldoon at January 04, 2017 05:52 PM (wPiJc)
Yes, I teach them, call me.
Are there certification classes that are required before getting a ghey marriage license?
Posted by: Muldoon at January 04, 2017 05:52 PM (wPiJc)
Yes, I teach them, call me.
Posted by: Barney at January 04, 2017 05:54 PM (trdnR)
93
If ED-209 is packing well .... bless its little CPU heart
Posted by: Anna Puma at January 04, 2017 05:54 PM (idrE1)
94
Everybody's kind of missing the point here. When Donald Trump was voted to be nominee of the Republican Party, he didn't run on a federalism platform.
He ran to stop the government from screwing the little guy and get the government to start helping the little guy.
That's what this bill is about. Everybody had the chance to make the federalism argument to the voters. That argument lost. And without the voters, you ain't gonna get the politicians to come along.
He ran to stop the government from screwing the little guy and get the government to start helping the little guy.
That's what this bill is about. Everybody had the chance to make the federalism argument to the voters. That argument lost. And without the voters, you ain't gonna get the politicians to come along.
Posted by: Oschisms at January 04, 2017 05:54 PM (ZsN9X)
95
Fuck the Feds and New Jersey.
Posted by: Weasel at January 04, 2017 05:54 PM (Sfs6o)
96
If the practice of states permitting citizens to carry concealed, let alone carry at all is in fact a constitutionally permissible practice, then by all means nationwide reciprocity should be extended to those licenses/permits or whatever they want to call them just like a driver's license.
IF the practice of states permitting citizens to carry concealed, let alone carry at all is in fact an UNconstitutional practice, then all states laws regarding those practices should be identified as such and the Trump DOJ can prosecute the offenders.
Personally, I am all in favor of letting any adult without a felony conviction carry openly and letting individuals be held accountable for their actions accordingly. An armed society is a polite society.
IF the practice of states permitting citizens to carry concealed, let alone carry at all is in fact an UNconstitutional practice, then all states laws regarding those practices should be identified as such and the Trump DOJ can prosecute the offenders.
Personally, I am all in favor of letting any adult without a felony conviction carry openly and letting individuals be held accountable for their actions accordingly. An armed society is a polite society.
Posted by: CrotchetyOldJarhead at January 04, 2017 05:55 PM (U6Clb)
97
I love the concept of 50 different experimental labs trying different approaches, and a federal government as the go between not involved in each state. Every state is different, with different populations and different features, let them do their own thing and keep Washington DC out.
Posted by: Christopher R Taylor at January 04, 2017 05:42 PM (39g3+)
Unfortunately that's not how it works anymore thanks to the Progressive scum.
The scum want the Feds to butt out when they don't control it, but when they do, your state will be subject to their control, you do what they say, or off to the camps you will eventually go.
I don't much care for the concept either, but guns are one area where freedom must be rammed down their throats. Hopefully they choke on it in the process.
Posted by: Christopher R Taylor at January 04, 2017 05:42 PM (39g3+)
Unfortunately that's not how it works anymore thanks to the Progressive scum.
The scum want the Feds to butt out when they don't control it, but when they do, your state will be subject to their control, you do what they say, or off to the camps you will eventually go.
I don't much care for the concept either, but guns are one area where freedom must be rammed down their throats. Hopefully they choke on it in the process.
Posted by: Country Boy - Stay Deplorable My Friends at January 04, 2017 05:55 PM (KUaxm)
98
Bear, not bare...
Posted by: Yogi at January 04, 2017 05:55 PM (OzJeO)
99
Horse is already out of the barn. My Texas license is tied to my
license plate number. Cop already knows before he ever walks up.
Posted by: rickb223 at January 04, 2017 05:49 PM
AFAIK (could be wrong), it's tied to your DL, so s/he doesn't know when they walk up, but will know when they run your DL, which is why you give them both together.
license plate number. Cop already knows before he ever walks up.
Posted by: rickb223 at January 04, 2017 05:49 PM
AFAIK (could be wrong), it's tied to your DL, so s/he doesn't know when they walk up, but will know when they run your DL, which is why you give them both together.
Posted by: Duncanthrax at January 04, 2017 05:55 PM (DMUuz)
100
"When someone says they are now terrified of living in Trump's America, what they really mean is they are angry that YOU will once again enjoy your civil rights."
--Soothsayer, just now
(feel free to include this in the ont quotes of the day)
"When someone says they are now terrified of living in Trump's America, what they really mean is they are angry that YOU will once again enjoy your civil rights."
--Soothsayer, just now
(feel free to include this in the ont quotes of the day)
Posted by: Soothsayer Pro Elite at January 04, 2017 05:55 PM (4Ejxg)
101
Demonstrate proficiency, that sort of thing?
Posted by: Muldoon at January 04, 2017 05:53 PM (wPiJc)
Fine.
Please demonstrate proficiency at political speech to the clerk, and then pick up your license to speak at window #4 when you are called in three weeks.
Posted by: Muldoon at January 04, 2017 05:53 PM (wPiJc)
Fine.
Please demonstrate proficiency at political speech to the clerk, and then pick up your license to speak at window #4 when you are called in three weeks.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at January 04, 2017 05:56 PM (rF0hx)
102
87 I have Pachmayers on my Colt Trooper and love them.
Posted by: Skip at January 04, 2017 05:53 PM (5sOEp)
---------
They are comfortable as hell but I'd like to get a nice set of walnut targets.
Posted by: Skip at January 04, 2017 05:53 PM (5sOEp)
---------
They are comfortable as hell but I'd like to get a nice set of walnut targets.
Posted by: Weasel at January 04, 2017 05:56 PM (Sfs6o)
Posted by: fixerupper at January 04, 2017 05:56 PM (JmjOe)
104
>>He used to be, like, 5'8.
I have met Matt Damon and I have sent more than one day hanging out with him and a bunch of his buddies.
He is not even 5' 6".
Also, he doesn't know how to tap a keg or do basic math. Hell, he doesn't even have a good grip on geometry.
I have met Matt Damon and I have sent more than one day hanging out with him and a bunch of his buddies.
He is not even 5' 6".
Also, he doesn't know how to tap a keg or do basic math. Hell, he doesn't even have a good grip on geometry.
Posted by: garrett at January 04, 2017 05:56 PM (eKeoR)
105
Just out of curiosity for the 2nd Amendment absolutists, if I wanted to keep weaponized anthrax in my home, could I? If not, why not? It's a weapon. Is there a difference between weapons and arms?
Posted by: pep at January 04, 2017 05:56 PM (LAe3v)
106
ACE: BACK OFF PLEASE, because the two major reasons I supported Trump (Cruz was#1 choice) were SCOTUS appointments AND THIS ONE ISSUE OF RECIPROCITY!
You get a STATE Drivers License, with variations of requirements, AND IT IS HONORED IN ALL 50 STATES.
So why do my 2nd Amendment Rights cease to exist at the New York border when I have a BLUE STATE CONNECTICUT Carry/Conceal Permit that harder to obtain than in most States???
I need my sidearm more when traveling out-of-state in unfamiliar places where I'm more likely to make a wrong turn (Situational Awareness) than while in my home town. But if I carry in Rhode Island, Mass., New Yory or GOD FORBID,New Jersey then..........I AM GUILTY OF A FELONY under current law, and that ain't right.
You get a STATE Drivers License, with variations of requirements, AND IT IS HONORED IN ALL 50 STATES.
So why do my 2nd Amendment Rights cease to exist at the New York border when I have a BLUE STATE CONNECTICUT Carry/Conceal Permit that harder to obtain than in most States???
I need my sidearm more when traveling out-of-state in unfamiliar places where I'm more likely to make a wrong turn (Situational Awareness) than while in my home town. But if I carry in Rhode Island, Mass., New Yory or GOD FORBID,New Jersey then..........I AM GUILTY OF A FELONY under current law, and that ain't right.
Posted by: Nostradamus at January 04, 2017 05:56 PM (0+tOe)
107
Everyone pretty much takes the same hunter's safety course, I don't know why the CCW course couldn't be standardized.
Everyone pretty much takes the same hunter's safety course, I don't know why the CCW course couldn't be standardized.
Posted by: Guy Mohawk at January 04, 2017 05:56 PM (ODxAs)
108
Those who can constitutionally carry in their constitutional carry states effectively become supercitizens when visiting permit-only carry states: they, in effect, import a little personal bubble of their home state's law into the state they visit.
This would obviously be a nice advantage to possess in any number of contexts, but here it pointlessly prejudices the underlying intent of streamlining already existing uniformities among states.
Back to the thinking board.
This would obviously be a nice advantage to possess in any number of contexts, but here it pointlessly prejudices the underlying intent of streamlining already existing uniformities among states.
Back to the thinking board.
Posted by: Jamie at January 04, 2017 05:56 PM (xuma8)
109
Since nothing is going to get the Supreme Court to reverse 100 years of screwed-up Commerce Clause rulings and revert to anything close to the original intent of that provision, I say we take advantage of stare decisis and make the libs live with the consequences of their actions.
Posted by: PabloD at January 04, 2017 05:56 PM (sZQdE)
110
On New Jersey. You can get a permit you just have to be friends with the person in control of the person who issues the permits.
When I last lived in NJ my barber had a permit and all his staff had permits safest place to get a hair cut in all of NJ.
Why was he able to get a permit? He was hunting buddies with the chief of police.
The level of corruption that goes on in blue states that nominally conservatives persons put up with is staggering.
When I last lived in NJ my barber had a permit and all his staff had permits safest place to get a hair cut in all of NJ.
Why was he able to get a permit? He was hunting buddies with the chief of police.
The level of corruption that goes on in blue states that nominally conservatives persons put up with is staggering.
Posted by: Big V at January 04, 2017 05:56 PM (wuhZk)
111
Problem is that the left likes to expand federal authority because it's always used for policy favored by the edit. Force feed them a bunch of shit they don't like on the federal level and maybe they'll begin to appreciate the benefits of federalism.
Posted by: gm at January 04, 2017 05:56 PM (6UXQc)
112
I'll say this, tho: Mel Gibson must be pumping iron and/or taking steroids because he was pretty jacked. Very large, for him.
Posted by: Soothsayer Pro Elite at January 04, 2017 05:47 PM (4Ejxg)
He was fairly pumped in Braveheart.
Posted by: Insomniac
*****
Umm. You guys don't come here for the bear hunting, do you?
Posted by: Soothsayer Pro Elite at January 04, 2017 05:47 PM (4Ejxg)
He was fairly pumped in Braveheart.
Posted by: Insomniac
*****
Umm. You guys don't come here for the bear hunting, do you?
Posted by: Muldoon at January 04, 2017 05:57 PM (wPiJc)
113
Personally, I am all in favor of letting any adult without a felony conviction carry openly and letting individuals be held accountable for their actions accordingly. An armed society is a polite society.
--
PA allows open carry for anyone, it's only concealed carry that requires a permit. And has a bunch of unconstitutional restrictions on non-firearms.
No swordcanes, for example.
--
PA allows open carry for anyone, it's only concealed carry that requires a permit. And has a bunch of unconstitutional restrictions on non-firearms.
No swordcanes, for example.
Posted by: @votermom @vm at January 04, 2017 05:57 PM (Om16U)
114
I don't like this either, it should be up to the states to decide when a where they want to honor another states licensing. If you were a licensed nurse, Dr., or lawyer and were practicing out of state I'm sure the state you are in would have a say. Other than that "shall not be infringed" should make this a stupid unnecessary law. There should be no gun laws outside of convicted felons forfeiting their rights as the state sees fit .
Posted by: USNtakim at January 04, 2017 05:57 PM (hMqvx)
115
I also recently watched two Nicholas Cage movies: The Trust and Dog Eat Dog.
Both movies started out great but their endings left a lot to be desired. Can't recommend either.
I also recently watched two Nicholas Cage movies: The Trust and Dog Eat Dog.
Both movies started out great but their endings left a lot to be desired. Can't recommend either.
Posted by: Soothsayer Pro Elite at January 04, 2017 05:57 PM (4Ejxg)
116
This is going to be a shit-storm for good reason.
Posted by: Slapweasel, (Cold1), (T) at January 04, 2017 05:57 PM (6gk0M)
117
That's what this bill is about. Everybody had the chance to make the federalism argument to the voters. That argument lost. And without the voters, you ain't gonna get the politicians to come along.
Posted by: Oschisms
Yea, I feel like the argument for federalism was lost in the 1960's if not before.
Now it just seems to be used as an argument for RINOs to not pursue conservative policy goals.
Unilateral disarmament.
When the Supreme Court is willing to invalidate about 90% of the federal laws on the books and agencies over federalism grounds, I'll change my tune.
Posted by: Oschisms
Yea, I feel like the argument for federalism was lost in the 1960's if not before.
Now it just seems to be used as an argument for RINOs to not pursue conservative policy goals.
Unilateral disarmament.
When the Supreme Court is willing to invalidate about 90% of the federal laws on the books and agencies over federalism grounds, I'll change my tune.
Posted by: Maritime at January 04, 2017 05:57 PM (rx502)
118
How about a federal law that says second amendment means open carry is allowed nationally?
Posted by: gm at January 04, 2017 05:58 PM (6UXQc)
119
"This bothers me on federalism grounds. States do in fact make compacts permitting just this sort of reciprocity -- I don't know why we need a federal law to do it."
Well, there's also a supremacy clause and (now, finally) an Incorporation argument to Congress forcing reciprocity.
Well, there's also a supremacy clause and (now, finally) an Incorporation argument to Congress forcing reciprocity.
Posted by: Hugh Jorgen at January 04, 2017 05:58 PM (R5EqA)
120
The whole "is this an incursion on federalism" argument is a foolish consistency. This is a liberation in the name of constitutionalism. Allow yourselves to see a gift where there is one. The federalism argument can be saved for other more appropriate, ahem, targets.
Posted by: General Zod at January 04, 2017 05:58 PM (hgpSN)
121
I understand Ace and others' reservations about this, but the fact is this is a direct result of certain states (specifically New York and New Jersey) using their lack of reciprocity offensively.
There is a disturbing number of cases where some shmuck who didn't check the reciprocity laws finds themselves in NY or NJ and somehow runs afoul of the cops, gets arrested on felony gun charges, and -- while they usually escape with a misdemeanor slap on the wrist -- they always lose their weapon and usually go through months of prosecutorial torture before the issue goes away. These aren't criminals, by the way -- I'm thinking of the Pennsylvania woman who was pulled over for a taillight in NJ, informed the cop she had a legal gun in the glovebox, and spent nearly a year being put through the wringer. There was the Virginia woman who attempted to turn in her legal firearm to the cops at the visitor's center at the 9/11 memorial and was similarly busted. (Who brings a gun to the 9/11 memorial? That's a valid concern, but does such a person deserve felony charges?) There are even more outrageous examples, like the NJ history professor who had an 18th century flintlock he'd bought at an auction in his car and *also* had to run the gauntlet before whatever tinpot prosecutor decided to (or was forced to) relent.
Somebody has to rein in this crap, and good luck EVER seeing the people who live here do it.
There is a disturbing number of cases where some shmuck who didn't check the reciprocity laws finds themselves in NY or NJ and somehow runs afoul of the cops, gets arrested on felony gun charges, and -- while they usually escape with a misdemeanor slap on the wrist -- they always lose their weapon and usually go through months of prosecutorial torture before the issue goes away. These aren't criminals, by the way -- I'm thinking of the Pennsylvania woman who was pulled over for a taillight in NJ, informed the cop she had a legal gun in the glovebox, and spent nearly a year being put through the wringer. There was the Virginia woman who attempted to turn in her legal firearm to the cops at the visitor's center at the 9/11 memorial and was similarly busted. (Who brings a gun to the 9/11 memorial? That's a valid concern, but does such a person deserve felony charges?) There are even more outrageous examples, like the NJ history professor who had an 18th century flintlock he'd bought at an auction in his car and *also* had to run the gauntlet before whatever tinpot prosecutor decided to (or was forced to) relent.
Somebody has to rein in this crap, and good luck EVER seeing the people who live here do it.
Posted by: Sausage McMuffin at January 04, 2017 05:58 PM (e4ZX9)
122
It's a right to keep an [b[bare arms.
Posted by: The Political Hat at January 04, 2017 05:54 PM
Preach it! But don't stop are arms! Bare it all!
Posted by: The Political Hat at January 04, 2017 05:54 PM
Preach it! But don't stop are arms! Bare it all!
Posted by: Lena at January 04, 2017 05:58 PM (DMUuz)
123
On New Jersey. You can get a permit you just have to be friends with the person in control of the person who issues the permits.
When I last lived in NJ my barber had a permit and all his staff had permits safest place to get a hair cut in all of NJ.
Why was he able to get a permit? He was hunting buddies with the chief of police.
The level of corruption that goes on in blue states that nominally conservatives persons put up with is staggering.
Posted by: Big V at January 04, 2017 05:56 PM (wuhZk)
????
A "carry" permit? Oh no...Maybe long ago in a galaxy far away but not in recent years. it is next to impossible to get a carry permit in NJ. You need a qualify according to a very restrict list of reasons and go before a Judge.
When I last lived in NJ my barber had a permit and all his staff had permits safest place to get a hair cut in all of NJ.
Why was he able to get a permit? He was hunting buddies with the chief of police.
The level of corruption that goes on in blue states that nominally conservatives persons put up with is staggering.
Posted by: Big V at January 04, 2017 05:56 PM (wuhZk)
????
A "carry" permit? Oh no...Maybe long ago in a galaxy far away but not in recent years. it is next to impossible to get a carry permit in NJ. You need a qualify according to a very restrict list of reasons and go before a Judge.
Posted by: Nevergiveup at January 04, 2017 05:58 PM (SjImc)
124
if I wanted to keep weaponized anthrax in my home,
could I? If not, why not?
Posted by: pep at January 04, 2017 05:56 PM (LAe3v)
"Arms" is loosely defined as those issued to the typical soldier.
Anthrax isn't.
could I? If not, why not?
Posted by: pep at January 04, 2017 05:56 PM (LAe3v)
"Arms" is loosely defined as those issued to the typical soldier.
Anthrax isn't.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at January 04, 2017 05:59 PM (rF0hx)
125
1st item on the Texas legislative agenda is a constitutional carry bill. I have yet to see anyone open carry.
Posted by: Ben Had at January 04, 2017 05:47 PM (E/pqw)
I saw not one person open carry in 2016 either. Was really surprised by that.
Posted by: Ben Had at January 04, 2017 05:47 PM (E/pqw)
I saw not one person open carry in 2016 either. Was really surprised by that.
Posted by: Country Boy - Stay Deplorable My Friends at January 04, 2017 05:59 PM (KUaxm)
126
Posted by: redc1c4 at January 04, 2017 05:51 PM (r7kgE)
This, why does my cop BIL have more of a right to defend himself than I do.
Some animals are more equal than others.
This, why does my cop BIL have more of a right to defend himself than I do.
Some animals are more equal than others.
Posted by: CaliGirl at January 04, 2017 05:59 PM (IgBFP)
127
35 I carry . In my pants.
Posted by: Reggie
------------
Like this? Not a bad idea.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pkRofcvfnHg
Posted by: Reggie
------------
Like this? Not a bad idea.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pkRofcvfnHg
Posted by: Chi at January 04, 2017 05:59 PM (/Z9VQ)
128
My state (AZ) allows concealed carry with no permit.
And that is exactly what the Founders meant with the 2nd Amendment. It should be that way in all 50 states.
And that is exactly what the Founders meant with the 2nd Amendment. It should be that way in all 50 states.
Posted by: Maritime at January 04, 2017 05:59 PM (rx502)
129
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at January 04, 2017 05:54 PM (rF0hx)
If I drive into IL and forget to take the box of slugs I keep with my shotgun out of the case, I can be arrested.
This seems...wrong. States have gotten out of control and my ability to travel through them is hindered
If I drive into IL and forget to take the box of slugs I keep with my shotgun out of the case, I can be arrested.
This seems...wrong. States have gotten out of control and my ability to travel through them is hindered
Posted by: Tsrblke at January 04, 2017 05:59 PM (dzmBR)
130
I believe there is a case in NJ where the cop typed in out of state plates sitting in his patrol car, and was able in very short time to determine CCW holders from out of state.He then proceeded to pull them over and search for weapons on whatever lame excuse he could muster for a stop (Yer tail light is out! oops, my bad...) Caught a guy who is facing 5 years for possession.
Don't think that the cops are by default strong second amendment fans. At least not in the shithole state of NJ.
I believe there is a case in NJ where the cop typed in out of state plates sitting in his patrol car, and was able in very short time to determine CCW holders from out of state.He then proceeded to pull them over and search for weapons on whatever lame excuse he could muster for a stop (Yer tail light is out! oops, my bad...) Caught a guy who is facing 5 years for possession.
Don't think that the cops are by default strong second amendment fans. At least not in the shithole state of NJ.
Posted by: Put that kid back where it came from or So Help Me at January 04, 2017 05:59 PM (HPNqc)
131
Tie federal highway funds to allowing motorists to conceal carry on roadways?
Posted by: gm at January 04, 2017 06:00 PM (6UXQc)
132
He is not even 5' 6"
I believe this to be: True.
But from the little I saw of the last Bourne flick, he's now almost 6'.
Even on red carpet interviews he looks tall. He must wear lifts -- but the camera never pans down.
He is not even 5' 6"
I believe this to be: True.
But from the little I saw of the last Bourne flick, he's now almost 6'.
Even on red carpet interviews he looks tall. He must wear lifts -- but the camera never pans down.
Posted by: Soothsayer Pro Elite at January 04, 2017 06:00 PM (4Ejxg)
Posted by: garrett at January 04, 2017 06:00 PM (eKeoR)
134
Posted by: Big V at January 04, 2017 05:56 PM (wuhZk)
My chief is happy to issue my permit.
The judge who signs it will not.
My chief is happy to issue my permit.
The judge who signs it will not.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at January 04, 2017 06:00 PM (rF0hx)
135
Again, it's permissible at the Federal level to pass a law enforcing full faith and credit between states, per the Constitution itself. That law, in and of itself, is not an admission that limits can be placed on the 2nd at the Federal level, merely that any state level rules (whether innately constitutional or not) are reciprocal to lowest common denominator. NJ man in constitutional carry state can carry, constitutional carry man in NJ as non-resident can carry.
Posted by: Sporkatus at January 04, 2017 06:00 PM (eXSOZ)
136
86 Demonstrate proficiency, that sort of thing?
Posted by: Muldoon
Here in California, to demonstrate your proficiency with firearms you must successfully demonstrate that you can hold a Glock sideways with your elbow pointing out, and then fire it wildly and inaccurately, hitting at least three innocent bystanders, while you yell "GIMME YO' IPHONE, MUTHAFUCKA!" If you can do this properly, you are allowed to carry a weapon.
Posted by: Muldoon
Here in California, to demonstrate your proficiency with firearms you must successfully demonstrate that you can hold a Glock sideways with your elbow pointing out, and then fire it wildly and inaccurately, hitting at least three innocent bystanders, while you yell "GIMME YO' IPHONE, MUTHAFUCKA!" If you can do this properly, you are allowed to carry a weapon.
Posted by: zombie at January 04, 2017 06:00 PM (jBuUi)
137
I agree with you completely, Ace. I think there should be reciprocity of a sort, but going Federal on it is the wrong thinking, and wrong continuation of a bad precedent. States might reasonably disagree as to the level of training or documentation for obtaining a concealed permit, for example. This would override State concerns, allowing the most permissive State to set the bar for all States. That's not how this system is supposed to work.
Being from North Carolina, and having a CCP, I will say we have a rigorous process here that I approve of. And I would like to be able to carry when traveling across State lines more easily and confidently. But this method is an overreach.
Being from North Carolina, and having a CCP, I will say we have a rigorous process here that I approve of. And I would like to be able to carry when traveling across State lines more easily and confidently. But this method is an overreach.
Posted by: BetaPhi at January 04, 2017 06:00 PM (11v76)
138
If Wickard is interstate commerce and not buying insurance is interstate commerce, anything can be.
Posted by: O in the bunker at January 04, 2017 06:01 PM (nFwvY)
139
Tenth Amendment stuff.
States may restrict, yet The Federal Courts should decide for the Second Amendment to the Constitution of these great United States of America.
Basic history, yet confusing to me at times.
States may restrict, yet The Federal Courts should decide for the Second Amendment to the Constitution of these great United States of America.
Basic history, yet confusing to me at times.
Posted by: Slapweasel, (Cold1), (T) at January 04, 2017 06:01 PM (6gk0M)
140
Please demonstrate proficiency at political speech to the clerk, and then pick up your license to speak at window #4 when you are called in three weeks.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo
******
I think you misread my comment. My @86 was a follow-up to my @83- making a lame joke about ghey marriage licenses and needing to demonstrate proficiency. Ba-da-boom!
I feel your frustration about not being able to exercise a fundamental 2nd amendment right because of where you live.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo
******
I think you misread my comment. My @86 was a follow-up to my @83- making a lame joke about ghey marriage licenses and needing to demonstrate proficiency. Ba-da-boom!
I feel your frustration about not being able to exercise a fundamental 2nd amendment right because of where you live.
Posted by: Muldoon at January 04, 2017 06:01 PM (wPiJc)
141
How about a federal law that says second amendment means open carry is allowed nationally?
Posted by: gm at January 04, 2017 05:58 PM (6UXQc)
-----
Look. I get the open carry movement.
But from a practical standpoint,. I will never open carry in public. You might as well wear a Shoot Me First sign.
Posted by: gm at January 04, 2017 05:58 PM (6UXQc)
-----
Look. I get the open carry movement.
But from a practical standpoint,. I will never open carry in public. You might as well wear a Shoot Me First sign.
Posted by: fixerupper at January 04, 2017 06:01 PM (JmjOe)
142
The Flounders would be pissed if they were alive today.
The Flounders would be pissed if they were alive today.
Posted by: Soothsayer Pro Elite at January 04, 2017 06:02 PM (4Ejxg)
143
Oh...bullshit!
What makes military personnel more deserving of 2nd Amendment protections?
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at January 04, 2017 05:51 PM (rF0hx)
OK, then Dentists! How about them apples!
Posted by: Nevergiveup at January 04, 2017 05:52 PM (SjImc)
How about cops and postal inspectors?
What makes military personnel more deserving of 2nd Amendment protections?
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at January 04, 2017 05:51 PM (rF0hx)
OK, then Dentists! How about them apples!
Posted by: Nevergiveup at January 04, 2017 05:52 PM (SjImc)
How about cops and postal inspectors?
Posted by: Burnt Toast at January 04, 2017 06:02 PM (P/kVC)
144
"Arms" is loosely defined as those issued to the typical soldier. Anthrax isn't.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo
I've never heard that definition. Where did you get it?
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo
I've never heard that definition. Where did you get it?
Posted by: pep at January 04, 2017 06:02 PM (LAe3v)
145
There is a disturbing number of cases where some shmuck who didn't check
the reciprocity laws finds themselves in NY or NJ and somehow runs
afoul of the cops, gets arrested on felony gun charges
---
And by "somehow", we mean that blue state cops run every out of state plate they see looking for a weapons permit connected to it, and then invent 'probable cause'.
the reciprocity laws finds themselves in NY or NJ and somehow runs
afoul of the cops, gets arrested on felony gun charges
---
And by "somehow", we mean that blue state cops run every out of state plate they see looking for a weapons permit connected to it, and then invent 'probable cause'.
Posted by: Methos at January 04, 2017 06:02 PM (3Liv/)
146
I grew up being taught that if it's not mentioned in the Constitution then it is a state right. Think Marijuana and gay marriage.
Right to bear arms is inalienable IE God given right to self defense. This should be covered by the federal govt.
I live in Iowa and with in Illinois. If I carry to Illinois without their expensive permit, I get hit with a felony that is recognized as a gun crime in every state, including my own, and I lose my rights.
If that felony will follow me nationwide, the state's rugby argument falls apart.
Right to bear arms is inalienable IE God given right to self defense. This should be covered by the federal govt.
I live in Iowa and with in Illinois. If I carry to Illinois without their expensive permit, I get hit with a felony that is recognized as a gun crime in every state, including my own, and I lose my rights.
If that felony will follow me nationwide, the state's rugby argument falls apart.
Posted by: Sgmstv at January 04, 2017 06:02 PM (5lyEs)
147
>>>128 My state (AZ) allows concealed carry with no permit.
And that is exactly what the Founders meant with the 2nd Amendment. It should be that way in all 50 states.
Posted by: Maritime at January 04, 2017 05:59 PM (rx502)>>
That's the basis they should use for a national open or conceal carry law. And if John Roberts doesn't like the rationale, he can call it a tax or whatever he wants to keep it in force.
And that is exactly what the Founders meant with the 2nd Amendment. It should be that way in all 50 states.
Posted by: Maritime at January 04, 2017 05:59 PM (rx502)>>
That's the basis they should use for a national open or conceal carry law. And if John Roberts doesn't like the rationale, he can call it a tax or whatever he wants to keep it in force.
Posted by: gm at January 04, 2017 06:02 PM (6UXQc)
148
My pet peeve which most here don't agree with is why should a former felon lose their gun ownership rights. It is a right just like freedom of speech in my mind. BTW, they ought to be able to vote for all the felons inhabiting congress too.
My pet peeve which most here don't agree with is why should a former felon lose their gun ownership rights. It is a right just like freedom of speech in my mind. BTW, they ought to be able to vote for all the felons inhabiting congress too.
Posted by: Guy Mohawk at January 04, 2017 06:02 PM (ODxAs)
149
Posted by: @votermom @vm at January 04, 2017 05:57 PM (Om16U)
I really don't care how a weapon is carried or what kind of weapon it is. I just assume that any aggressor is armed.
I really don't care how a weapon is carried or what kind of weapon it is. I just assume that any aggressor is armed.
Posted by: CrotchetyOldJarhead at January 04, 2017 06:02 PM (U6Clb)
150
Even on red carpet interviews he looks tall. He must wear lifts -- but the camera never pans down.
Posted by: Soothsayer Pro Elite
Matt Damon has a framed certificate from the Fred Gwynne College of Herman Munster Elevator Shoe Skills.
Posted by: Soothsayer Pro Elite
Matt Damon has a framed certificate from the Fred Gwynne College of Herman Munster Elevator Shoe Skills.
Posted by: zombie at January 04, 2017 06:03 PM (jBuUi)
151
Q: Will Hillary! ever be president?
Posted by: Weasel at January 04, 2017 06:03 PM (Sfs6o)
152
Look. I get the open carry movement.
But from a practical standpoint,. I will never open carry in public. You might as well wear a Shoot Me First sign.
Posted by: fixerupper
Legally, I am fine with open carry, but I think the optics set the movement back.
But from a practical standpoint,. I will never open carry in public. You might as well wear a Shoot Me First sign.
Posted by: fixerupper
Legally, I am fine with open carry, but I think the optics set the movement back.
Posted by: Maritime at January 04, 2017 06:03 PM (rx502)
153
Matt Damon has a framed certificate from the Fred Gwynne College of Herman Munster Elevator Shoe Skills.
Is this true?
(It must be true -- I read it on the internets!)
Matt Damon has a framed certificate from the Fred Gwynne College of Herman Munster Elevator Shoe Skills.
Is this true?
(It must be true -- I read it on the internets!)
Posted by: Soothsayer Pro Elite at January 04, 2017 06:04 PM (4Ejxg)
154
If that felony follows me nationwide, the state's right argument falls apart. Damn auto correct
Posted by: Sgmstv at January 04, 2017 06:04 PM (5lyEs)
155
Lets not forget how NYC deliberately ignores federal gun laws to arrest people travelling through the state with guns legally. Tons of people have been arrested while transferring through NYC airports with legal guns.
Since these states are stripping their citizens and others their constitutional rights, the Feds have no choice but to get involved.
Since these states are stripping their citizens and others their constitutional rights, the Feds have no choice but to get involved.
Posted by: Iblis at January 04, 2017 06:04 PM (3gBCr)
156
I really want a swordcane because they are forbiddeded
Posted by: @votermom @vm at January 04, 2017 06:04 PM (Om16U)
157
I'm pretty sure Texas has a state law that your LTC/CHL is NOT to be tied to your drivers license. That's why you use to have to tell an officer if you were licensed and carrying because they didn't know. Now you have no duty to inform the officer if you have a LTC or are carrying unless they ask you specifically and they can't ask for no reason. I also have not seen a single open carry yet.
Posted by: lindafell de spair deplorable xenophobic misogynistic redneck at January 04, 2017 06:04 PM (cWx6M)
158
"My pet peeve which most here don't agree with is why should a former felon lose their gun ownership rights. It is a right just like freedom of speech in my mind. BTW, they ought to be able to vote for all the felons inhabiting congress too."
-Posted by: Guy Mohawk at January 04, 2017 06:02 PM (ODxAs)
I buy that.
-Posted by: Guy Mohawk at January 04, 2017 06:02 PM (ODxAs)
I buy that.
Posted by: Slapweasel, (Cold1), (T) at January 04, 2017 06:05 PM (6gk0M)
159
My pet peeve which most here don't agree with is why should a former felon lose their gun ownership rights. It is a right just like freedom of speech in my mind. BTW, they ought to be able to vote for all the felons inhabiting congress too.
Posted by: Guy Mohawk
________
I agree, but it would be dumb if our side tried to argue that point.
Low hanging fruit first.
Posted by: Guy Mohawk
________
I agree, but it would be dumb if our side tried to argue that point.
Low hanging fruit first.
Posted by: Maritime at January 04, 2017 06:05 PM (rx502)
160
Just out of curiosity for the 2nd Amendment absolutists, if I wanted to keep weaponized anthrax in my home, could I?
Posted by: pep at January 04, 2017 05:56 PM (LAe3v)
Why not? You'd still be on the hook if you committed a crime with it or accidentally injured or killed someone.
Besides, I'm immunized against it, so what do I care?
Posted by: pep at January 04, 2017 05:56 PM (LAe3v)
Why not? You'd still be on the hook if you committed a crime with it or accidentally injured or killed someone.
Besides, I'm immunized against it, so what do I care?
Posted by: Country Singer (Gab @Bert G) at January 04, 2017 06:05 PM (GUBah)
Posted by: Soothsayer Pro Elite at January 04, 2017 06:05 PM (4Ejxg)
162
"That part rankles me -- this very dubious theory that federal
jurisdiction obtains in any case where any good or service has been sold
across state lines, or anyone has even thought about crossing state
lines, is plainly an unconstitutional end-around the states' power to
make their own laws."
***
Commerce Clause. The Big Key to federal assertion in everything.
jurisdiction obtains in any case where any good or service has been sold
across state lines, or anyone has even thought about crossing state
lines, is plainly an unconstitutional end-around the states' power to
make their own laws."
***
Commerce Clause. The Big Key to federal assertion in everything.
Posted by: oddnot enjoying #winning still with schadenboner to prove it at January 04, 2017 06:05 PM (g1MTt)
163
@pep
That comes from the "Well Regulated Militia" phrase. Militia being understood to consist of able bodied males carrying their personal firearms. Not too many militia members that I know of carry their personal anthrax around on them.
Unless their SHEEP HERDERS!!!
DAMN THE SHEEPHERDERS!
@pep
That comes from the "Well Regulated Militia" phrase. Militia being understood to consist of able bodied males carrying their personal firearms. Not too many militia members that I know of carry their personal anthrax around on them.
Unless their SHEEP HERDERS!!!
DAMN THE SHEEPHERDERS!
Posted by: Put that kid back where it came from or So Help Me at January 04, 2017 06:05 PM (HPNqc)
164
Fuck the Feds, New Jersey and NYC. And Chicago.
Posted by: Weasel at January 04, 2017 06:05 PM (Sfs6o)
165
Since these states are stripping their citizens and
others their constitutional rights, the Feds have no choice but to get
involved.
Posted by: Iblis
Correct.
others their constitutional rights, the Feds have no choice but to get
involved.
Posted by: Iblis
Correct.
Posted by: pep at January 04, 2017 06:05 PM (LAe3v)
166
I would go with a law though that said if a person with a concealed carry is traveling through a state that does not have concealed carry, that person is immune, for purposes of transportation, from state law.
Posted by: WOPR - Nationalist at January 04, 2017 06:06 PM (J70i0)
167
>>IE God-given right.
God didn't give you or anyone else any rights. Societies created the concept of rights, men died to protect those concepts. Just sayin'.
God didn't give you or anyone else any rights. Societies created the concept of rights, men died to protect those concepts. Just sayin'.
Posted by: General Zod at January 04, 2017 06:06 PM (hgpSN)
168
"Q: Will Hillary! ever be president?"
-Posted by: Weasel at January 04, 2017 06:03 PM (Sfs6o)
Fuck, No.
*throws confetti*
-Posted by: Weasel at January 04, 2017 06:03 PM (Sfs6o)
Fuck, No.
*throws confetti*
Posted by: Slapweasel, (Cold1), (T) at January 04, 2017 06:06 PM (6gk0M)
169
Arms" is loosely defined as those issued to the typical soldier. Anthrax isn't.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo
I've never heard that definition. Where did you get it?
Posted by: pep at January 04, 2017 06:02 PM (LAe3v)
Arms -- ammunition
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo
I've never heard that definition. Where did you get it?
Posted by: pep at January 04, 2017 06:02 PM (LAe3v)
Arms -- ammunition
Posted by: runner at January 04, 2017 06:06 PM (c6/9Q)
170
What state passed a law that even a misdemeanor domestic violence charge causes one to lose their gun rights?
Posted by: Pepe at January 04, 2017 06:06 PM (7SUm3)
171
it should be up to the states to decide when a where they want to honor another states licensing. If you were a licensed nurse, Dr., or lawyer and were practicing out of state I'm sure the state you are in would have a say.
Obvious solution: is the person a resident of the state, operating in the state? Then he should operate by the state's rules. Simply passing through does not make him a resident, and calls for reciprocity. Obviously constitutionally defined laws to govern full faith and credit might differ from one topic to another, but owning a gun should full under the most permissive standard, obviously - it's not a fuckin' board certification with annual reviews. I think trade practice in a state is subject to a lot more limitation by that state than incidental conditions of posession while in that state, because that's a means by which you're earning income there.
Obvious solution: is the person a resident of the state, operating in the state? Then he should operate by the state's rules. Simply passing through does not make him a resident, and calls for reciprocity. Obviously constitutionally defined laws to govern full faith and credit might differ from one topic to another, but owning a gun should full under the most permissive standard, obviously - it's not a fuckin' board certification with annual reviews. I think trade practice in a state is subject to a lot more limitation by that state than incidental conditions of posession while in that state, because that's a means by which you're earning income there.
Posted by: Sporkatus at January 04, 2017 06:06 PM (eXSOZ)
172
156 I really want a swordcane because they are forbiddeded
Posted by: @votermom @vm
What I want is a really vicious-looking Conan the Barbarian-style 5-foot-long broadsword -- which actually opens into a delightful Hello Kitty umbrella! It's perfectly harmless! Hahahaha!
Posted by: @votermom @vm
What I want is a really vicious-looking Conan the Barbarian-style 5-foot-long broadsword -- which actually opens into a delightful Hello Kitty umbrella! It's perfectly harmless! Hahahaha!
Posted by: zombie at January 04, 2017 06:06 PM (jBuUi)
173
I must reiterate "shall not be infringed" is a high bar to clear. laws on anything short of wmd should be unconstitutional.
Posted by: USNtakim at January 04, 2017 06:06 PM (hMqvx)
174
Per the 2nd amendment, bearing arms is already a constitutional right. I can't think of why carrying concealed would affect that right. It would be like saying that you have a 1st amendment to free speech, but not if you use a pseudonym. What would we say to states that say you must get a license to publish while concealing your identity?
There is no state interest in limiting the rights of citizens who are already legally allowed to own and bear arms.
There is no state interest in limiting the rights of citizens who are already legally allowed to own and bear arms.
Posted by: Anon Y. Mous at January 04, 2017 06:07 PM (R+30W)
175
I think you misread my comment.
....
I feel your frustration about not being able to exercise a fundamental 2nd amendment right because of where you live.
Posted by: Muldoon at January 04, 2017 06:01 PM (wPiJc)
Ah...it makes much more sense now.
And I didn't misread it...I simply used an "alternate lifestyle choice" with which to interpret it.
....
I feel your frustration about not being able to exercise a fundamental 2nd amendment right because of where you live.
Posted by: Muldoon at January 04, 2017 06:01 PM (wPiJc)
Ah...it makes much more sense now.
And I didn't misread it...I simply used an "alternate lifestyle choice" with which to interpret it.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at January 04, 2017 06:07 PM (rF0hx)
176
144
"Arms" is loosely defined as those issued to the typical soldier. Anthrax isn't.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo
I've never heard that definition. Where did you get it?
Posted by: pep at January 04, 2017 06:02 PM (LAe3v)
When the second amendment was written "arms" were intended to be those carried and used by the militia when they were called up. This included small arms such as rifles and pistols as well as canon. And during those times private citizens did in fact own canon.
But nobody carried chemical or biological weapons. And nobody in the US is supposed to be carrying them either since they are outlawed for everybody in the US including the military.
"Arms" is loosely defined as those issued to the typical soldier. Anthrax isn't.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo
I've never heard that definition. Where did you get it?
Posted by: pep at January 04, 2017 06:02 PM (LAe3v)
When the second amendment was written "arms" were intended to be those carried and used by the militia when they were called up. This included small arms such as rifles and pistols as well as canon. And during those times private citizens did in fact own canon.
But nobody carried chemical or biological weapons. And nobody in the US is supposed to be carrying them either since they are outlawed for everybody in the US including the military.
Posted by: Vic We Have No Party at January 04, 2017 06:07 PM (mpXpK)
177
And under Obama are if some doctor writes down you have been anxious or depressed then you get flagged as well.
Posted by: Pepe at January 04, 2017 06:07 PM (7SUm3)
178
I think everyone's raising valid points, but as a practical matter - and it is, at this point, a practical matter - the "principle" issues are all quite moot, that is the federalism ones.
After how many decades of incorporation of the bill of rights, it simply is inexcusable to suddenly become fastidious, with an unrealistic view to rolling back the tattered state of federalism on such matters, with respect to *this* issue.
In fact, if federalism arguments are successfully used to block such an initiative, despite both the full faith and credit and incorporated rights jurisprudence of the last 80 years or more - then we really have another situation just as preposterous as any of Roberts' or Kennedy's recent absurd "rulings".
Mostly I'd like to be a fly on the wall when the 2nd Amendment Foundation and the NRA and Alan Gura and others like that huddle to brainstorm the best judicial strategy on these things, nationally. I'm thinking they have some ideas and strategies in mind, which just might become relevant with a new SCOTUS majority.
After how many decades of incorporation of the bill of rights, it simply is inexcusable to suddenly become fastidious, with an unrealistic view to rolling back the tattered state of federalism on such matters, with respect to *this* issue.
In fact, if federalism arguments are successfully used to block such an initiative, despite both the full faith and credit and incorporated rights jurisprudence of the last 80 years or more - then we really have another situation just as preposterous as any of Roberts' or Kennedy's recent absurd "rulings".
Mostly I'd like to be a fly on the wall when the 2nd Amendment Foundation and the NRA and Alan Gura and others like that huddle to brainstorm the best judicial strategy on these things, nationally. I'm thinking they have some ideas and strategies in mind, which just might become relevant with a new SCOTUS majority.
Posted by: rhomboid at January 04, 2017 06:08 PM (QDnY+)
179
What state passed a law that even a misdemeanor domestic violence charge causes one to lose their gun rights?
Posted by: Pepe
______
I actually think that's federal in some cases. I'm pretty sure it's on the FBI questionaire.
I knew a gun dealer and he had some spat with his ex-wife where her leveling this charge almost lost his license to sell guns. Not conviction, just accusation.
Posted by: Pepe
______
I actually think that's federal in some cases. I'm pretty sure it's on the FBI questionaire.
I knew a gun dealer and he had some spat with his ex-wife where her leveling this charge almost lost his license to sell guns. Not conviction, just accusation.
Posted by: Maritime at January 04, 2017 06:08 PM (rx502)
180
136 86 Demonstrate proficiency, that sort of thing?
Posted by: Muldoon
Here in California, to demonstrate your proficiency with firearms you must successfully demonstrate that you can hold a Glock sideways with your elbow pointing out, and then fire it wildly and inaccurately, hitting at least three innocent bystanders, while you yell "GIMME YO' IPHONE, MUTHAFUCKA!" If you can do this properly, you are allowed to carry a weapon.
Posted by: zombie at January 04, 2017 06:00 PM (jBuUi)
And that's the LAPD proficiency test!
Posted by: Muldoon
Here in California, to demonstrate your proficiency with firearms you must successfully demonstrate that you can hold a Glock sideways with your elbow pointing out, and then fire it wildly and inaccurately, hitting at least three innocent bystanders, while you yell "GIMME YO' IPHONE, MUTHAFUCKA!" If you can do this properly, you are allowed to carry a weapon.
Posted by: zombie at January 04, 2017 06:00 PM (jBuUi)
And that's the LAPD proficiency test!
Posted by: Insomniac at January 04, 2017 06:08 PM (0mRoj)
181
I really want a swordcane because they are forbiddeded
Posted by: @votermom @vm at January 04, 2017 06:04 PM
In England while in the USAF I bought a cavalry sabre and I know another guy who had a sword cane, but in a dorm raid inspection the 1st Sgt didn't think we should own such nice pieces of hardware.
Posted by: @votermom @vm at January 04, 2017 06:04 PM
In England while in the USAF I bought a cavalry sabre and I know another guy who had a sword cane, but in a dorm raid inspection the 1st Sgt didn't think we should own such nice pieces of hardware.
Posted by: Skip at January 04, 2017 06:08 PM (5sOEp)
Posted by: Jill Stein, the green frog at January 04, 2017 06:08 PM (trdnR)
Posted by: Nevergiveup at January 04, 2017 06:09 PM (SjImc)
184
What I want is a really vicious-looking Conan the Barbarian-style 5-foot-long broadsword -- which actually opens into a delightful Hello Kitty umbrella! It's perfectly harmless! Hahahaha!
Posted by: zombie at January 04, 2017 06:06 PM (jBuUi)
That would be awesome. Is that a real thing?
Although the opposite would be awesomer - looks like a hello kitty umbrella, is really a sword
Kickstarter project?
Posted by: zombie at January 04, 2017 06:06 PM (jBuUi)
That would be awesome. Is that a real thing?
Although the opposite would be awesomer - looks like a hello kitty umbrella, is really a sword
Kickstarter project?
Posted by: @votermom @vm at January 04, 2017 06:09 PM (Om16U)
Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at January 04, 2017 06:09 PM (voOPb)
186
"What state passed a law that even a misdemeanor domestic violence charge causes one to lose their gun rights?"
-Posted by: Pepe at January 04, 2017 06:06 PM (7SUm3)
Illinois?
What did I win? Is it a pony? TELL ME IT IS A PONY!!!
-Posted by: Pepe at January 04, 2017 06:06 PM (7SUm3)
Illinois?
What did I win? Is it a pony? TELL ME IT IS A PONY!!!
Posted by: Slapweasel, (Cold1), (T) at January 04, 2017 06:09 PM (6gk0M)
187
What I want is a really vicious-looking Conan the Barbarian-style 5-foot-long broadsword -- which actually opens into a delightful Hello Kitty umbrella! It's perfectly harmless! Hahahaha!
Posted by: zombie at January 04, 2017 06:06 PM
You obviously don't watch all nite info commercials
Posted by: zombie at January 04, 2017 06:06 PM
You obviously don't watch all nite info commercials
Posted by: Skip at January 04, 2017 06:09 PM (5sOEp)
188
Why not? You'd still be on the hook if you committed a crime with it or accidentally injured or killed someone.
Besides, I'm immunized against it, so what do I care?
Posted by: Country Singer (Gab @Bert G)
Because with anthrax weapon, you have the potential to kill millions of people; if you go batshit crazy, we'd like to be able to limit the bodycount. We've been spectacularly unsuccessful at stopping jihadis by saying "you'll be on the hook".
As to your immunizations, I have it on no less an authority than Jenny McCarthy that that's a bad thing.
Besides, I'm immunized against it, so what do I care?
Posted by: Country Singer (Gab @Bert G)
Because with anthrax weapon, you have the potential to kill millions of people; if you go batshit crazy, we'd like to be able to limit the bodycount. We've been spectacularly unsuccessful at stopping jihadis by saying "you'll be on the hook".
As to your immunizations, I have it on no less an authority than Jenny McCarthy that that's a bad thing.
Posted by: pep at January 04, 2017 06:09 PM (LAe3v)
189
179 What state passed a law that even a misdemeanor domestic violence charge causes one to lose their gun rights?
Posted by: Pepe
______
I actually think that's federal in some cases. I'm pretty sure it's on the FBI questionaire.
I knew a gun dealer and he had some spat with his ex-wife where her leveling this charge almost lost his license to sell guns. Not conviction, just accusation.
Posted by: Maritime at January 04, 2017 06:08 PM (rx502)
It's almost as if the statists are targeting men and vets.
Posted by: Pepe
______
I actually think that's federal in some cases. I'm pretty sure it's on the FBI questionaire.
I knew a gun dealer and he had some spat with his ex-wife where her leveling this charge almost lost his license to sell guns. Not conviction, just accusation.
Posted by: Maritime at January 04, 2017 06:08 PM (rx502)
It's almost as if the statists are targeting men and vets.
Posted by: Pepe at January 04, 2017 06:10 PM (7SUm3)
190
God didn't give you or anyone else any rights. Societies created the
concept of rights, men died to protect those concepts. Just sayin'.
---
Check the Declaration of Independence. The only legitimate claim to rights is that they are endowed to us by the Creator. If you don't believe that, you aren't part of America.
concept of rights, men died to protect those concepts. Just sayin'.
---
Check the Declaration of Independence. The only legitimate claim to rights is that they are endowed to us by the Creator. If you don't believe that, you aren't part of America.
Posted by: Methos at January 04, 2017 06:10 PM (3Liv/)
191
I've seen people open carry in Texas, on precisely three occasions.
Posted by: Jonathan G at January 04, 2017 06:11 PM (DRWGY)
192
Arms -- ammunition
Posted by: runner
Nope. Neither does it have anything to do with apendages.
from the latin arma =
"weapons" (including armor), literally "tools, implements (of war)," from PIE root *ar- "fit, join"
Posted by: runner
Nope. Neither does it have anything to do with apendages.
from the latin arma =
"weapons" (including armor), literally "tools, implements (of war)," from PIE root *ar- "fit, join"
Posted by: weft cut-loop at January 04, 2017 06:11 PM (FQ0rq)
193
Fun Facts.
The British are coming. The British are coming.
Coming to do what.? Confiscate arms.
What kind of arms were the goingvto confiscate.??
Cannon and black powder mostly.
Well...who owned those cannon? Private citizens.
Whip out that historical context the next time some loon prattles on about the second amendment being all about deer hunting.
Fun Facts.
The British are coming. The British are coming.
Coming to do what.? Confiscate arms.
What kind of arms were the goingvto confiscate.??
Cannon and black powder mostly.
Well...who owned those cannon? Private citizens.
Whip out that historical context the next time some loon prattles on about the second amendment being all about deer hunting.
Posted by: fixerupper at January 04, 2017 06:11 PM (JmjOe)
194
173 I must reiterate "shall not be infringed" is a high bar to clear. laws on anything short of wmd should be unconstitutional.
In the near future I think it will be easier to make the case for private possession of nuclear explosives. I'm thinking asteroid mining and space exploration.
Hopefully i won't barrel myself with my cellphone html-fu
In the near future I think it will be easier to make the case for private possession of nuclear explosives. I'm thinking asteroid mining and space exploration.
Hopefully i won't barrel myself with my cellphone html-fu
Posted by: Iblis at January 04, 2017 06:11 PM (3gBCr)
Posted by: Michelle Fields at January 04, 2017 06:11 PM (0mRoj)
196
>>My pet peeve which most here don't agree with is why should a former felon lose their gun ownership rights. It is a right just like freedom of speech in my mind. BTW, they ought to be able to vote for all the felons inhabiting congress too.
The problem with this is while it sounds right in theory, humans don't always follow theory. The recidivism rate for violent criminals in this country is extremely high. A lot of these guys are career criminals and not some reformed angel from a 1950s movie. I'm not real excited about arming some of the more violent and non-lawabiding among us.
When that little flaw can be fixed I would agree with you.
The problem with this is while it sounds right in theory, humans don't always follow theory. The recidivism rate for violent criminals in this country is extremely high. A lot of these guys are career criminals and not some reformed angel from a 1950s movie. I'm not real excited about arming some of the more violent and non-lawabiding among us.
When that little flaw can be fixed I would agree with you.
Posted by: JackStraw at January 04, 2017 06:11 PM (/tuJf)
197
Okay...that makes three....Me, Garrett and Vic.
Any other real conservatives around here?
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo
--------------
*Raises hand
Hey, does anyone use / have experience with that Urban Carry holster I linked at #127?
Any other real conservatives around here?
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo
--------------
*Raises hand
Hey, does anyone use / have experience with that Urban Carry holster I linked at #127?
Posted by: Chi at January 04, 2017 06:12 PM (/Z9VQ)
198
God didn't give you or anyone else any rights. Societies created the concept of rights, men died to protect those concepts. Just sayin'.
The purpose of the description, even to an athiest, is in natural law. Specifically, the opposite of the rights-descending-from-man argument. The sense that it is logical for certain autonomies to exist, that interactions between people are served best when those natural and logical limits are respected, and that describing them is an enumeration. A counting of those that are understood to exist already.
I get that you don't believe in the natural law framework, but your refutation is anything but.
The purpose of the description, even to an athiest, is in natural law. Specifically, the opposite of the rights-descending-from-man argument. The sense that it is logical for certain autonomies to exist, that interactions between people are served best when those natural and logical limits are respected, and that describing them is an enumeration. A counting of those that are understood to exist already.
I get that you don't believe in the natural law framework, but your refutation is anything but.
Posted by: Sporkatus at January 04, 2017 06:12 PM (eXSOZ)
199
@170 - CO also has that law. but I think it is federal now too, from when obama and the dems had full control.
Now courts throw a DV charge on any verbal argument between anybody.
Now courts throw a DV charge on any verbal argument between anybody.
Posted by: Guy Mohawk at January 04, 2017 06:12 PM (ODxAs)
200
170
What state passed a law that even a misdemeanor domestic violence charge causes one to lose their gun rights?
Posted by: Pepe at January 04, 2017 06:06 PM (7SUm3)
The feds via the "Lautenberg Amendment". It was struck down by the Supremes when first passed and they simply repassed it reworded slightly and nobody as taken it to court again yet.
What state passed a law that even a misdemeanor domestic violence charge causes one to lose their gun rights?
Posted by: Pepe at January 04, 2017 06:06 PM (7SUm3)
The feds via the "Lautenberg Amendment". It was struck down by the Supremes when first passed and they simply repassed it reworded slightly and nobody as taken it to court again yet.
Posted by: Vic We Have No Party at January 04, 2017 06:12 PM (mpXpK)
201
10th vs. 2nd. If you tell me that there are more than ten lawyers in this country ready to argue that, I'll call Bullshit.
Posted by: Slapweasel, (Cold1), (T) at January 04, 2017 06:13 PM (6gk0M)
202
At least the constitution recognizes the right to keep and bear arms, unlike other "federalist" decisions made by states. Examples are to legalize pot, sanction gay marriage, legalize abortion, etc. So, a question: which of the other eight amendments in the Bill of Rights are subject to state limitation? Speech? Religion? Trial by jury? Of course. the 10th amendment is dead, for all practical purposes based on the whims of the federal governmet. But somehow the 2nd amendment has been chopped up into little districts and islands. So is reciprocity an advance, or is it simple acknowlegement that the government, this time the feds, can allow a 2nd amendment right that should already be in place?
Posted by: Wm. Scott at January 04, 2017 06:13 PM (2SHqW)
203
I've never heard that definition. Where did you get it?
Posted by: pep at January 04, 2017 06:02 PM (LAe3v)
Try this....
Black's Law Dictionary: "anything that a man wears for his defense, or takes in his hands as a weapon."
Posted by: pep at January 04, 2017 06:02 PM (LAe3v)
Try this....
Black's Law Dictionary: "anything that a man wears for his defense, or takes in his hands as a weapon."
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at January 04, 2017 06:14 PM (rF0hx)
204
Arms -- ammunition
Posted by: runner
Nope. Neither does it have anything to do with apendages.
from the latin arma =
"weapons" (including armor), literally "tools, implements (of war)," from PIE root *ar- "fit, join"
Posted by: weft cut-loop at January 04, 2017 06:11 PM (FQ0rq)
Wut?
Posted by: runner
Nope. Neither does it have anything to do with apendages.
from the latin arma =
"weapons" (including armor), literally "tools, implements (of war)," from PIE root *ar- "fit, join"
Posted by: weft cut-loop at January 04, 2017 06:11 PM (FQ0rq)
Wut?
Posted by: runner at January 04, 2017 06:14 PM (c6/9Q)
205
hat state passed a law that even a misdemeanor domestic violence charge causes one to lose their gun rights?
Posted by: Pepe
The Lautenberg Amendment. It's a huge PITA in the military when some dependapotamus gets in an argument with her husband and calls the MPs/cops and alleges domestic violence, because if he gets convicted, he loses all gun rights. That's pretty much a military career destroyer. I'm not saying that there's not domestic violence in the military, but I have seen vindictive spouses falsely accuse because they know it will end a career.
Posted by: Pepe
The Lautenberg Amendment. It's a huge PITA in the military when some dependapotamus gets in an argument with her husband and calls the MPs/cops and alleges domestic violence, because if he gets convicted, he loses all gun rights. That's pretty much a military career destroyer. I'm not saying that there's not domestic violence in the military, but I have seen vindictive spouses falsely accuse because they know it will end a career.
Posted by: Country Singer (Gab @Bert G) at January 04, 2017 06:14 PM (GUBah)
206
186 "What state passed a law that even a misdemeanor domestic violence charge causes one to lose their gun rights?"
-Posted by: Pepe at January 04, 2017 06:06 PM (7SUm3)
Illinois?
What did I win? Is it a pony? TELL ME IT IS A PONY!!!
Posted by: Slapweasel, (Cold1), (T) at January 04, 2017 06:09 PM (6gk0M)
Your Pony will be taxed and you must pass complete and pass 100 hours of Pont classes a year to keep that pony. And you must pick up your pony poo when walking your pony.
But Pony aside I thought it was Florida, but it is probably a federal thing as somebody mentioned above.
-Posted by: Pepe at January 04, 2017 06:06 PM (7SUm3)
Illinois?
What did I win? Is it a pony? TELL ME IT IS A PONY!!!
Posted by: Slapweasel, (Cold1), (T) at January 04, 2017 06:09 PM (6gk0M)
Your Pony will be taxed and you must pass complete and pass 100 hours of Pont classes a year to keep that pony. And you must pick up your pony poo when walking your pony.
But Pony aside I thought it was Florida, but it is probably a federal thing as somebody mentioned above.
Posted by: Pepe at January 04, 2017 06:14 PM (7SUm3)
207
What state passed a law that even a misdemeanor domestic violence charge causes one to lose their gun rights?
Question 11.i on Federal (ATF) form 4473
Question 11.i on Federal (ATF) form 4473
Posted by: That deplorable guy who always says... at January 04, 2017 06:14 PM (Tyii7)
208
170 What state passed a law that even a misdemeanor domestic violence charge causes one to lose their gun rights?
Posted by: Pepe at
The feds did that.
Posted by: Pepe at
The feds did that.
Posted by: O in the bunker at January 04, 2017 06:14 PM (nFwvY)
209
139
Tenth Amendment stuff.
States may restrict, yet The Federal Courts should decide for the Second Amendment to the Constitution of these great United States of America.
Basic history, yet confusing to me at times.
Posted by: Slapweasel, (Cold1), (T) at January 04, 2017 06:01 PM (6gk0M)
The constitution protects a fundamental right of interstate travel. This bill appears to be nothing more than a recognition that citizens lawfully exercising their Second Amendment rights need not check them at the border of their state, while simultaneously exercising their right to freely travel interstate.
I understand the tension behind the federalists' objections to the federal encroachment of states' police powers. However, when such encroachment exists - if at all - and/or is in the direction of increasing individual (constitutionally protected) liberties over that of state police powers (which is apparent from the private right of action granted by this act), I think that objection is moot.
I think this is well thought out, but for the explicit coverage of constitutional carry states.
Tenth Amendment stuff.
States may restrict, yet The Federal Courts should decide for the Second Amendment to the Constitution of these great United States of America.
Basic history, yet confusing to me at times.
Posted by: Slapweasel, (Cold1), (T) at January 04, 2017 06:01 PM (6gk0M)
The constitution protects a fundamental right of interstate travel. This bill appears to be nothing more than a recognition that citizens lawfully exercising their Second Amendment rights need not check them at the border of their state, while simultaneously exercising their right to freely travel interstate.
I understand the tension behind the federalists' objections to the federal encroachment of states' police powers. However, when such encroachment exists - if at all - and/or is in the direction of increasing individual (constitutionally protected) liberties over that of state police powers (which is apparent from the private right of action granted by this act), I think that objection is moot.
I think this is well thought out, but for the explicit coverage of constitutional carry states.
Posted by: flounder, rebel, vulgarian, deplorable, winner at January 04, 2017 06:14 PM (GX63o)
210
anything that a man takes in his hands as a weapon.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at January 04, 2017 06:14 PM (rF0hx)
Especially if your dating my daughter and I reserve the right to defend her honor!
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at January 04, 2017 06:14 PM (rF0hx)
Especially if your dating my daughter and I reserve the right to defend her honor!
Posted by: Nevergiveup at January 04, 2017 06:15 PM (SjImc)
211
I must reiterate "shall not be infringed" is a high bar to clear. laws on anything short of wmd should be unconstitutional.
Posted by: USNtakim at January 04, 2017 06:06 PM (hMqvx)
They redefined wmd to include mundane objects such as pressure cookers some years ago.
That was after they dropped the NBC and went with wmd because it was more inclusive. UniParty pukes.
Posted by: USNtakim at January 04, 2017 06:06 PM (hMqvx)
They redefined wmd to include mundane objects such as pressure cookers some years ago.
That was after they dropped the NBC and went with wmd because it was more inclusive. UniParty pukes.
Posted by: Burnt Toast at January 04, 2017 06:15 PM (P/kVC)
212
Let me know when states can hand wave the 16th away like the 2nd.
Posted by: O in the bunker at January 04, 2017 06:15 PM (nFwvY)
213
205 hat state passed a law that even a misdemeanor domestic violence charge causes one to lose their gun rights?
Posted by: Pepe
The Lautenberg Amendment. It's a huge PITA in the military when some dependapotamus gets in an argument with her husband and calls the MPs/cops and alleges domestic violence, because if he gets convicted, he loses all gun rights. That's pretty much a military career destroyer. I'm not saying that there's not domestic violence in the military, but I have seen vindictive spouses falsely accuse because they know it will end a career.
Posted by: Country Singer (Gab @Bert G) at January 04, 2017 06:14 PM (GUBah)
I wish I could say that this surprises me to hear, but it only confirms my suspicions.
Posted by: Pepe
The Lautenberg Amendment. It's a huge PITA in the military when some dependapotamus gets in an argument with her husband and calls the MPs/cops and alleges domestic violence, because if he gets convicted, he loses all gun rights. That's pretty much a military career destroyer. I'm not saying that there's not domestic violence in the military, but I have seen vindictive spouses falsely accuse because they know it will end a career.
Posted by: Country Singer (Gab @Bert G) at January 04, 2017 06:14 PM (GUBah)
I wish I could say that this surprises me to hear, but it only confirms my suspicions.
Posted by: Pepe at January 04, 2017 06:15 PM (7SUm3)
214
What did I win? Is it a pony? TELL ME IT IS A PONY!!!
Posted by: Slapweasel
*****
Crap! I missed another pony giveaway...
Posted by: Slapweasel
*****
Crap! I missed another pony giveaway...
Posted by: Muldoon at January 04, 2017 06:15 PM (wPiJc)
Posted by: George at January 04, 2017 06:15 PM (YPJrZ)
216
Mixed, here @ Chateau D'Eez , ....
Gotta say, I share the doubts on the theoretical aspects of this, ....
but ever since whatsisname vs. sumbuddy (the farmer growing corn to feed his cows that somehow affected interstate commerce) this cat has been out of the bag for well more than my whole lifetime. Let's not even get started on the last 8 years, ok ?
Insofar as this means that before crossing a state line I do not have to pull over, unload, and stash the J-frame (or whateve)r in the trunk, I am all for it, one-hundred-and-one-effin-per-freakin-cent.
Mrs. Eez, getting her CCW later in the month, agrees.
perfect the enemy of the good, ok ?
Gotta say, I share the doubts on the theoretical aspects of this, ....
but ever since whatsisname vs. sumbuddy (the farmer growing corn to feed his cows that somehow affected interstate commerce) this cat has been out of the bag for well more than my whole lifetime. Let's not even get started on the last 8 years, ok ?
Insofar as this means that before crossing a state line I do not have to pull over, unload, and stash the J-frame (or whateve)r in the trunk, I am all for it, one-hundred-and-one-effin-per-freakin-cent.
Mrs. Eez, getting her CCW later in the month, agrees.
perfect the enemy of the good, ok ?
Posted by: sock_rat_eez at January 04, 2017 06:16 PM (sHFi7)
217
So, a question: which of the other eight amendments in the Bill of Rights are subject to state limitation? Speech? Religion? Trial by jury?
Posted by: Wm. Scott at January 04, 2017 06:13 PM (2SHqW)
Yes.
Posted by: Wm. Scott at January 04, 2017 06:13 PM (2SHqW)
Yes.
Posted by: People's Republic of California at January 04, 2017 06:16 PM (OzJeO)
218
>>If you don't believe that, you aren't part of America.Posted by: Methos at January 04, 2017 06:10 PM (3Liv/)
You've either got a sharp wit or you're an idiot. I don't have a coin to toss.
You've either got a sharp wit or you're an idiot. I don't have a coin to toss.
Posted by: General Zod at January 04, 2017 06:16 PM (hgpSN)
Posted by: Evilpens at January 04, 2017 06:16 PM (y3aQB)
220
lol @ 195
Posted by: flounder, rebel, vulgarian, deplorable, winner at January 04, 2017 06:17 PM (GX63o)
221
-Posted by: Pepe at January 04, 2017 06:14 PM (7SUm3)
Fucking "Pony Regulations". I knew I was screwed from the start.
*Leaves Pony by the Wayside*
*Looks at new "Florida Man" article*
These people are crazy!
Fucking "Pony Regulations". I knew I was screwed from the start.
*Leaves Pony by the Wayside*
*Looks at new "Florida Man" article*
These people are crazy!
Posted by: Slapweasel, (Cold1), (T) at January 04, 2017 06:17 PM (6gk0M)
222
208 170 What state passed a law that even a misdemeanor domestic violence charge causes one to lose their gun rights?
Posted by: Pepe at
The feds did that.
Posted by: O in the bunker at January 04, 2017 06:14 PM (nFwvY
Awesome. It's almost as if mother government is targeting gun owners by targeting men and vets.
Posted by: Pepe at
The feds did that.
Posted by: O in the bunker at January 04, 2017 06:14 PM (nFwvY
Awesome. It's almost as if mother government is targeting gun owners by targeting men and vets.
Posted by: Pepe at January 04, 2017 06:17 PM (7SUm3)
223
Pm May should stay ho!me and trigger 
article 50. Be more useful
article 50. Be more usefulPosted by: runner at January 04, 2017 06:17 PM (c6/9Q)
224
Some of this though reminds me of like when John McCain voted against the Bush tax cuts because there wasn't the attached spending cuts.
Of course that wasn't the real reason.
That's how I feel about the federalism excuses or having a SC judge that respects "precedence" when it comes to bad (liberal) decisions.
It seems like it's always a bullshit excuse instead of moving the ball forward.
Yes, I would love both a more federalist approach to laws and my 2nd Amendment rights honored in all 50 states, but the perfect is the enemy of the good.
Of course that wasn't the real reason.
That's how I feel about the federalism excuses or having a SC judge that respects "precedence" when it comes to bad (liberal) decisions.
It seems like it's always a bullshit excuse instead of moving the ball forward.
Yes, I would love both a more federalist approach to laws and my 2nd Amendment rights honored in all 50 states, but the perfect is the enemy of the good.
Posted by: Maritime at January 04, 2017 06:17 PM (rx502)
225
Still don't like the idea of infringement on an inalienable right at ANY level, but if this is the way we have to proceed to the ultimate goal, then a grudging okay from this corner.
Posted by: irongrampa at January 04, 2017 06:17 PM (X35Yt)
226
203 I've never heard that definition. Where did you get it?
Posted by: pep at January 04, 2017 06:02 PM (LAe3v)
Try this....
Black's Law Dictionary: "anything that a man wears for his defense, or takes in his hands as a weapon."
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at January 04, 2017 06:14 PM (rF0hx)
Considering this, and that "weapons of war" were widely privately owned at the drafting of the 2nd Amendment, I maintain my position that anything the infantry can use should be available to civilians.
Posted by: pep at January 04, 2017 06:02 PM (LAe3v)
Try this....
Black's Law Dictionary: "anything that a man wears for his defense, or takes in his hands as a weapon."
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at January 04, 2017 06:14 PM (rF0hx)
Considering this, and that "weapons of war" were widely privately owned at the drafting of the 2nd Amendment, I maintain my position that anything the infantry can use should be available to civilians.
Posted by: Insomniac at January 04, 2017 06:18 PM (0mRoj)
227
When the second amendment was written "arms" were intended to be those
carried and used by the militia when they were called up. This included
small arms such as rifles and pistols as well as canon. And during those
times private citizens did in fact own canon.
Your argument then is that someone has the right to own artillery. I'm not okay with my neighbor having a howitzer in his sunroom.
But nobody carried chemical or biological weapons. And nobody in the US is supposed to be carrying them either since they
are outlawed for everybody in the US including the military.
But therein lies the rub. How can the government prohibit weapons which, according to the absolutists, are allowed. The gungrabbers argue that the 2A never envisioned automatic weapons, which our military certainly does carry. So, by your earlier argument, they should be universally available. Again, I don't want my hothead dick of a neighbor to have a Ma Deuce that can kill my entire cul-de-sac.
It's a fine line to draw, but IMO lines MUST be drawn. Simply stating the no-law-infringing formulation is not adequate. That's, I suppose, an argument for an Amendment to the 2A.
carried and used by the militia when they were called up. This included
small arms such as rifles and pistols as well as canon. And during those
times private citizens did in fact own canon.
Your argument then is that someone has the right to own artillery. I'm not okay with my neighbor having a howitzer in his sunroom.
But nobody carried chemical or biological weapons. And nobody in the US is supposed to be carrying them either since they
are outlawed for everybody in the US including the military.
But therein lies the rub. How can the government prohibit weapons which, according to the absolutists, are allowed. The gungrabbers argue that the 2A never envisioned automatic weapons, which our military certainly does carry. So, by your earlier argument, they should be universally available. Again, I don't want my hothead dick of a neighbor to have a Ma Deuce that can kill my entire cul-de-sac.
It's a fine line to draw, but IMO lines MUST be drawn. Simply stating the no-law-infringing formulation is not adequate. That's, I suppose, an argument for an Amendment to the 2A.
Posted by: pep at January 04, 2017 06:18 PM (LAe3v)
228
Especially if your dating my daughter and I reserve the right to defend her honor!
Posted by: Nevergiveup at January 04, 2017 06:15 PM (SjImc)
What are you going to do if your daughter dates a chef?
Just think...good meals every night!
Posted by: Nevergiveup at January 04, 2017 06:15 PM (SjImc)
What are you going to do if your daughter dates a chef?
Just think...good meals every night!
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at January 04, 2017 06:19 PM (rF0hx)
229
Crap! I missed another pony giveaway..."
-Posted by: Muldoon at January 04, 2017 06:15 PM (wPiJc)
Stay on your toes, Brother. You've got to be in it to win it.
-Posted by: Muldoon at January 04, 2017 06:15 PM (wPiJc)
Stay on your toes, Brother. You've got to be in it to win it.
Posted by: Slapweasel, (Cold1), (T) at January 04, 2017 06:19 PM (6gk0M)
230
201 10th vs. 2nd. If you tell me that there are more than ten lawyers in this country ready to argue that, I'll call Bullshit.
Posted by: Slapweasel, (Cold1), (T) at January 04, 2017 06:13 PM (6gk0M)
++++
There can be no contest between the 2nd and the 10th. It is impossible. As the 10th itself stipulates, any power not ceded to the feds remains in the hands of the states or the people. Since the 2nd itself is a denial of power to the feds, there is no contest.
Posted by: Slapweasel, (Cold1), (T) at January 04, 2017 06:13 PM (6gk0M)
++++
There can be no contest between the 2nd and the 10th. It is impossible. As the 10th itself stipulates, any power not ceded to the feds remains in the hands of the states or the people. Since the 2nd itself is a denial of power to the feds, there is no contest.
Posted by: Anon Y. Mous at January 04, 2017 06:19 PM (R+30W)
231
I hate anyone who had a pony!
Posted by: Jerry Seinfeld at January 04, 2017 06:19 PM (hjpzi)
232
Just on the "slippery slope" aspect of having this do further damage to federalism, I would say we are already at the verrry bottom of that steep and long slope, looking forlornly skyward.
I completely understand and instinctively agree with any federalism concerns on almost any topic.
And I recognize how academic that is, in 2017.
And if there is one area where a galactic cram-down by Congress and SCOTUS against the states would be welcome and salutary, it would be firearms law. Every f***king state should be Alaska, Arizona, or Wyoming on this topic.
I think many underestimate the potential benefit of gun liberty being imposed on states like CA, IL, NJ, NY, CT - the longer term political benefit, when the masses of ignorant, bigoted, fearful, brainwashed masses see first-hand that ..... there's no problem with gun liberty, at all. Nationally, you can sort of see this effect in the spreading map of gun liberty the last 20 years. Some of the earliest concealed-carry states really acted as test labs, and the results smoothed the way for many others.
I completely understand and instinctively agree with any federalism concerns on almost any topic.
And I recognize how academic that is, in 2017.
And if there is one area where a galactic cram-down by Congress and SCOTUS against the states would be welcome and salutary, it would be firearms law. Every f***king state should be Alaska, Arizona, or Wyoming on this topic.
I think many underestimate the potential benefit of gun liberty being imposed on states like CA, IL, NJ, NY, CT - the longer term political benefit, when the masses of ignorant, bigoted, fearful, brainwashed masses see first-hand that ..... there's no problem with gun liberty, at all. Nationally, you can sort of see this effect in the spreading map of gun liberty the last 20 years. Some of the earliest concealed-carry states really acted as test labs, and the results smoothed the way for many others.
Posted by: rhomboid at January 04, 2017 06:19 PM (QDnY+)
233
What are you going to do if your daughter dates a chef?
Just think...good meals every night!
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at January 04, 2017 06:19 PM (rF0hx)
Well exceptions can be made.
Just think...good meals every night!
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at January 04, 2017 06:19 PM (rF0hx)
Well exceptions can be made.
Posted by: Nevergiveup at January 04, 2017 06:19 PM (SjImc)
234
45 They should have a special clause for Military personnel ...not only full carry in every State but ON BASE also.
Posted by: Nevergiveup at January 04, 2017 05:47 PM (SjImc)
Eh... I'd give this over to individual commands. I knew guys who should not be trusted to shine a shitter with a toothbrush, and not with an M9 or a Mossberg 500 even on watch.
Being military yourself, I'm sure you've met a sailor or two and then wondered how they figured out which shoe goes on which foot that morning.
Posted by: Nevergiveup at January 04, 2017 05:47 PM (SjImc)
Eh... I'd give this over to individual commands. I knew guys who should not be trusted to shine a shitter with a toothbrush, and not with an M9 or a Mossberg 500 even on watch.
Being military yourself, I'm sure you've met a sailor or two and then wondered how they figured out which shoe goes on which foot that morning.
Posted by: hogmartin at January 04, 2017 06:19 PM (8nWyX)
235
214 What did I win? Is it a pony? TELL ME IT IS A PONY!!!
Posted by: Slapweasel
*****
Crap! I missed another pony giveaway...
Posted by: Muldoon at January 04, 2017 06:15 PM (wPiJc)
I always find the pile of shit, but never the pony.
Posted by: Slapweasel
*****
Crap! I missed another pony giveaway...
Posted by: Muldoon at January 04, 2017 06:15 PM (wPiJc)
I always find the pile of shit, but never the pony.
Posted by: Insomniac at January 04, 2017 06:20 PM (0mRoj)
236
Crap! I missed another pony giveaway...
Posted by: Muldoon at January 04, 2017 06:15 PM
Are you interested in the runner-up prize? We have pony tails, in a number of tasteful colors, including rainbow, that are worn both hands- and harness-free.
Posted by: Muldoon at January 04, 2017 06:15 PM
Are you interested in the runner-up prize? We have pony tails, in a number of tasteful colors, including rainbow, that are worn both hands- and harness-free.
Posted by: BronyBro at January 04, 2017 06:20 PM (DMUuz)
237
"Shall not be Infringed" + Supremacy Clause + Interstate Commerce Clause (movement of the person between states, not the firearm) + Incorporation = Congress responsibility "To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."
Posted by: Hugh Jorgen at January 04, 2017 06:20 PM (R5EqA)
238
Posted by: sock_rat_eez at January 04, 2017 06:16 PM (sHFi7)
Wickard vs filburn? The beginning of fedzilla. Everything is interstate commerce.
Wickard vs filburn? The beginning of fedzilla. Everything is interstate commerce.
Posted by: CaliGirl at January 04, 2017 06:20 PM (IgBFP)
239
States shouldn't be allowed to restrict the 2nd Amendment at all. I think we need a Roe v. Wade or Obergefell v. Hodges moment for the 2nd Amendment.
Posted by: holygoat at January 04, 2017 06:21 PM (8neUP)
240
Considering this, and that "weapons of war" were widely privately owned at the drafting of the 2nd Amendment, I maintain my position that anything the infantry can use should be available to civilians.
Posted by: Insomniac at January 04, 2017 06:18 PM (0mRoj)
FGM 148 Javelin?
Posted by: Insomniac at January 04, 2017 06:18 PM (0mRoj)
FGM 148 Javelin?
Posted by: runner at January 04, 2017 06:21 PM (c6/9Q)
Posted by: WEEN at January 04, 2017 06:21 PM (hjpzi)
242
Report: Jill Stein To Net $2 Million From Failed Recounts
Posted by: Evilpens at January 04, 2017 06:16 PM (y3aQB)
he he. Doesn't count the money I paid my friends and the lists I got to keep.
Liberals are dumber than even I thought.
Posted by: Evilpens at January 04, 2017 06:16 PM (y3aQB)
he he. Doesn't count the money I paid my friends and the lists I got to keep.
Liberals are dumber than even I thought.
Posted by: Jill Stein, the green frog at January 04, 2017 06:22 PM (YPJrZ)
243
"The constitution protects a fundamental right of interstate travel. This bill appears to be nothing more than a recognition that citizens lawfully exercising their Second Amendment rights need not check them at the border of their state, while simultaneously exercising their right to freely travel interstate.
I understand the tension behind the federalists' objections to the federal encroachment of states' police powers. However, when such encroachment exists - if at all - and/or is in the direction of increasing individual (constitutionally protected) liberties over that of state police powers (which is apparent from the private right of action granted by this act), I think that objection is moot.
I think this is well thought out, but for the explicit coverage of constitutional carry states."
-Posted by: flounder, rebel, vulgarian, deplorable, winner at January 04, 2017 06:14 PM (GX63o)
I like this. I copied and pasted this. Thank You, God Sir!
I understand the tension behind the federalists' objections to the federal encroachment of states' police powers. However, when such encroachment exists - if at all - and/or is in the direction of increasing individual (constitutionally protected) liberties over that of state police powers (which is apparent from the private right of action granted by this act), I think that objection is moot.
I think this is well thought out, but for the explicit coverage of constitutional carry states."
-Posted by: flounder, rebel, vulgarian, deplorable, winner at January 04, 2017 06:14 PM (GX63o)
I like this. I copied and pasted this. Thank You, God Sir!
Posted by: Slapweasel, (Cold1), (T) at January 04, 2017 06:22 PM (6gk0M)
244
I'm assuming that the Commerce Clause dodge is what was used to justify the Brady Bill and other anti-2A Federal legislation? If so, it seems like a goose-gander situation.
Also, how is it not the Federal government's job to help protect fundamental Constitutional rights against encroachment by the States?
I agree that this is a heavy-handed approach, but if I thought it would pass I would still support it because it is so necessary. Unfortunately this IS a hill the Dems will die on. I just don't want it to also help kill other pro-2A legislation with a better chance of passing (i.e. the Hearing Protection Act).
Also, how is it not the Federal government's job to help protect fundamental Constitutional rights against encroachment by the States?
I agree that this is a heavy-handed approach, but if I thought it would pass I would still support it because it is so necessary. Unfortunately this IS a hill the Dems will die on. I just don't want it to also help kill other pro-2A legislation with a better chance of passing (i.e. the Hearing Protection Act).
Posted by: Holdfast at January 04, 2017 06:22 PM (nNdYv)
245
Being military yourself, I'm sure you've met a sailor or two and then wondered how they figured out which shoe goes on which foot that morning.
Posted by: hogmartin at January 04, 2017 06:19 PM (8nWyX)
Sure. Makes life interesting. LOL
And I was saying that mostly tongue in cheek. Except all Navy Dentists should have carte blanch to do what ever we like. We are sadists anyway
Posted by: hogmartin at January 04, 2017 06:19 PM (8nWyX)
Sure. Makes life interesting. LOL
And I was saying that mostly tongue in cheek. Except all Navy Dentists should have carte blanch to do what ever we like. We are sadists anyway
Posted by: Nevergiveup at January 04, 2017 06:22 PM (SjImc)
246
227 Posted by: pep at January 04, 2017 06:18 PM (LAe3v)
Private citizens should be allowed to own machine guns. And they were allowed until the unconstitutional gun control act of 1932?
Private citizens should be allowed to own machine guns. And they were allowed until the unconstitutional gun control act of 1932?
Posted by: Vic We Have No Party at January 04, 2017 06:22 PM (mpXpK)
247
Posted by: rhomboid at January 04, 2017 06:19 PM (QDnY+)
From your lips to God's ears.
From your lips to God's ears.
Posted by: CaliGirl at January 04, 2017 06:23 PM (IgBFP)
248
>>I get that you don't believe in the natural law framework, but your refutation is anything but.
Posted by: Sporkatus at January 04, 2017 06:12 PM (eXSOZ)
You're equating "natural law" with "God." I think you're mistaken, and your comment to mine isn't close reading. It's rare that I second my own comment by defending it as a reductio ad absurdam, but that seemed like the appropriate tool for the task.
Posted by: Sporkatus at January 04, 2017 06:12 PM (eXSOZ)
You're equating "natural law" with "God." I think you're mistaken, and your comment to mine isn't close reading. It's rare that I second my own comment by defending it as a reductio ad absurdam, but that seemed like the appropriate tool for the task.
Posted by: General Zod at January 04, 2017 06:23 PM (hgpSN)
249
*Leaves Pony by the Wayside*
****************
**screeches to a halt**
**lures pony with apple**
**stuffs pony in trunk**
**drives off, hoping not to be stopped by NJ police looking for concealed carry violations**
****************
**screeches to a halt**
**lures pony with apple**
**stuffs pony in trunk**
**drives off, hoping not to be stopped by NJ police looking for concealed carry violations**
Posted by: Muldoon at January 04, 2017 06:23 PM (wPiJc)
250
You can make a lot of paste from a pony.
Posted by: Smokin' Uncle Joe Biden at January 04, 2017 06:23 PM (Tyii7)
251
Oh...bullshit!
What makes military personnel more deserving of 2nd Amendment protections?
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at January 04, 2017 05:51 PM (rF0hx)
I would have no problem with a Military CC permit, based on specific training and range time, for active duty personnel.
What makes military personnel more deserving of 2nd Amendment protections?
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at January 04, 2017 05:51 PM (rF0hx)
I would have no problem with a Military CC permit, based on specific training and range time, for active duty personnel.
Posted by: Kindltot at January 04, 2017 06:23 PM (9MInk)
252
Posted by: Insomniac at January 04, 2017 06:18 PM (0mRoj)
FGM 148 Javelin?
Posted by: runner at January 04, 2017 06:21 PM (c6/9Q)
Sure. Not too many people can pay the $250k per unit cost though.
FGM 148 Javelin?
Posted by: runner at January 04, 2017 06:21 PM (c6/9Q)
Sure. Not too many people can pay the $250k per unit cost though.
Posted by: Insomniac at January 04, 2017 06:23 PM (0mRoj)
253
is this what trump was proposing on the campaign trail?
"proud american gun owner
second amendment"
(patch i have on the dashboard of one of my pickups)
"proud american gun owner
second amendment"
(patch i have on the dashboard of one of my pickups)
Posted by: concrete girl at January 04, 2017 06:23 PM (sM1uH)
254
63 ... Skip, Congrats on that first round ball casting. One advantage of smooth bores is that the lead doesn't have to be as pure as for rifles. Casting can be as easy (my approach) or complicated as you want. The old long hunters and buffalo hunters cast their projectiles using a campfire and the simplest tools.
Posted by: JTB at January 04, 2017 06:23 PM (V+03K)
255
203. Your rifle is just a tool. It is the hard heart that kills. - Gunny Hartman
Posted by: Your Decidedly Devious Uncle Palpatine, No Longer Accepting Harem Applicants at January 04, 2017 06:23 PM (3Aj2Q)
256
I can see the feds turning this into some perverse gender identy thing. The mentally ill tranny or gender fluid person can own guns for each gender but regular folks can't because reasons.
So Caitlyn Jenner can own guns but Bruce Jenner cannot.
So Caitlyn Jenner can own guns but Bruce Jenner cannot.
Posted by: Pepe at January 04, 2017 06:23 PM (7SUm3)
257
How can you have a problem with legislation that restores a Constitutional right to it's proper state?
How can you have a problem with legislation that restores a Constitutional right to it's proper state?
Posted by: Mortimer, Finish Her! at January 04, 2017 06:23 PM (zu88C)
258
Being military yourself, I'm sure you've met a sailor or two and then wondered how they figured out which shoe goes on which foot that morning.
Posted by: hogmartin at January 04, 2017 06:19 PM (8nWyX)
Yup.... had guys I'd trust in Combat Information Center ready to fire Missiles...
That I didn't trust with a .45...
Different skill sets...
Posted by: hogmartin at January 04, 2017 06:19 PM (8nWyX)
Yup.... had guys I'd trust in Combat Information Center ready to fire Missiles...
That I didn't trust with a .45...
Different skill sets...
Posted by: Don Q. at January 04, 2017 06:24 PM (qf6WZ)
259
203
I've never heard that definition. Where did you get it?
Posted by: pep at January 04, 2017 06:02 PM (LAe3v)
Try this....
Black's Law Dictionary: "anything that a man wears for his defense, or takes in his hands as a weapon."
Goalposts moved. A man is not "a typical soldier".
Considering this, and that "weapons of war" were
widely privately owned at the drafting of the 2nd Amendment, I maintain
my position that anything the infantry can use should be available to
civilians.
Posted by: Insomniac
Where in the 2A does it mention "infantry"? Also, "can use" opens up large cans of worms.
I've never heard that definition. Where did you get it?
Posted by: pep at January 04, 2017 06:02 PM (LAe3v)
Try this....
Black's Law Dictionary: "anything that a man wears for his defense, or takes in his hands as a weapon."
Goalposts moved. A man is not "a typical soldier".
Considering this, and that "weapons of war" were
widely privately owned at the drafting of the 2nd Amendment, I maintain
my position that anything the infantry can use should be available to
civilians.
Posted by: Insomniac
Where in the 2A does it mention "infantry"? Also, "can use" opens up large cans of worms.
Posted by: pep at January 04, 2017 06:24 PM (LAe3v)
260
Posted by: Skip at January 04, 2017 05:50 PM (5sOEp)
Skip, where are you getting the lead to melt down?
Skip, where are you getting the lead to melt down?
Posted by: F.N.G. at January 04, 2017 06:24 PM (kiSdp)
261
Okay...that makes three....Me, Garrett and Vic.
Any other real conservatives around here?
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at January 04, 2017 05:54 PM (rF0hx)
Well me imho, but until we actually get back to following the Constitution, this will have to do.
Any other real conservatives around here?
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at January 04, 2017 05:54 PM (rF0hx)
Well me imho, but until we actually get back to following the Constitution, this will have to do.
Posted by: Country Boy - Stay Deplorable My Friends at January 04, 2017 06:24 PM (KUaxm)
262
pep, I think your concern is valid, yet also almost academic - it applies at the very very implausible end of the curve as far as probabilities go, and therefore really should not affect the central issue.
And if it were 1890 or 1915 or something, I think 10th amendment arguments would have more - er, some - force. Today? Really?
I could be wrong, but my impression is that the 10th has been vitiated many many times, entirely for the convenience of imposing certain policy preferences on the country, from the center. It's not really 2nd vs. 10th, is it, isn't it really "incorporation" vs. the 10th?
Gotta run unfortunately, but hope to check back here. Important topic. But I fear the federalism horses being regarded with concern have not only left the barn, they've skedaddled far over the yonder horizon, long ago, and by now are a thousand miles away, or in a glue factory or dog-food can ....
And if it were 1890 or 1915 or something, I think 10th amendment arguments would have more - er, some - force. Today? Really?
I could be wrong, but my impression is that the 10th has been vitiated many many times, entirely for the convenience of imposing certain policy preferences on the country, from the center. It's not really 2nd vs. 10th, is it, isn't it really "incorporation" vs. the 10th?
Gotta run unfortunately, but hope to check back here. Important topic. But I fear the federalism horses being regarded with concern have not only left the barn, they've skedaddled far over the yonder horizon, long ago, and by now are a thousand miles away, or in a glue factory or dog-food can ....
Posted by: rhomboid at January 04, 2017 06:24 PM (QDnY+)
263
"There can be no contest between the 2nd and the 10th. It is impossible. As the 10th itself stipulates, any power not ceded to the feds remains in the hands of the states or the people. Since the 2nd itself is a denial of power to the feds, there is no contest."
-Posted by: Anon Y. Mous at January 04, 2017 06:19 PM (R+30W)
But doesn't the 2nd in-and-of-itself apply Federally?
-Posted by: Anon Y. Mous at January 04, 2017 06:19 PM (R+30W)
But doesn't the 2nd in-and-of-itself apply Federally?
Posted by: Slapweasel, (Cold1), (T) at January 04, 2017 06:25 PM (6gk0M)
264
But nobody carried chemical or biological weapons. And nobody in the US is supposed to be carrying them either
What are we, chopped goat liver?
What are we, chopped goat liver?
Posted by: Hussein's Refugees with active TB at January 04, 2017 06:25 PM (DMUuz)
265
This may have been covered above, but the reason to make this a Federal thing is that there is an actual impediment to moving freely between states based upon their various and difficult to follow restrictions on gun ownership, carrying, transporting, etc.
Sometimes you have to be a resident of a state to even apply for a permit, so you cannot move their with a gun without being in violation of the law on day one, plus however long it takes to become a resident, then apply, then (hopefully) receive the permit.
Sometimes you have to be a resident of a state to even apply for a permit, so you cannot move their with a gun without being in violation of the law on day one, plus however long it takes to become a resident, then apply, then (hopefully) receive the permit.
Posted by: TexasDan at January 04, 2017 06:26 PM (yL25O)
Posted by: Mortimer, Finish Her! at January 04, 2017 06:26 PM (zu88C)
267
Oh, good, a gun thread. I was busy getting willowed down in the pickup thread. So, question I've been wanting to ask: I have a couple of pistols including a SandW .357 and a little Ruger .38 that is my present CC choice. I am about to buy an automatic pistol to add to my armaments, and my question is: Does anyone think a SandW .40 would be a bad choice? I've considered Glock and don't want that, so don't tell me to get one of those. Thanks for any advice.
Posted by: Ruthless at January 04, 2017 06:26 PM (ro5Th)
268
Your argument then is that someone has the right to own artillery. I'm
not okay with my neighbor having a howitzer in his sunroom.
---
And this is why Americans refer to God-given Constitutionally-protected Rights rather than rights because we say so. If you're worried about your neighbor bearing arms, the solution is to buy some of your own and if that doesn't work for you, relocating.
Which, in all seriousness, is what you should do if you actually have a neighbor you expect to go on a mass killing spree.
not okay with my neighbor having a howitzer in his sunroom.
---
And this is why Americans refer to God-given Constitutionally-protected Rights rather than rights because we say so. If you're worried about your neighbor bearing arms, the solution is to buy some of your own and if that doesn't work for you, relocating.
Which, in all seriousness, is what you should do if you actually have a neighbor you expect to go on a mass killing spree.
Posted by: Methos at January 04, 2017 06:27 PM (3Liv/)
269
The gungrabbers argue that the 2A never envisioned automatic weapons...
Posted by: pep at January 04, 2017 06:18 PM (LAe3v)
Except, they did envision automatic weapons, and considered purchasing them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belton_flintlock
Posted by: pep at January 04, 2017 06:18 PM (LAe3v)
Except, they did envision automatic weapons, and considered purchasing them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belton_flintlock
Posted by: Country Singer (Gab @Bert G) at January 04, 2017 06:27 PM (GUBah)
270
Well me imho, but until we actually get back to following the Constitution, this will have to do.
Posted by: Country Boy
Fist bump
Posted by: Country Boy
Fist bump
Posted by: rickb223 at January 04, 2017 06:27 PM (dSqvH)
271
Private citizens should be allowed to own machine guns. And they were allowed until the unconstitutional gun control act of 1932?
Posted by: Vic We Have No Party at January 04, 2017 06:22 PM (mpXpK)
You can still own a machinegun, you have to pay the tax stamp and background check. If your state allows it.
The problem is that the 1986 law banned the manufacture for civilian sales. So you have to buy a pre-ban, and those are ridiculously expensive
Posted by: Vic We Have No Party at January 04, 2017 06:22 PM (mpXpK)
You can still own a machinegun, you have to pay the tax stamp and background check. If your state allows it.
The problem is that the 1986 law banned the manufacture for civilian sales. So you have to buy a pre-ban, and those are ridiculously expensive
Posted by: Iblis at January 04, 2017 06:27 PM (3gBCr)
Posted by: Slapweasel, (Cold1), (T) at January 04, 2017 06:27 PM (6gk0M)
273
I'm sure you've met a sailor or two and then wondered how they figured out which shoe goes on which foot that morning. Posted by: hogmartin at January 04, 2017 06:19 PM (8nWyX)
In fairness the port and starboard thing confuses some people
I'm sure you've met a sailor or two and then wondered how they figured out which shoe goes on which foot that morning. Posted by: hogmartin at January 04, 2017 06:19 PM (8nWyX)
In fairness the port and starboard thing confuses some people
Posted by: Deplorable Male Logic at January 04, 2017 06:27 PM (lKyWE)
274
I can certainly appreciate any reservations with the method, but in something like this where some states are so obviously devoted to infringement, the goal really is laudable.
As an example, NJ hasn't issued a concealed carry permit to a non law enforcement officer (active or retired) in decades, except for a few well connected or very high profile exceptions that can all be counted without taking off your socks. NJ requires an "imminent threat" and even that standard is extremely rigidly enforced.
In New York City (as opposed to the state) the process just to own a firearm and to keep it in your home (forget concealed carry) takes 6 months, requires a lawyer in most cases, and requires several interviews with police involving hundreds of hours of investigation where even a single undotted i will send your application to the circular file.
The hope of we "gun guys" in these very non-gun states, is that CCR will inspire the local officials to establish their own reasonable (or even achievable) process for allowing CCR as a means of controlling the process. If it's easier to get a local carry permit than to go to Arizona or Virginia to get an 'out of state' permit, then most will simply perform it. These aren't criminals we're talking about. We don't typically want to get around things on technicalities if we don't have to.
But apart from a federally imposed CCR rule, as a former NJ resident and now a NYC resident, there is virtually no way for me to ever exercise my right of self defense by carrying a firearm.(legally) The local officials simply will not even allow the discussion of the idea.
As an example, NJ hasn't issued a concealed carry permit to a non law enforcement officer (active or retired) in decades, except for a few well connected or very high profile exceptions that can all be counted without taking off your socks. NJ requires an "imminent threat" and even that standard is extremely rigidly enforced.
In New York City (as opposed to the state) the process just to own a firearm and to keep it in your home (forget concealed carry) takes 6 months, requires a lawyer in most cases, and requires several interviews with police involving hundreds of hours of investigation where even a single undotted i will send your application to the circular file.
The hope of we "gun guys" in these very non-gun states, is that CCR will inspire the local officials to establish their own reasonable (or even achievable) process for allowing CCR as a means of controlling the process. If it's easier to get a local carry permit than to go to Arizona or Virginia to get an 'out of state' permit, then most will simply perform it. These aren't criminals we're talking about. We don't typically want to get around things on technicalities if we don't have to.
But apart from a federally imposed CCR rule, as a former NJ resident and now a NYC resident, there is virtually no way for me to ever exercise my right of self defense by carrying a firearm.(legally) The local officials simply will not even allow the discussion of the idea.
Posted by: Tom at January 04, 2017 06:27 PM (AZT9D)
275
246 227 Posted by: pep at January 04, 2017 06:18 PM (LAe3v)
Private citizens should be allowed to own machine guns. And they were allowed until the unconstitutional gun control act of 1932?
Posted by: Vic We Have No Party at January 04, 2017 06:22 PM (mpXpK)
In response to the organized crime from prohibition I assume. Gotta love the prudence movement and all the fruit it bore.
Private citizens should be allowed to own machine guns. And they were allowed until the unconstitutional gun control act of 1932?
Posted by: Vic We Have No Party at January 04, 2017 06:22 PM (mpXpK)
In response to the organized crime from prohibition I assume. Gotta love the prudence movement and all the fruit it bore.
Posted by: Pepe at January 04, 2017 06:27 PM (7SUm3)
276
Skip, where are you getting the lead to melt down?
Posted by: F.N.G. at January 04, 2017 06:24 PM (kiSdp)
They still use lead for flashing in sheet metal work and putting vents into roofs.
Go find an HVAC shop that puts in full systems and ask around if they sell scrap.
Posted by: F.N.G. at January 04, 2017 06:24 PM (kiSdp)
They still use lead for flashing in sheet metal work and putting vents into roofs.
Go find an HVAC shop that puts in full systems and ask around if they sell scrap.
Posted by: Kindltot at January 04, 2017 06:27 PM (9MInk)
Posted by: ThunderB at January 04, 2017 06:27 PM (Ap9Y7)
278
267 Oh, good, a gun thread. I was busy getting willowed down in the pickup thread. So, question I've been wanting to ask: I have a couple of pistols including a SandW .357 and a little Ruger .38 that is my present CC choice. I am about to buy an automatic pistol to add to my armaments, and my question is: Does anyone think a SandW .40 would be a bad choice? I've considered Glock and don't want that, so don't tell me to get one of those. Thanks for any advice.
Posted by: Ruthless at January 04, 2017 06:26 PM (ro5Th)
I have a M&P Shield in .40 that I like. My only objection to it is the trigger. It's a little gritty.
Posted by: Ruthless at January 04, 2017 06:26 PM (ro5Th)
I have a M&P Shield in .40 that I like. My only objection to it is the trigger. It's a little gritty.
Posted by: Insomniac at January 04, 2017 06:28 PM (0mRoj)
279
Thank you, CaliGirl ! That's the one, all right. Just couldn't quite remember the cite. Thanks again !
" I think we need a Roe v. Wade or Obergefell v. Hodges moment for the 2nd Amendment.
Posted by: holygoat"
I've been sayin' this for a long time. I want to see the 2A get emanations and penumbras.
" I think we need a Roe v. Wade or Obergefell v. Hodges moment for the 2nd Amendment.
Posted by: holygoat"
I've been sayin' this for a long time. I want to see the 2A get emanations and penumbras.
Posted by: sock_rat_eez at January 04, 2017 06:28 PM (sHFi7)
280
Your argument then is that someone has the right to own artillery. I'm
not okay with my neighbor having a howitzer in his sunroom.
===
I am VERY okay with this.
not okay with my neighbor having a howitzer in his sunroom.
===
I am VERY okay with this.
Posted by: Mortimer, Finish Her! at January 04, 2017 06:28 PM (zu88C)
281
Speaking of state versus federal control, I see California is continuing to lose it's collective mind. Hiring Holder to fight Trump and the feds on things like sanctuary cities.
Yea, money well spent dudes.
Yea, money well spent dudes.
Posted by: JackStraw at January 04, 2017 06:28 PM (/tuJf)
282
Ruthless - my advice: handle and shoot as many candidate platforms as you can manage. The one you like best, shoot best, best meets your concealment style or approach ..... THAT's your best choice.
Forget caliber (I'd say, anyway). Your best shooter is your best choice.
Forget caliber (I'd say, anyway). Your best shooter is your best choice.
Posted by: rhomboid at January 04, 2017 06:28 PM (QDnY+)
283
We've got two things at play here that necessitates this and it's the fault of the courts: Heller and Obgerfell. There's no way that universal reciprocity can not be reconciled with those two decisions.
Not to mention, say, the examples of vehicle licensing and registration among various states and jurisdictions.
Besides that bearing arms is specifically enshrined and an inalienable right whereas voting is not, but the Federal government has NO trouble stepping in on the latter.
Not to mention, say, the examples of vehicle licensing and registration among various states and jurisdictions.
Besides that bearing arms is specifically enshrined and an inalienable right whereas voting is not, but the Federal government has NO trouble stepping in on the latter.
Posted by: David Wellman at January 04, 2017 06:28 PM (aWQkK)
284
>>>
With that kind of rule, a Georgia resident who wants to concealed-carry in every state that permits it
"Permits" it. Ummmmm....
Nationwide Constitutional Carry Now.
No more Federal gun laws, with the exception of the power granted them to tax. And we'll get to that.
The whole purpose of this experiment in America is individual liberty. Anything else is totalitarian jacking off.
And that's why you got Trump.
With that kind of rule, a Georgia resident who wants to concealed-carry in every state that permits it
"Permits" it. Ummmmm....
Nationwide Constitutional Carry Now.
No more Federal gun laws, with the exception of the power granted them to tax. And we'll get to that.
The whole purpose of this experiment in America is individual liberty. Anything else is totalitarian jacking off.
And that's why you got Trump.
Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at January 04, 2017 06:29 PM (EUMr7)
285
When a liberal does something, it MUST be with a gigantic FLOUNCE and massive HISSY FIT so that everyone sees what you're doing. In fact, the very point of doing it is for the purpose if BEING NOTICED for you superior virtue-signaling.
Posted by: zombie at January 04, 2017 05:46 PM (jBuUi)
No shit. Some years ago I was on a wargaming email list and unsubscribed a couple of times when the resident communist got too obnoxious. But I always came back after a while. Then some (other) leftie sent an email to the group being a huge fucking drama queen about how the list was too gosh darn right wing and they couldn't take it any more. Which naturally prompted much chin pulling and concern-sharing. Never mind the actual COMMUNIST posting shit about the US. I unsubscribed for good right after that. Quietly and without flouncing.
Posted by: zombie at January 04, 2017 05:46 PM (jBuUi)
No shit. Some years ago I was on a wargaming email list and unsubscribed a couple of times when the resident communist got too obnoxious. But I always came back after a while. Then some (other) leftie sent an email to the group being a huge fucking drama queen about how the list was too gosh darn right wing and they couldn't take it any more. Which naturally prompted much chin pulling and concern-sharing. Never mind the actual COMMUNIST posting shit about the US. I unsubscribed for good right after that. Quietly and without flouncing.
Posted by: J. Random Dudde at January 04, 2017 06:29 PM (C9lNt)
286
203 I've never heard that definition. Where did you get it?
Posted by: pep at January 04, 2017 06:02 PM (LAe3v)
Try this....
Black's Law Dictionary: "anything that a man wears for his defense, or takes in his hands as a weapon."
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at January 04, 2017 06:14 PM (rF0hx)
++++
Yes, but that doesn't restrict the definition to only something that is worn or carried. Just because a square is a rectangle does not necessarily mean that a rectangle is a square. Just because you can call the things a man wears or carries for his defense weapons, does not mean that nothing else can be called a weapon, or an arm.
And, more important, you are missing the point of the 2nd amendment if you think it is restricted to whatever could be used militarily at the time it was written. The point of the 2nd is that the citizenry is our military. The military was never meant to be something separate from the citizens, some governmental entity with more or different rights than that of the citizens. We are the government; we are the military. Therefore, any setup which restricts citizens from owning the weapons used to defend the country is anti-constitutional.
Posted by: pep at January 04, 2017 06:02 PM (LAe3v)
Try this....
Black's Law Dictionary: "anything that a man wears for his defense, or takes in his hands as a weapon."
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at January 04, 2017 06:14 PM (rF0hx)
++++
Yes, but that doesn't restrict the definition to only something that is worn or carried. Just because a square is a rectangle does not necessarily mean that a rectangle is a square. Just because you can call the things a man wears or carries for his defense weapons, does not mean that nothing else can be called a weapon, or an arm.
And, more important, you are missing the point of the 2nd amendment if you think it is restricted to whatever could be used militarily at the time it was written. The point of the 2nd is that the citizenry is our military. The military was never meant to be something separate from the citizens, some governmental entity with more or different rights than that of the citizens. We are the government; we are the military. Therefore, any setup which restricts citizens from owning the weapons used to defend the country is anti-constitutional.
Posted by: Anon Y. Mous at January 04, 2017 06:29 PM (R+30W)
287
Does anyone think a SandW .40 would be a bad choice?
I've considered Glock and don't want that, so don't tell me to get one
of those.
Posted by: Ruthless at January 04, 2017 06:26 PM (ro5Th)
The newer SW autos are beautiful.
Although I have an HK .40 USP which is a marvelous pistol.
Clearly you are on the right track...since you have already eliminated those horrendous pieces of shit that masquerade as pistols (Glocks).
I've considered Glock and don't want that, so don't tell me to get one
of those.
Posted by: Ruthless at January 04, 2017 06:26 PM (ro5Th)
The newer SW autos are beautiful.
Although I have an HK .40 USP which is a marvelous pistol.
Clearly you are on the right track...since you have already eliminated those horrendous pieces of shit that masquerade as pistols (Glocks).
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at January 04, 2017 06:29 PM (rF0hx)
288
262
pep, I think your concern is valid, yet also almost academic - it
applies at the very very implausible end of the curve as far as
probabilities go, and therefore really should not affect the central
issue.
Thanks. Unfortunately, the implausible end of the curve is generally where the legal rubber meets the road. Either you're consistent to a fault, or you're making it up as you go along.
I could be wrong, but my impression is that the 10th has been vitiated
many many times, entirely for the convenience of imposing certain policy
preferences on the country, from the center. It's not really 2nd vs.
10th, is it, isn't it really "incorporation" vs. the 10th?
Absolutely no question about it.
pep, I think your concern is valid, yet also almost academic - it
applies at the very very implausible end of the curve as far as
probabilities go, and therefore really should not affect the central
issue.
Thanks. Unfortunately, the implausible end of the curve is generally where the legal rubber meets the road. Either you're consistent to a fault, or you're making it up as you go along.
I could be wrong, but my impression is that the 10th has been vitiated
many many times, entirely for the convenience of imposing certain policy
preferences on the country, from the center. It's not really 2nd vs.
10th, is it, isn't it really "incorporation" vs. the 10th?
Absolutely no question about it.
Posted by: pep at January 04, 2017 06:29 PM (LAe3v)
289
>>I've considered Glock and don't want that, so don't tell me to get one of those. Thanks for any advice.
Posted by: Ruthless at January 04, 2017 06:26 PM (ro5Th)
Hmm. I've got a Glock 23 and really like it, but you already said you're not in the market (please reconsider; I can almost promise you won't regret it). The .40 is great as a caliber; I had a S&W 9mm that I really liked but sold, can't help but think their .40 would be a really good shooter.
Posted by: Ruthless at January 04, 2017 06:26 PM (ro5Th)
Hmm. I've got a Glock 23 and really like it, but you already said you're not in the market (please reconsider; I can almost promise you won't regret it). The .40 is great as a caliber; I had a S&W 9mm that I really liked but sold, can't help but think their .40 would be a really good shooter.
Posted by: General Zod at January 04, 2017 06:29 PM (hgpSN)
290
I'm sure it's been said, but if my gay marriage license is valid in all 50 states...
Posted by: 16 paranoia filled days later at January 04, 2017 06:30 PM (0BApD)
291
Removing the stutter from my nic
Posted by: J. Random Dude at January 04, 2017 06:30 PM (C9lNt)
292
Yep JackStraw, heard that on the local radio today and laughed - Holder being hired by CA.
When I think of someone with a great reputation as a litigator ..... heck, someone with a great reputation, generally - um, I don't think of Holder.
Legal types might correct me, but I hope he IS the guy CA sends to fight things in federal courts. You can imagine why.
When I think of someone with a great reputation as a litigator ..... heck, someone with a great reputation, generally - um, I don't think of Holder.
Legal types might correct me, but I hope he IS the guy CA sends to fight things in federal courts. You can imagine why.
Posted by: rhomboid at January 04, 2017 06:30 PM (QDnY+)
293
I like the Beretta 92 FS .40 cal a lot.
Posted by: garrett at January 04, 2017 06:30 PM (hjpzi)
294
Your argument then is that someone has the right to own artillery. I'm
not okay with my neighbor having a howitzer in his sunroom.
===
"I am VERY okay with this."
-Posted by: Mortimer, Finish Her! at January 04, 2017 06:28 PM (zu88C)
You and me, both! *fistbump*
not okay with my neighbor having a howitzer in his sunroom.
===
"I am VERY okay with this."
-Posted by: Mortimer, Finish Her! at January 04, 2017 06:28 PM (zu88C)
You and me, both! *fistbump*
Posted by: Slapweasel, (Cold1), (T) at January 04, 2017 06:30 PM (6gk0M)
295
>>>
I'm sure it's been said, but if my gay marriage license is valid in all 50 states...
You're still not married.
I'm sure it's been said, but if my gay marriage license is valid in all 50 states...
You're still not married.
Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at January 04, 2017 06:31 PM (EUMr7)
296
Speaking of state versus federal control, I see California is continuing to lose it's collective mind. Hiring Holder to fight Trump and the feds on things like sanctuary cities.
Yea, money well spent dudes.
Especially when they went and made immigration the specific bailiwick of the feds.
Yea, money well spent dudes.
Especially when they went and made immigration the specific bailiwick of the feds.
Posted by: rickb223 at January 04, 2017 06:31 PM (dSqvH)
297
282
Ruthless - my advice: handle and shoot as many candidate platforms as you can manage.
Good advice, but the trouble is there are no gun ranges here where I could do that. A friend of mine has the Glock .40 and it tends to jam once in a while. As a long-time revolver shooter, that is just unacceptable.
Ruthless - my advice: handle and shoot as many candidate platforms as you can manage.
Good advice, but the trouble is there are no gun ranges here where I could do that. A friend of mine has the Glock .40 and it tends to jam once in a while. As a long-time revolver shooter, that is just unacceptable.
Posted by: Ruthless at January 04, 2017 06:31 PM (ro5Th)
298
238
Posted by: sock_rat_eez at January 04, 2017 06:16 PM (sHFi7)
Wickard vs filburn? The beginning of fedzilla. Everything is interstate commerce.
Posted by: CaliGirl at January 04, 2017 06:20 PM (IgBFP)
Until Roberts gave us Obamacare. Then it was the power to tax.
Posted by: sock_rat_eez at January 04, 2017 06:16 PM (sHFi7)
Wickard vs filburn? The beginning of fedzilla. Everything is interstate commerce.
Posted by: CaliGirl at January 04, 2017 06:20 PM (IgBFP)
Until Roberts gave us Obamacare. Then it was the power to tax.
Posted by: flounder, rebel, vulgarian, deplorable, winner at January 04, 2017 06:31 PM (GX63o)
299
The gungrabbers argue that the 2A never envisioned
automatic weapons, which our military certainly does carry. So, by your
earlier argument, they should be universally available. Again, I don't
want my hothead dick of a neighbor to have a Ma Deuce that can kill my
entire cul-de-sac.
It's a fine line to draw, but IMO lines MUST
be drawn. Simply stating the no-law-infringing formulation is not
adequate. That's, I suppose, an argument for an Amendment to the 2A.
Posted by: pep at January 04, 2017 06:18 PM (LAe3v)
Puckle Gun (171
automatic weapons, which our military certainly does carry. So, by your
earlier argument, they should be universally available. Again, I don't
want my hothead dick of a neighbor to have a Ma Deuce that can kill my
entire cul-de-sac.
It's a fine line to draw, but IMO lines MUST
be drawn. Simply stating the no-law-infringing formulation is not
adequate. That's, I suppose, an argument for an Amendment to the 2A.
Posted by: pep at January 04, 2017 06:18 PM (LAe3v)
Puckle Gun (171
Posted by: Burnt Toast at January 04, 2017 06:31 PM (P/kVC)
300
>>Clearly you are on the right track...since you have already eliminated those horrendous pieces of shit that masquerade as pistols (Glocks).
Pieces of Shit don't make as good a Paperweight as a Glock does.
Pieces of Shit don't make as good a Paperweight as a Glock does.
Posted by: garrett at January 04, 2017 06:31 PM (hjpzi)
301
"AFAIK (could be wrong), it's tied to your DL, so s/he doesn't know when they walk up"
License plate.
Which these days more often than not is automatically optically scanned, OCRed, and matched against a national database to determine ownership and tag status before Officer Friendly even exits the cruiser.
If the vehicle turns out to be registered to someone with an out of state carry permit, the officer will be expecting same. In some places, like NJ, with unpleasant expectations.
License plate.
Which these days more often than not is automatically optically scanned, OCRed, and matched against a national database to determine ownership and tag status before Officer Friendly even exits the cruiser.
If the vehicle turns out to be registered to someone with an out of state carry permit, the officer will be expecting same. In some places, like NJ, with unpleasant expectations.
Posted by: torquewrench at January 04, 2017 06:32 PM (noWW6)
302
Nobody uses .40 any more. Get a 9mm or the Real American Caliber (.45).
Tom - How much you want to bet that NYC would then pass a law banning carry on the Subway and in Yellow Cabs? Oh, and the MetroNorth and LIRR?
Now, I might agree with a law requiring at least Level II retention to ride the Subway. That actually seems commonsense.
Tom - How much you want to bet that NYC would then pass a law banning carry on the Subway and in Yellow Cabs? Oh, and the MetroNorth and LIRR?
Now, I might agree with a law requiring at least Level II retention to ride the Subway. That actually seems commonsense.
Posted by: Holdfast at January 04, 2017 06:32 PM (nNdYv)
303
The open borders advocates are committing germ warfare against the citizens but let's concentrate on grabbing the People first and best line of self defense.
Could you imagine the punishment you would get if you illegally brought in a monkey that spread some monkey virus to people a caused some to die?!?!
Could you imagine the punishment you would get if you illegally brought in a monkey that spread some monkey virus to people a caused some to die?!?!
Posted by: Pepe at January 04, 2017 06:32 PM (7SUm3)
304
271 You can still own a machinegun, you have to pay the tax stamp and background check. If your state allows it.
The problem is that the 1986 law banned the manufacture for
civilian sales. So you have to buy a pre-ban, and those are ridiculously
expensive
Posted by: Iblis at January 04, 2017 06:27 PM (3gBCr)
If IANM the Obamanite banned ALL class III weapons and added a metric shit-ton of other stuff to the class III list.
Anyway I have to go and catch up a bunch of shit I missed this afternoon because I was sitting in a hospital waiting room all afternoon.
The problem is that the 1986 law banned the manufacture for
civilian sales. So you have to buy a pre-ban, and those are ridiculously
expensive
Posted by: Iblis at January 04, 2017 06:27 PM (3gBCr)
If IANM the Obamanite banned ALL class III weapons and added a metric shit-ton of other stuff to the class III list.
Anyway I have to go and catch up a bunch of shit I missed this afternoon because I was sitting in a hospital waiting room all afternoon.
Posted by: Vic We Have No Party at January 04, 2017 06:32 PM (mpXpK)
305
Posted by: Anon Y. Mous at January 04, 2017 06:29 PM (R+30W)
You are reading an immense amount into my comment.
I said "loosely defined," and I then quoted Black's. That's it.
As for the 2nd Amendment? I am an absolutist, with the possible exception of felons carrying.
I would say that any weapon designed for single infantry use is acceptable.
But I am not wedded to that definition. Convince me that the 2nd allows an Abrams in every driveway, and I'll buy one!
You are reading an immense amount into my comment.
I said "loosely defined," and I then quoted Black's. That's it.
As for the 2nd Amendment? I am an absolutist, with the possible exception of felons carrying.
I would say that any weapon designed for single infantry use is acceptable.
But I am not wedded to that definition. Convince me that the 2nd allows an Abrams in every driveway, and I'll buy one!
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at January 04, 2017 06:32 PM (rF0hx)
306
If I remember correctly that federal misdemeanor domestic battery law was passed in 93 or 94 under Clinton.
And even cops who had convictions prior to that had to take desk jobs because of prior convictions due to an or ever have been convicted line in it.
Sounded ex post facto to me but I didn't even stay in a holiday inn last night.
And I think it was argued again before the Supremes in the last session. One jurist who rarely asks a question, Thomas maybe, asked something like ' So you can lose a constitutional due to a misdemeanor convition is what you're saying?'
I don't know if a decision has come down yet.
And even cops who had convictions prior to that had to take desk jobs because of prior convictions due to an or ever have been convicted line in it.
Sounded ex post facto to me but I didn't even stay in a holiday inn last night.
And I think it was argued again before the Supremes in the last session. One jurist who rarely asks a question, Thomas maybe, asked something like ' So you can lose a constitutional due to a misdemeanor convition is what you're saying?'
I don't know if a decision has come down yet.
Posted by: teej at January 04, 2017 06:32 PM (gJ3Vg)
307
The unfettered movement of people, goods, and services is a cornerstone of our federal system, and a Constitutional responsibility of the national government. That should include a CCR holder and her (2nd amendment guaranteed) Glock.
Posted by: notropis at January 04, 2017 06:32 PM (Cy6gQ)
308
Well said, David Wellman. Many of us are nibbling around the edges of what you're saying there.
I've re-read my #232, and, well satisfied, think I won't change it a bit.
But gotta run and do some stuff.
I've re-read my #232, and, well satisfied, think I won't change it a bit.
But gotta run and do some stuff.
Posted by: rhomboid at January 04, 2017 06:32 PM (QDnY+)
309
243
"The constitution protects a fundamental right of interstate travel. This bill appears to be nothing more than a recognition that citizens lawfully exercising their Second Amendment rights need not check them at the border of their state, while simultaneously exercising their right to freely travel interstate.
I understand the tension behind the federalists' objections to the federal encroachment of states' police powers. However, when such encroachment exists - if at all - and/or is in the direction of increasing individual (constitutionally protected) liberties over that of state police powers (which is apparent from the private right of action granted by this act), I think that objection is moot.
I think this is well thought out, but for the explicit coverage of constitutional carry states."
-Posted by: flounder, rebel, vulgarian, deplorable, winner at January 04, 2017 06:14 PM (GX63o)
I like this. I copied and pasted this. Thank You, God Sir!
Posted by: Slapweasel, (Cold1), (T) at January 04, 2017 06:22 PM (6gk0M)
Stolen, structurally, from here.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/443143/ gun-rights-reciprocity-constitution-may-require-it
"The constitution protects a fundamental right of interstate travel. This bill appears to be nothing more than a recognition that citizens lawfully exercising their Second Amendment rights need not check them at the border of their state, while simultaneously exercising their right to freely travel interstate.
I understand the tension behind the federalists' objections to the federal encroachment of states' police powers. However, when such encroachment exists - if at all - and/or is in the direction of increasing individual (constitutionally protected) liberties over that of state police powers (which is apparent from the private right of action granted by this act), I think that objection is moot.
I think this is well thought out, but for the explicit coverage of constitutional carry states."
-Posted by: flounder, rebel, vulgarian, deplorable, winner at January 04, 2017 06:14 PM (GX63o)
I like this. I copied and pasted this. Thank You, God Sir!
Posted by: Slapweasel, (Cold1), (T) at January 04, 2017 06:22 PM (6gk0M)
Stolen, structurally, from here.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/443143/ gun-rights-reciprocity-constitution-may-require-it
Posted by: flounder, rebel, vulgarian, deplorable, winner at January 04, 2017 06:33 PM (GX63o)
310
CBD shitting all over Glocks... lol.
I didn't like the ones I've fired, but I havevery small hands enormous hands.
I didn't like the ones I've fired, but I have
Posted by: Slapweasel, (Cold1), (T) at January 04, 2017 06:33 PM (6gk0M)
311
>>You're still not married.
You aren't truly married until you have to go to the grocery store alone and buy some Monistat-7.
You aren't truly married until you have to go to the grocery store alone and buy some Monistat-7.
Posted by: garrett at January 04, 2017 06:33 PM (hjpzi)
312
>>Legal types might correct me, but I hope he IS the guy CA sends to fight things in federal courts. You can imagine why.
What the hell is he even going to say? He just spent the last nearly 8 years defending, correctly, on the supremacy of the federal government on issues like border security and immigration policy. Now he's going to try and argue that California has some special and heretofore unknown right to make their own immigration laws?
I don't blame Holder. If someone wanted to pay me $300K a year to make stupid arguments I would do it in a heartbeat. Ace doesn't pay me nearly that much to do it here.
What the hell is he even going to say? He just spent the last nearly 8 years defending, correctly, on the supremacy of the federal government on issues like border security and immigration policy. Now he's going to try and argue that California has some special and heretofore unknown right to make their own immigration laws?
I don't blame Holder. If someone wanted to pay me $300K a year to make stupid arguments I would do it in a heartbeat. Ace doesn't pay me nearly that much to do it here.
Posted by: JackStraw at January 04, 2017 06:33 PM (/tuJf)
313
Oh, good, a gun thread. I was busy getting willowed
down in the pickup thread. So, question I've been wanting to ask: I have
a couple of pistols including a SandW .357 and a little Ruger .38 that
is my present CC choice. I am about to buy an automatic pistol to add to
my armaments, and my question is: Does anyone think a SandW .40 would
be a bad choice? I've considered Glock and don't want that, so don't
tell me to get one of those. Thanks for any advice.
Posted by: Ruthless at January 04, 2017 06:26 PM
In addition to the other good advice above, may I suggest 9mm over .40?
(And before the sh*tstorm, I am a devotee of JMB's (PBUH) 1911.)
down in the pickup thread. So, question I've been wanting to ask: I have
a couple of pistols including a SandW .357 and a little Ruger .38 that
is my present CC choice. I am about to buy an automatic pistol to add to
my armaments, and my question is: Does anyone think a SandW .40 would
be a bad choice? I've considered Glock and don't want that, so don't
tell me to get one of those. Thanks for any advice.
Posted by: Ruthless at January 04, 2017 06:26 PM
In addition to the other good advice above, may I suggest 9mm over .40?
(And before the sh*tstorm, I am a devotee of JMB's (PBUH) 1911.)
Posted by: Duncanthrax at January 04, 2017 06:34 PM (DMUuz)
314
Get a CZ52, or, really, anything Cz makes or made. You won't be sorry.
Posted by: Your Decidedly Devious Uncle Palpatine, No Longer Accepting Harem Applicants at January 04, 2017 06:34 PM (3Aj2Q)
Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at January 04, 2017 06:34 PM (EUMr7)
316
Maybe we should apply an individual mandate to the 2nd amendment. Every able-bodied adult must own at least one firearm.
Posted by: Muldoon at January 04, 2017 06:34 PM (wPiJc)
317
Again, I don't want my hothead dick of a neighbor to have a Ma Deuce that can kill my entire cul-de-sac.
It's a fine line to draw, but IMO lines MUST be drawn. Simply stating the no-law-infringing formulation is not adequate. That's, I suppose, an argument for an Amendment to the 2A.
Posted by: pep at January 04, 2017 06:18 PM (LAe3v)
Your neighbor can already wipe out your cul-de-sac, or the equivalent in terms of harm, in any number of ways not involving a howitzer.
Count me in as one who maintains that we ought to have the equivalent of militias, and that those militias should have at least the option of owning everything that they would need to level the playing field in a conflict against the Federal Government.
Plus, I REALLY want to be able to put a hard point in the rear hatch of my vehicle.
It's a fine line to draw, but IMO lines MUST be drawn. Simply stating the no-law-infringing formulation is not adequate. That's, I suppose, an argument for an Amendment to the 2A.
Posted by: pep at January 04, 2017 06:18 PM (LAe3v)
Your neighbor can already wipe out your cul-de-sac, or the equivalent in terms of harm, in any number of ways not involving a howitzer.
Count me in as one who maintains that we ought to have the equivalent of militias, and that those militias should have at least the option of owning everything that they would need to level the playing field in a conflict against the Federal Government.
Plus, I REALLY want to be able to put a hard point in the rear hatch of my vehicle.
Posted by: TexasDan at January 04, 2017 06:34 PM (yL25O)
318
Again, I don't
want my hothead dick of a neighbor to have a Ma Deuce that can kill my
entire cul-de-sac.
===
Your hothead neighbor has a car than than can kill the entire cul de sac.
You are good with totalitarianism as long as you deem it rational totalitarianism.
want my hothead dick of a neighbor to have a Ma Deuce that can kill my
entire cul-de-sac.
===
Your hothead neighbor has a car than than can kill the entire cul de sac.
You are good with totalitarianism as long as you deem it rational totalitarianism.
Posted by: Mortimer, Finish Her! at January 04, 2017 06:34 PM (zu88C)
319
Posted by: Ruthless at January 04, 2017 06:31 PM (ro5Th)
-------------
I'm a big fan of Sig Sauer pistols. My personal preference is for models w/o accessory rails. Mostly S&W (and a few Colts) for revolvers.
-------------
I'm a big fan of Sig Sauer pistols. My personal preference is for models w/o accessory rails. Mostly S&W (and a few Colts) for revolvers.
Posted by: Weasel at January 04, 2017 06:35 PM (Sfs6o)
Posted by: Mortimer, Finish Her! at January 04, 2017 06:35 PM (zu88C)
Posted by: garrett at January 04, 2017 06:35 PM (hjpzi)
322
As a funny aside: Notice how we are reluctant to pass even desirable/favorable legislation unless it passes constitutional muster and after lively debate.
In contrast to the last eight years of "eh, what the hell, just throw shit on the wall, see if it sticks. We'll battle it out in the courts."
In contrast to the last eight years of "eh, what the hell, just throw shit on the wall, see if it sticks. We'll battle it out in the courts."
Posted by: flounder, rebel, vulgarian, deplorable, winner at January 04, 2017 06:35 PM (GX63o)
323
But doesn't the 2nd in-and-of-itself apply Federally?
Posted by: Slapweasel, (Cold1), (T) at January 04, 2017 06:25 PM (6gk0M)
++++
Before the Civil War it was limited in that way. But, the 14th amendment changed that. Restrictions on the federal government against violating the rights of citizens are now also applied to the states.
Posted by: Slapweasel, (Cold1), (T) at January 04, 2017 06:25 PM (6gk0M)
++++
Before the Civil War it was limited in that way. But, the 14th amendment changed that. Restrictions on the federal government against violating the rights of citizens are now also applied to the states.
Posted by: Anon Y. Mous at January 04, 2017 06:35 PM (R+30W)
324
>>the Glock .40 and it tends to jam once in a while. As a long-time revolver shooter, that is just unacceptable.Posted by: Ruthless at January 04, 2017 06:31 PM (ro5Th)
I've heard people say that "the feed ramp on Glock is too steep for .40 rounds," and that this may cause issues, but I've never had a problem (disclaimer: I'm no armorer, so YMMV).
I've heard people say that "the feed ramp on Glock is too steep for .40 rounds," and that this may cause issues, but I've never had a problem (disclaimer: I'm no armorer, so YMMV).
Posted by: General Zod at January 04, 2017 06:35 PM (hgpSN)
325
Now I want a tank
Posted by: @votermom @vm at January 04, 2017 06:35 PM (Om16U)
326
Ruthless, I think the SandW M and P series is excellent, although I prefer 9mm over the .40. (9mm is easier for Mrs. JTB to handle and does the job.) But they are single action, so unless you carry condition one (cocked and locked) you have to rack the slide before using it.
Take a look at the smaller CZ semis.
Take a look at the smaller CZ semis.
Posted by: JTB at January 04, 2017 06:36 PM (V+03K)
327
Again, I don't want my hothead dick of a neighbor to have a Ma Deuce that can kill my entire cul-de-sac.
That's when you light him up with your FGM148 Javelin.
That's when you light him up with your FGM148 Javelin.
Posted by: Insomniac at January 04, 2017 06:36 PM (0mRoj)
328
>>>You aren't truly married until you have to go to the grocery store alone and buy some Monistat-7.
And then you have three daughters, and they and your wife all go on the period at the same time, and you lock yourself in the room and post here and drink heavily.
Or so I've heard.
And then you have three daughters, and they and your wife all go on the period at the same time, and you lock yourself in the room and post here and drink heavily.
Or so I've heard.
Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at January 04, 2017 06:36 PM (EUMr7)
329
Re: holder ...he probably needs more $$ than his government pension allows....he may have special dollar intensive hobbies, so someone in took pity and gave him a dead end job.
Posted by: runner at January 04, 2017 06:36 PM (c6/9Q)
330
I would like a 1911 I suppose, but you only get a couple more shells than in a six shooter. The whole idea of obtaining an automatic pistol is for the larger number of holes it could make before needing to be reloaded.
I will check out the Beretta 92.
I will check out the Beretta 92.
Posted by: Ruthless at January 04, 2017 06:36 PM (ro5Th)
331
Posted by: flounder, rebel, vulgarian, deplorable, winner at January 04, 2017 06:31 PM (GX63o)
I'm no attorney but those are some of the stupidest decisions ever. Along with Roe, and Kelo.
I'm no attorney but those are some of the stupidest decisions ever. Along with Roe, and Kelo.
Posted by: CaliGirl at January 04, 2017 06:36 PM (IgBFP)
332
..."But I am not wedded to that definition. Convince me that the 2nd allows an Abrams in every driveway, and I'll buy one!"
-Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at January 04, 2017 06:32 PM (rF0hx)
I was like... "DUDE!" I wanted to go in on one, but I only have a two-car garage.
Maybe someone else has a pad for storage.
-Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at January 04, 2017 06:32 PM (rF0hx)
I was like... "DUDE!" I wanted to go in on one, but I only have a two-car garage.
Maybe someone else has a pad for storage.
Posted by: Slapweasel, (Cold1), (T) at January 04, 2017 06:37 PM (6gk0M)
333
Does anyone think a SandW .40 would be a bad choice?
Posted by: Ruthless at January 04, 2017 06:26 PM (ro5Th)
My BIL has a compact SW auto for his carry gun and absolutely hates the takedown. Instead of the ordinary lever, it has some kind of fiddly bit in the top of the magazine well that you have to futz right to take the slide off. YMMV, but be sure to field strip it before you buy one.
Posted by: Ruthless at January 04, 2017 06:26 PM (ro5Th)
My BIL has a compact SW auto for his carry gun and absolutely hates the takedown. Instead of the ordinary lever, it has some kind of fiddly bit in the top of the magazine well that you have to futz right to take the slide off. YMMV, but be sure to field strip it before you buy one.
Posted by: hogmartin at January 04, 2017 06:37 PM (8nWyX)
334
325
Now I want a tank
Posted by: @votermom @vm
No can do, but I hear you can pick up a real bargain at Joe's House 'O Anthrax.
Now I want a tank
Posted by: @votermom @vm
No can do, but I hear you can pick up a real bargain at Joe's House 'O Anthrax.
Posted by: pep at January 04, 2017 06:37 PM (LAe3v)
335
325
Now I want a tank
Posted by: @votermom @vm .
===
HA!
I was just thinking " my sorry cracked driveway needs repairing - SO I CAN PARK AN ABRAMS ON IT. "
Now I want a tank
Posted by: @votermom @vm .
===
HA!
I was just thinking " my sorry cracked driveway needs repairing - SO I CAN PARK AN ABRAMS ON IT. "
Posted by: Mortimer, Finish Her! at January 04, 2017 06:37 PM (zu88C)
336
I think a simple test of what should be allowed under the 2nd amendment is if it carried by a MEU it should be legal for civilians as well.
Posted by: USNtakim at January 04, 2017 06:37 PM (hMqvx)
337
In Connecticut if you are ACCUSED of domestic violence you have 48 hours to turn in your carry permit.
Posted by: Nostradamus at January 04, 2017 06:37 PM (0+tOe)
338
That's when you light him up with your FGM148 Javelin.
Posted by: Insomniac at January 04, 2017 06:36 PM (0mRoj)
Lol! if you can afford one
Posted by: Insomniac at January 04, 2017 06:36 PM (0mRoj)
Lol! if you can afford one
Posted by: runner at January 04, 2017 06:37 PM (c6/9Q)
339
>>>The whole idea of obtaining an automatic pistol is for the larger number of holes it could make before needing to be reloaded.
I have a .45 that only holds 7.
Don't think of it as "number of holes". Think of it as "area controlled".
I have a .45 that only holds 7.
Don't think of it as "number of holes". Think of it as "area controlled".
Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at January 04, 2017 06:38 PM (EUMr7)
340
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at January 04, 2017 06:32 PM (rF0hx)
++++
OK, sounds like we are in agreement. I see the argument bandied about that somehow the 2nd only protects a limited class of small arms, and I thought that was what you were getting at with your definition.
++++
OK, sounds like we are in agreement. I see the argument bandied about that somehow the 2nd only protects a limited class of small arms, and I thought that was what you were getting at with your definition.
Posted by: Anon Y. Mous at January 04, 2017 06:38 PM (R+30W)
341
>>In Connecticut if you are ACCUSED of domestic violence you have 48 hours to turn in your carry permit.
Those Nutmeggers are liberal as fuck.
Those Nutmeggers are liberal as fuck.
Posted by: garrett at January 04, 2017 06:38 PM (hjpzi)
342
>>Your hothead neighbor has a car than than can kill the entire cul de sac.
>>You are good with totalitarianism as long as you deem it rational totalitarianism.
A car that is approved by federal agencies and in many cases inspected frequently by state agencies for compliance and proper operation. You can drive an Indy car in the cul de sac. Not legally anyway.
Unless you believe that we all should have access to the most sophisticated weapons including nuclear then everyone is a totalitarian. We are just arguing about degrees.
>>You are good with totalitarianism as long as you deem it rational totalitarianism.
A car that is approved by federal agencies and in many cases inspected frequently by state agencies for compliance and proper operation. You can drive an Indy car in the cul de sac. Not legally anyway.
Unless you believe that we all should have access to the most sophisticated weapons including nuclear then everyone is a totalitarian. We are just arguing about degrees.
Posted by: JackStraw at January 04, 2017 06:38 PM (/tuJf)
343
"Now I want a tank."
-Posted by: @votermom @vm at January 04, 2017 06:35 PM (Om16U)
Of course you do. We ALL want tanks.
-Posted by: @votermom @vm at January 04, 2017 06:35 PM (Om16U)
Of course you do. We ALL want tanks.
Posted by: Slapweasel, (Cold1), (T) at January 04, 2017 06:39 PM (6gk0M)
344
OT/
The other day I jumped on here to get advice on a car that wont start. (Thanks for the many tips) Well, I took it to my regular mechanic. He tested the alternator. It was bad. He replaced it. Charged me ~$300. I picked it up. Drove home. Tonight I went to start my car. Nothing.
This is the third place I've had it "fixed". Getting ridiculous. Next step is that I'm going to open up the hood and pour coffee on the engine. *fingers crossed*
The other day I jumped on here to get advice on a car that wont start. (Thanks for the many tips) Well, I took it to my regular mechanic. He tested the alternator. It was bad. He replaced it. Charged me ~$300. I picked it up. Drove home. Tonight I went to start my car. Nothing.
This is the third place I've had it "fixed". Getting ridiculous. Next step is that I'm going to open up the hood and pour coffee on the engine. *fingers crossed*Posted by: Serious Cat at January 04, 2017 06:39 PM (Uy6ri)
345
Now I want a tank
Posted by: @votermom @vm at January 04, 2017 06:35 PM (Om16U)
It can be yours for the easy payment of $250 a month for 21,000 months.
https://tinyurl.com/j7cqo5a
Posted by: @votermom @vm at January 04, 2017 06:35 PM (Om16U)
It can be yours for the easy payment of $250 a month for 21,000 months.
https://tinyurl.com/j7cqo5a
Posted by: Country Singer (Gab @Bert G) at January 04, 2017 06:39 PM (GUBah)
Posted by: Chi at January 04, 2017 06:39 PM (/Z9VQ)
347
Posted by: garrett at January 04, 2017 06:33 PM (hjpzi)
You aren't supposed to talk about it.
You aren't supposed to talk about it.
Posted by: CaliGirl at January 04, 2017 06:39 PM (IgBFP)
348
No can do, but I hear you can pick up a real bargain at Joe's House 'O Anthrax.
Posted by: pep at January 04, 2017 06:37 PM (LAe3v)
Honest, officer, I thought it was baby powder!
Posted by: pep at January 04, 2017 06:37 PM (LAe3v)
Honest, officer, I thought it was baby powder!
Posted by: @votermom @vm at January 04, 2017 06:39 PM (Om16U)
349
Glock 9/19 is the best pistol I have. I own 7 pistols.
Posted by: Nostradamus at January 04, 2017 06:39 PM (0+tOe)
Posted by: notropis at January 04, 2017 06:40 PM (Cy6gQ)
351
can = can't
Posted by: JackStraw at January 04, 2017 06:40 PM (/tuJf)
352
CBD shitting all over Glocks... lol
One of his many redeeming qualities.
Now, those of you who sh*t all over HK (and you know who you are) ... you are lacking in the redeeming qualities category.
One of his many redeeming qualities.
Now, those of you who sh*t all over HK (and you know who you are) ... you are lacking in the redeeming qualities category.
Posted by: Duncanthrax at January 04, 2017 06:40 PM (DMUuz)
Posted by: Nevergiveup at January 04, 2017 06:40 PM (SjImc)
354
Tanks r OK...parts though....
Posted by: runner at January 04, 2017 06:40 PM (c6/9Q)
355
""I am VERY okay with this."
-Posted by: Mortimer, Finish Her! at January 04, 2017 06:28 PM (zu88C)
You and me, both! *fistbump*
Posted by: Slapweasel, (Cold1), (T)"
*fistbump x 2*
-Posted by: Mortimer, Finish Her! at January 04, 2017 06:28 PM (zu88C)
You and me, both! *fistbump*
Posted by: Slapweasel, (Cold1), (T)"
*fistbump x 2*
Posted by: sock_rat_eez at January 04, 2017 06:40 PM (sHFi7)
356
Unless you believe that we all should have access to
the most sophisticated weapons including nuclear then everyone is a
totalitarian. We are just arguing about degrees.
Posted by: JackStraw
===
Not at all Jack. I trust my government betters to protect me from all kinds of awful things.
the most sophisticated weapons including nuclear then everyone is a
totalitarian. We are just arguing about degrees.
Posted by: JackStraw
===
Not at all Jack. I trust my government betters to protect me from all kinds of awful things.
Posted by: Mortimer, Finish Her! at January 04, 2017 06:40 PM (zu88C)
357
I see the argument bandied about that somehow the 2nd only protects a
limited class of small arms, and I thought that was what you were
getting at with your definition.
Just to be clear, you want no limits on arms, however defined?
limited class of small arms, and I thought that was what you were
getting at with your definition.
Just to be clear, you want no limits on arms, however defined?
Posted by: pep at January 04, 2017 06:40 PM (LAe3v)
Posted by: O in the bunker at January 04, 2017 06:40 PM (nFwvY)
359
I want the machine gub registry reopened.
Posted by: Grump928(C) at January 04, 2017 06:40 PM (LTHVh)
360
"SMFH - is that you?"
-Posted by: Chi at January 04, 2017 06:39 PM (/Z9VQ)
*HAH!*
...add-in a SAW and you'd nail it.
-Posted by: Chi at January 04, 2017 06:39 PM (/Z9VQ)
*HAH!*
...add-in a SAW and you'd nail it.
Posted by: Slapweasel, (Cold1), (T) at January 04, 2017 06:41 PM (6gk0M)
361
Oh, also Kahr compacts are pretty well regarded, e.g. PM9.
Posted by: hogmartin at January 04, 2017 06:41 PM (8nWyX)
362
343
Ahem - some of us are holding out for armored trains.
Ahem - some of us are holding out for armored trains.
Posted by: Your Decidedly Devious Uncle Palpatine, No Longer Accepting Harem Applicants at January 04, 2017 06:41 PM (3Aj2Q)
363
I guess I will be writing to a new Senator this year since Sessions will be AG.
Posted by: Grump928(C) at January 04, 2017 06:41 PM (LTHVh)
364
I will check out the Beretta 92.
Posted by: Ruthless at January 04, 2017 06:36 PM (ro5Th)
----------
They're nice and well balanced. I have an INOX model in 9mm which is very accurate. It seems to have grips on the large side which may or may not be an issue for you - just something to think about.
Posted by: Ruthless at January 04, 2017 06:36 PM (ro5Th)
----------
They're nice and well balanced. I have an INOX model in 9mm which is very accurate. It seems to have grips on the large side which may or may not be an issue for you - just something to think about.
Posted by: Weasel at January 04, 2017 06:41 PM (Sfs6o)
365
Posted by: Slapweasel, (Cold1), (T) at January 04, 2017 06:37 PM (6gk0M)
I have a big barn with roll up doors. Plenty of room in there.
I have a big barn with roll up doors. Plenty of room in there.
Posted by: CaliGirl at January 04, 2017 06:41 PM (IgBFP)
366
This bothers me on federalism grounds. States do in fact make compacts permitting just this sort of reciprocity -- I don't know why we need a federal law to do it.
Because handling what qualifies under the Full Faith and Credit part of the Constitution falls to the federal government - which is why the DOMA was not only Constitutional but exactly what the federal government was charged with doing.
Article IV, Sec 1:
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
In addition, any compacts made by states have to be approved by the federal government, anyway.
Article I, Sec 10:
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State,
Because handling what qualifies under the Full Faith and Credit part of the Constitution falls to the federal government - which is why the DOMA was not only Constitutional but exactly what the federal government was charged with doing.
Article IV, Sec 1:
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
In addition, any compacts made by states have to be approved by the federal government, anyway.
Article I, Sec 10:
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State,
Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at January 04, 2017 06:41 PM (zc3Db)
Posted by: Guy Mohawk at January 04, 2017 06:42 PM (ODxAs)
368
339
>>>I have a .45 that only holds 7.
Yeah and my SW .357 holds six, so it's a minimal difference.
I might reconsider a 9mm, but I was leaning toward the .40 because of how the FBI switched from 9 to .40 after learning the smaller round didn't have the knock down power they needed.
>>>I have a .45 that only holds 7.
Yeah and my SW .357 holds six, so it's a minimal difference.
I might reconsider a 9mm, but I was leaning toward the .40 because of how the FBI switched from 9 to .40 after learning the smaller round didn't have the knock down power they needed.
Posted by: Ruthless at January 04, 2017 06:42 PM (ro5Th)
369
>>Just to be clear, you want no limits on arms, however defined?
None.
We should be able to field an air force as well as a navy.
The 2nd Ammendment isn't about Hunting and it isn't about Personal Self Defence.
None.
We should be able to field an air force as well as a navy.
The 2nd Ammendment isn't about Hunting and it isn't about Personal Self Defence.
Posted by: garrett at January 04, 2017 06:42 PM (hjpzi)
370
Where I live we all share land so I'm cool with my neighbor owning stinger missiles if he can afford them. They can own drones that drop napalm to protect what is untimately his. Because out here what is in the best interest of self defense is in all of our best interests.
Posted by: Pepe at January 04, 2017 06:42 PM (7SUm3)
Posted by: Slapweasel, (Cold1), (T) at January 04, 2017 06:42 PM (6gk0M)
372
362 343
Ahem - some of us are holding out for armored trains.
Posted by: Your Decidedly Devious Uncle Palpatine, No Longer Accepting Harem Applicants at January 04, 2017 06:41 PM (3Aj2Q)
Only if it flies....
Ahem - some of us are holding out for armored trains.
Posted by: Your Decidedly Devious Uncle Palpatine, No Longer Accepting Harem Applicants at January 04, 2017 06:41 PM (3Aj2Q)
Only if it flies....
Posted by: Doctor Emmet Brown at January 04, 2017 06:42 PM (qf6WZ)
Posted by: garrett at January 04, 2017 06:43 PM (hjpzi)
Posted by: Holdfast at January 04, 2017 06:43 PM (nNdYv)
375
We probably should amend the 2nd Amendment to limit you from owning nuclear weapons. I hate to rely upon an evolving view of my rights.
Posted by: Grump928(C) at January 04, 2017 06:43 PM (LTHVh)
Posted by: ThunderB at January 04, 2017 06:43 PM (Ap9Y7)
377
357 Just to be clear, you want no limits on arms, however defined?
Posted by: pep at January 04, 2017 06:40 PM (LAe3v)
I think we're coming to a consensus on no Glocks.
Posted by: pep at January 04, 2017 06:40 PM (LAe3v)
I think we're coming to a consensus on no Glocks.
Posted by: TexasDan at January 04, 2017 06:43 PM (yL25O)
378
369
>>Just to be clear, you want no limits on arms, however defined?
None.
We should be able to field an air force as well as a navy.
The 2nd Ammendment isn't about Hunting and it isn't about Personal Self Defence.
Again, to be clear, my neighbor should be able to own nukes, chembio, whatever?
>>Just to be clear, you want no limits on arms, however defined?
None.
We should be able to field an air force as well as a navy.
The 2nd Ammendment isn't about Hunting and it isn't about Personal Self Defence.
Again, to be clear, my neighbor should be able to own nukes, chembio, whatever?
Posted by: pep at January 04, 2017 06:43 PM (LAe3v)
379
"I have a big barn with roll up doors. Plenty of room in there."
-Posted by: CaliGirl at January 04, 2017 06:41 PM (IgBFP)
If you're not married, you should probably call me sooner, rather than later.
-Posted by: CaliGirl at January 04, 2017 06:41 PM (IgBFP)
If you're not married, you should probably call me sooner, rather than later.
Posted by: Slapweasel, (Cold1), (T) at January 04, 2017 06:44 PM (6gk0M)
380
We should be able to field an air force as well as a navy.
The 2nd Ammendment isn't about Hunting and it isn't about Personal Self Defence.
Posted by: garrett at January 04, 2017 06:42 PM (hjpzi)
And Letters of Marque would have no meaning if individuals weren't able to have the military means to carry them out.
The 2nd Ammendment isn't about Hunting and it isn't about Personal Self Defence.
Posted by: garrett at January 04, 2017 06:42 PM (hjpzi)
And Letters of Marque would have no meaning if individuals weren't able to have the military means to carry them out.
Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at January 04, 2017 06:44 PM (zc3Db)
381
I would say that any weapon designed for single infantry use is acceptable.
But I am not wedded to that definition. Convince me that the 2nd allows an Abrams in every driveway, and I'll buy one!
Posted by: CBDat January 04, 2017 06:32 PM (rF0hx)
Letters of marque and reprisal is predicated on having a well armed ship at the dock.
But I am not wedded to that definition. Convince me that the 2nd allows an Abrams in every driveway, and I'll buy one!
Posted by: CBDat January 04, 2017 06:32 PM (rF0hx)
Letters of marque and reprisal is predicated on having a well armed ship at the dock.
Posted by: Burnt Toast at January 04, 2017 06:44 PM (P/kVC)
382
Kidnap that is
Posted by: ThunderB at January 04, 2017 06:44 PM (Ap9Y7)
383
I've heard people say that "the feed ramp on Glock
is too steep for .40 rounds," and that this may cause issues, but I've
never had a problem (disclaimer: I'm no armorer, so YMMV).
Posted by: General Zod at January 04, 2017 06:35 PM
Not to mention the 'unsupported' chamber.
is too steep for .40 rounds," and that this may cause issues, but I've
never had a problem (disclaimer: I'm no armorer, so YMMV).
Posted by: General Zod at January 04, 2017 06:35 PM
Not to mention the 'unsupported' chamber.
Posted by: Duncanthrax at January 04, 2017 06:44 PM (DMUuz)
384
I suggested to greatagain.gov that they establish a federal unorganized militia ID which recognizes the holder of the ID as a member of the unorganized militia of the US and thus recognized officially as having a right to keep and bare arms in all locations federal and state. It is not a permit - since you don't have to have a permit to exercise a right but simply an ID.
Posted by: An Observation at January 04, 2017 06:44 PM (HNC7V)
Posted by: Deplorable Male Logic at January 04, 2017 06:44 PM (lKyWE)
386
If you own a car in a state and are a resident thereof, typically the requirements of that state are that you change registration, etc. etc. to comply with state requirements as part of your resident status. Those requirements do not apply if you are passing through that state or working there - caveat: a job in that state might require for liability reasons a car and license in that state.
All of the above is entirely aboveboard. Congress is empowered to write a law stating that your driver's license, auto registration, and insurance are valid in that state for such a time as you are there, and they have done. This does not infringe upon state requirements for plate location/insurance level of coverage, etc., even when the overlap is inconvenient for that state.
This law is more of the same. Completely fine, and even procedurally spelled out in the Constitution. I think any Federalism argument misses the mark.
As an aside, I'm okay with this standard in practice on a lot of issues. Get married in a gay marriage state, move to another state which doesn't recognize it, become a resident? You're probably not "married" anymore, no more than if you were in a common law marriage state and then moved, or (hypothetically) a state that recognizes marriage at 14 to one that doesn't. Inconvenient? Sure, but you should have kept that in mind. Reciprocity is meant to protect innocent travel and transaction. It is not a can opener for one state to inflict its will on another, so any such use is invalid.
It's perfectly okay for statutes in a state to recognize *perpetual* reciprocity for things, by the way. A state that wouldn't otherwise recognize a marriage at 14 can write in an exception for an incoming marriage from another state - that's their prerogative, just as it would be for SC to offer a reissue of an NC conceal permit. What isn't okay is the Feds creating any such - that's where the violation of State rights and autonomy occurs. Obergefell, I'm looking at you.
All of the above is entirely aboveboard. Congress is empowered to write a law stating that your driver's license, auto registration, and insurance are valid in that state for such a time as you are there, and they have done. This does not infringe upon state requirements for plate location/insurance level of coverage, etc., even when the overlap is inconvenient for that state.
This law is more of the same. Completely fine, and even procedurally spelled out in the Constitution. I think any Federalism argument misses the mark.
As an aside, I'm okay with this standard in practice on a lot of issues. Get married in a gay marriage state, move to another state which doesn't recognize it, become a resident? You're probably not "married" anymore, no more than if you were in a common law marriage state and then moved, or (hypothetically) a state that recognizes marriage at 14 to one that doesn't. Inconvenient? Sure, but you should have kept that in mind. Reciprocity is meant to protect innocent travel and transaction. It is not a can opener for one state to inflict its will on another, so any such use is invalid.
It's perfectly okay for statutes in a state to recognize *perpetual* reciprocity for things, by the way. A state that wouldn't otherwise recognize a marriage at 14 can write in an exception for an incoming marriage from another state - that's their prerogative, just as it would be for SC to offer a reissue of an NC conceal permit. What isn't okay is the Feds creating any such - that's where the violation of State rights and autonomy occurs. Obergefell, I'm looking at you.
Posted by: Sporkatus at January 04, 2017 06:45 PM (eXSOZ)
387
Posted by: Slapweasel, (Cold1), (T) at January 04, 2017 06:44 PM (6gk0M)
I'm married. But boy a tank would be fun.
I'm married. But boy a tank would be fun.
Posted by: CaliGirl at January 04, 2017 06:45 PM (IgBFP)
388
I could star in a new YouTube reality show - Asian woman drives a tank!
Posted by: @votermom @vm at January 04, 2017 06:45 PM (Om16U)
389
*puts on pants and acts respectable*
Posted by: Slapweasel, (Cold1), (T) at January 04, 2017 06:45 PM (6gk0M)
390
>> nukes, chembio, whatever?
Nah, I'll throw you a bone on the Nukes, Chembio, and Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles
Nah, I'll throw you a bone on the Nukes, Chembio, and Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles
Posted by: garrett at January 04, 2017 06:45 PM (hjpzi)
Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at January 04, 2017 06:46 PM (zc3Db)
392
If you were to amend the 2nd to limit it to man-portable weapons, I think you could pass it. Not that I wouldn't like to own a howitzer. But I'd rather have it expressly limited than everyone just going 'Of course you can't have a dreadnought.'.
Posted by: Grump928(C) at January 04, 2017 06:47 PM (LTHVh)
393
Especially if your dating my daughter and I reserve the right to defend her honor!
Posted by: Nevergiveup at January 04, 2017 06:15 PM (SjImc)
How old is your daughter?
Asking for a friend.
Posted by: Nevergiveup at January 04, 2017 06:15 PM (SjImc)
How old is your daughter?
Asking for a friend.
Posted by: Country Boy - Stay Deplorable My Friends at January 04, 2017 06:47 PM (KUaxm)
394
Question - I haven't read the bill, just the blurb up top - would this help people like CBD and others who live in NJ, NY, IL, and any other crazy states be able to get a concealed carry permit? If I'm understanding this correctly, it protects people who already have concealed carry licenses when they travel to other states, but does nothing to change the state laws for the citizens of that state.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding.
Posted by: bluebell at January 04, 2017 06:47 PM (sBOL1)
395
Pep, do you share water lines with your hothead dick of a neighbor in the cul-de-sac? If so, why do you worry about guns?
Posted by: 16 paranoia filled days later at January 04, 2017 06:47 PM (0BApD)
396
>>Letters of marque and reprisal is predicated on having a well armed ship at the dock.
And the Warden got all pissed at me for mounting Law Missile Launchers on my Dory!
And the Warden got all pissed at me for mounting Law Missile Launchers on my Dory!
Posted by: garrett at January 04, 2017 06:47 PM (hjpzi)
397
Yeah... I'll go in on a tank. Who wouldn't want to take that thing through....
...whatever.
In the immortal words of Todd Beamer?
Let's Roll.
...whatever.
In the immortal words of Todd Beamer?
Let's Roll.
Posted by: Slapweasel, (Cold1), (T) at January 04, 2017 06:47 PM (6gk0M)
398
I have never been a fan of Glocks - mostly for the trigger feel I think, but I could be imagining that. Anyhow, my next door neighbor has one in .40 and I sure wouldn't want him shooting at me with it. Very tight groups.
Posted by: Weasel at January 04, 2017 06:48 PM (Sfs6o)
399
" . . . but I was leaning toward the .40 because of how the FBI switched from 9 to .40 after learning the smaller round didn't have the knock down power they needed."
The FIBBIES just switched back to 9mm. With +P loadings and better bullets, 9mm has gotten a lot better than it was 20 years ago.
The FIBBIES just switched back to 9mm. With +P loadings and better bullets, 9mm has gotten a lot better than it was 20 years ago.
Posted by: Holdfast at January 04, 2017 06:48 PM (nNdYv)
400
Chicago youths kudnap, torture special needs Trump supporter, broadcast it on Facebook
Posted by: ThunderB at January 04, 2017 06:43 PM (Ap9Y7)
Wait, what?
Chicago youths kudnap, torture special needs Trump supporter, broadcast it on Facebook
Posted by: ThunderB at January 04, 2017 06:43 PM (Ap9Y7)
Wait, what?
Posted by: @votermom @vm at January 04, 2017 06:48 PM (Om16U)
401
Posted by: An Observation at January 04, 2017 06:44 PM (HNC7V)
Well, there's this: http://www.constitution.org/mil/cs_milit.htm
And also check your state's laws. For instance, here in Georgia, it's codified that all able-bodied males between 18-45 are part of the "unorganized militia".
Well, there's this: http://www.constitution.org/mil/cs_milit.htm
And also check your state's laws. For instance, here in Georgia, it's codified that all able-bodied males between 18-45 are part of the "unorganized militia".
Posted by: Country Singer (Gab @Bert G) at January 04, 2017 06:48 PM (GUBah)
402
The other day I jumped on here to get advice on a
car that wont start. (Thanks for the many tips) Well, I took it to my
regular mechanic. He tested the alternator. It was bad. He replaced
it. Charged me ~$300. I picked it up. Drove home. Tonight I went to
start my car. Nothing.
This is the third place I've had it "fixed". Getting ridiculous.
Next step is that I'm going to open up the hood and pour coffee on the
engine. *fingers crossed*
Posted by: Serious Cat at January 04, 2017 06:39 PM (Uy6ri)
Turn off your lights.
car that wont start. (Thanks for the many tips) Well, I took it to my
regular mechanic. He tested the alternator. It was bad. He replaced
it. Charged me ~$300. I picked it up. Drove home. Tonight I went to
start my car. Nothing.
This is the third place I've had it "fixed". Getting ridiculous.
Next step is that I'm going to open up the hood and pour coffee on the
engine. *fingers crossed*
Posted by: Serious Cat at January 04, 2017 06:39 PM (Uy6ri)
Turn off your lights.
Posted by: Burnt Toast at January 04, 2017 06:48 PM (P/kVC)
403
390
>> nukes, chembio, whatever?
Nah, I'll throw you a bone on the Nukes, Chembio, and Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles
Posted by: garrett
You are too kind. Please outline the Constitutional basis for your distinction.
>> nukes, chembio, whatever?
Nah, I'll throw you a bone on the Nukes, Chembio, and Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles
Posted by: garrett
You are too kind. Please outline the Constitutional basis for your distinction.
Posted by: pep at January 04, 2017 06:48 PM (LAe3v)
404
I might reconsider a 9mm, but I was leaning toward
the .40 because of how the FBI switched from 9 to .40 after learning the
smaller round didn't have the knock down power they needed.
Posted by: Ruthless at January 04, 2017 06:42 PM
The FBI, and many, many LEAs are switching back to 9mm.
You can get significantly more (12-14) on-board in .45 if you're willing to go double-stack.
the .40 because of how the FBI switched from 9 to .40 after learning the
smaller round didn't have the knock down power they needed.
Posted by: Ruthless at January 04, 2017 06:42 PM
The FBI, and many, many LEAs are switching back to 9mm.
You can get significantly more (12-14) on-board in .45 if you're willing to go double-stack.
Posted by: Duncanthrax at January 04, 2017 06:48 PM (DMUuz)
405
WHile we are playing in fantasy land...
In a free market economy , nukes and chemical weapons would likely cost trillions. Nobody could afford them. Also?
Copyright infringement of the nuclear fission process would be punishable by death.
And Glocks are outstanding weapons.
It's poor craftsman who blames his tools.
In a free market economy , nukes and chemical weapons would likely cost trillions. Nobody could afford them. Also?
Copyright infringement of the nuclear fission process would be punishable by death.
And Glocks are outstanding weapons.
It's poor craftsman who blames his tools.
Posted by: Mortimer, Finish Her! at January 04, 2017 06:49 PM (zu88C)
406
I have a .45 that only holds 7.
Yeah and my SW .357 holds six, so it's a minimal difference.
Go with a Taurus Tracker and it holds 7.
Yeah and my SW .357 holds six, so it's a minimal difference.
Go with a Taurus Tracker and it holds 7.
Posted by: rickb223 at January 04, 2017 06:49 PM (dSqvH)
407
Again, to be clear, my neighbor should be able to own nukes, chembio, whatever?
To paraphrase Heinlein - if those weapons exist some individual somewhere controls them. Why exactly are you more comfortable with Barack Obama controlling nukes than me?
To paraphrase Heinlein - if those weapons exist some individual somewhere controls them. Why exactly are you more comfortable with Barack Obama controlling nukes than me?
Posted by: An Observation at January 04, 2017 06:49 PM (HNC7V)
408
388 I could star in a new YouTube reality show - Asian woman drives a tank!
Posted by: @votermom @vm
----------------
Or your own feature film.
"Tank Girl is all grown up - now, she is Tank Mom!"
Posted by: @votermom @vm
----------------
Or your own feature film.
"Tank Girl is all grown up - now, she is Tank Mom!"
Posted by: Chi at January 04, 2017 06:49 PM (/Z9VQ)
409
Yeah, I'm all for reciprocity, but I believe the feds should stay the hell out of it.
The second amendment stands on its own as the foundation of "common sense." If the U.S. Congress can come of with an annual federal budget for 2017, then maybe we can begin exploring other novel ways, -- other than gun control, -- in which they can overachieve.
The second amendment stands on its own as the foundation of "common sense." If the U.S. Congress can come of with an annual federal budget for 2017, then maybe we can begin exploring other novel ways, -- other than gun control, -- in which they can overachieve.
Posted by: Fritz at January 04, 2017 06:49 PM (uWHRB)
410
Going by car to any other state is a risky business if you have a gun in it. Even with the wealth of info available on the net, some of it is outdated or changed by legislative actions.
At this point, you are literally risking your freedom to make a multi-state trip with a gun aboard.
If cars were regulated the same way as guns, a state with strict smog rules could take your car for failing their emission requirements. They could arrest you for failing to have the proper restrictions on your license, as practiced by THEIR state law.
The 2A guarantees the right to bear arms, which is a much stronger protection than reciprocal DL recognition.
27 million guns were sold in 2016. That's 27 million potential criminals if they pass thru NJ. That's nuts, plain and simple.
At this point, you are literally risking your freedom to make a multi-state trip with a gun aboard.
If cars were regulated the same way as guns, a state with strict smog rules could take your car for failing their emission requirements. They could arrest you for failing to have the proper restrictions on your license, as practiced by THEIR state law.
The 2A guarantees the right to bear arms, which is a much stronger protection than reciprocal DL recognition.
27 million guns were sold in 2016. That's 27 million potential criminals if they pass thru NJ. That's nuts, plain and simple.
Posted by: GnuBreed at January 04, 2017 06:49 PM (oZEJt)
411
>>I could star in a new YouTube reality show - Asian woman drives a tank!
There was a guy in NH who made a fortune during the .com boom. He bought a huge amount of land and among his toys was a tank with the weapons removed.
There was a legend that he like to chase deliver people when they came to his house. Don't know about the chasing but he definitely had a tank.
There was a guy in NH who made a fortune during the .com boom. He bought a huge amount of land and among his toys was a tank with the weapons removed.
There was a legend that he like to chase deliver people when they came to his house. Don't know about the chasing but he definitely had a tank.
Posted by: JackStraw at January 04, 2017 06:50 PM (/tuJf)
412
267
Oh, good, a gun thread. I was busy getting willowed down in the pickup
thread. So, question I've been wanting to ask: I have a couple of
pistols including a SandW .357 and a little Ruger .38 that is my present
CC choice. I am about to buy an automatic pistol to add to my
armaments, and my question is: Does anyone think a SandW .40 would be a
bad choice? I've considered Glock and don't want that, so don't tell me
to get one of those. Thanks for any advice.
Posted by: Ruthless at January 04, 2017 06:26 PM (ro5Th)
I carry a S and W MP Shield .40. I like it, shoots well.
Oh, good, a gun thread. I was busy getting willowed down in the pickup
thread. So, question I've been wanting to ask: I have a couple of
pistols including a SandW .357 and a little Ruger .38 that is my present
CC choice. I am about to buy an automatic pistol to add to my
armaments, and my question is: Does anyone think a SandW .40 would be a
bad choice? I've considered Glock and don't want that, so don't tell me
to get one of those. Thanks for any advice.
Posted by: Ruthless at January 04, 2017 06:26 PM (ro5Th)
I carry a S and W MP Shield .40. I like it, shoots well.
Posted by: The Mouse that Roared at January 04, 2017 06:50 PM (7N6ox)
413
Unless you believe that we all should have access to the most sophisticated weapons including nuclear then everyone is a totalitarian. We are just arguing about degrees.
Posted by: JackStraw at January 04, 2017 06:38 PM (/tuJf)
++++
There is a correct and lawful way to change our constitution for those that are unhappy with what it says. The incorrect and unlawful way would be for some judges to decide on their own that it would just be crazy if the citizens could own nukes and ban them on their own authority.
Just think for a moment about what would happen if the court said the 2nd allowed private ownership of nukes. There would be a push - guaranteed to be successful - to amend the constitution to ban private ownership of nukes. It would go through the political process, differing sides could have their concerns aired, and then something would be done.
And, that is the way things are supposed to work. Not your (implied) way where the judges decree that crazy things must of course already be unconstitutional.
Posted by: JackStraw at January 04, 2017 06:38 PM (/tuJf)
++++
There is a correct and lawful way to change our constitution for those that are unhappy with what it says. The incorrect and unlawful way would be for some judges to decide on their own that it would just be crazy if the citizens could own nukes and ban them on their own authority.
Just think for a moment about what would happen if the court said the 2nd allowed private ownership of nukes. There would be a push - guaranteed to be successful - to amend the constitution to ban private ownership of nukes. It would go through the political process, differing sides could have their concerns aired, and then something would be done.
And, that is the way things are supposed to work. Not your (implied) way where the judges decree that crazy things must of course already be unconstitutional.
Posted by: Anon Y. Mous at January 04, 2017 06:50 PM (R+30W)
414
" . . . but I was leaning toward the .40 because of how the FBI switched from 9 to .40 after learning the smaller round didn't have the knock down power they needed."
The FBI switched from the 9 to the 10 ... and then, because the 10mm scared the women (and some of the girlymen there) they went on a downsizing adventure for a less scary round and the result was the .40.
The FBI switched from the 9 to the 10 ... and then, because the 10mm scared the women (and some of the girlymen there) they went on a downsizing adventure for a less scary round and the result was the .40.
Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at January 04, 2017 06:50 PM (zc3Db)
415
I can't believe no one here wants a M134 minigun
I can't believe no one here wants a M134 minigun
Posted by: Deplorable Male Logic at January 04, 2017 06:51 PM (lKyWE)
416
@381 Letters of marque and reprisal is predicated on having a well armed ship at the dock.
----------------
When it was written, sure. But as the Somalis have demonstrated, all you really need these days is a fast boat and a bunch of small arms. Crews are small in comparison to the size of the ships they man, and world-wide attitudes about guns force civilian vessels to travel unarmed.
----------------
When it was written, sure. But as the Somalis have demonstrated, all you really need these days is a fast boat and a bunch of small arms. Crews are small in comparison to the size of the ships they man, and world-wide attitudes about guns force civilian vessels to travel unarmed.
Posted by: junior at January 04, 2017 06:51 PM (ZvmQn)
417
>>Please outline the Constitutional basis for your distinction.
Please cite the Constitutional basis for your argument that there is/was ANY distinction made by the Framers.
And, here I will save you some time.
There isn't one.
Their overriding concern was that the Citizens be on equal ground with any Army / Navy / Force Domestic or Foreign that would seek to subjegate them.
Please cite the Constitutional basis for your argument that there is/was ANY distinction made by the Framers.
And, here I will save you some time.
There isn't one.
Their overriding concern was that the Citizens be on equal ground with any Army / Navy / Force Domestic or Foreign that would seek to subjegate them.
Posted by: garrett at January 04, 2017 06:51 PM (hjpzi)
418
The only thing I trust less than a heavily armed and armored populace is
a damned politician than is "concerned for my well-being".
The only thing I trust less than a heavily armed and armored populace is
a damned politician than is "concerned for my well-being".
Posted by: Mortimer, Finish Her! at January 04, 2017 06:51 PM (zu88C)
419
So, if you have the weapons, and the ammo, should your next purchase be a plate carrier, or night vision?
Posted by: Grump928(C) at January 04, 2017 06:53 PM (LTHVh)
420
This falls under 2 and 14, and thusly is CLEARLY a Federal issue when the individual states and cities refuse to honor those:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Text of the 14th Amendment
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section 2.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.
Until 14, individual states could indeed establish a religion, limit freedom of speech, and deny the right of peaceable assembly, because 1 stated clearly that it was only a limit on the Federal government:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Text of the 14th Amendment
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section 2.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.
Until 14, individual states could indeed establish a religion, limit freedom of speech, and deny the right of peaceable assembly, because 1 stated clearly that it was only a limit on the Federal government:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Posted by: Mark Matis at January 04, 2017 06:53 PM (LzG0h)
421
Second above the Tenth:
"Before the Civil War it was limited in that way. But, the 14th amendment changed that. Restrictions on the federal government against violating the rights of citizens are now also applied to the states."
-Posted by: Anon Y. Mous at January 04, 2017 06:35 PM (R+30W)
Copied and pasted. I love The Horde.
"Before the Civil War it was limited in that way. But, the 14th amendment changed that. Restrictions on the federal government against violating the rights of citizens are now also applied to the states."
-Posted by: Anon Y. Mous at January 04, 2017 06:35 PM (R+30W)
Copied and pasted. I love The Horde.
Posted by: Slapweasel, (Cold1), (T) at January 04, 2017 06:53 PM (6gk0M)
422
You are too kind. Please outline the Constitutional basis for your distinction.
Posted by: pep
Yeah, that's what I thought you were going for. What a dick. Why dont you outline it since it's your position?
Posted by: pep
Yeah, that's what I thought you were going for. What a dick. Why dont you outline it since it's your position?
Posted by: O in the bunker at January 04, 2017 06:53 PM (nFwvY)
423
Posted by: JackStraw at January 04, 2017 06:50 PM (/tuJf)
That's so cool.
That's so cool.
Posted by: CaliGirl at January 04, 2017 06:54 PM (IgBFP)
424
OK, so maybe I do want a 9mm. Some years ago I had a Browning Hi-Power in 9mm and I really, really wish I had kept it.
Posted by: Ruthless at January 04, 2017 06:55 PM (ro5Th)
425
>>And, that is the way things are supposed to work. Not your (implied) way where the judges decree that crazy things must of course already be unconstitutional.
I implied no such thing and if you read up you will see that CBD is wrong and I fully backed Garrett's position that the 2nd is a fundamental right, because of course it is, and that states should have no limiting power let alone judges. In fact, I've never mentioned judges, federal or otherwise.
It would be nice if we actually followed the Constitution in this country but that ship sailed many, many years ago. When it comes back in fashion, let me know. Until then, I think I'm pretty solid ground assuming that most rational people don't want nukes to be readily available to everyone without mentioning the process of making this happen.
I implied no such thing and if you read up you will see that CBD is wrong and I fully backed Garrett's position that the 2nd is a fundamental right, because of course it is, and that states should have no limiting power let alone judges. In fact, I've never mentioned judges, federal or otherwise.
It would be nice if we actually followed the Constitution in this country but that ship sailed many, many years ago. When it comes back in fashion, let me know. Until then, I think I'm pretty solid ground assuming that most rational people don't want nukes to be readily available to everyone without mentioning the process of making this happen.
Posted by: JackStraw at January 04, 2017 06:56 PM (/tuJf)
426
Yeah, I'm all for reciprocity, but I believe the feds should stay the hell out of it.
The
second amendment stands on its own as the foundation of "common sense."
If the U.S. Congress can come of with an annual federal budget for
2017, then maybe we can begin exploring other novel ways, -- other than
gun control, -- in which they can overachieve.
Posted by: Fritz at January 04, 2017 06:49 PM (uWHRB)
Another way, if (say) Jersey picks up some guy passing through and charges him for carrying w/o license then the Feds can hit Jersey LEO with deprevation of civil rights under color of law... after the first twenty are siiting in the fed pen appealing the rest would get in line.
The
second amendment stands on its own as the foundation of "common sense."
If the U.S. Congress can come of with an annual federal budget for
2017, then maybe we can begin exploring other novel ways, -- other than
gun control, -- in which they can overachieve.
Posted by: Fritz at January 04, 2017 06:49 PM (uWHRB)
Another way, if (say) Jersey picks up some guy passing through and charges him for carrying w/o license then the Feds can hit Jersey LEO with deprevation of civil rights under color of law... after the first twenty are siiting in the fed pen appealing the rest would get in line.
Posted by: Burnt Toast at January 04, 2017 06:56 PM (P/kVC)
427
423
Posted by: JackStraw at January 04, 2017 06:50 PM (/tuJf)
That's so cool.
Posted by: CaliGirl
=====
The drive home from work would be...different.
Posted by: JackStraw at January 04, 2017 06:50 PM (/tuJf)
That's so cool.
Posted by: CaliGirl
=====
The drive home from work would be...different.
Posted by: Mortimer, Finish Her! at January 04, 2017 06:56 PM (zu88C)
428
Trump to restructure intelligence agencies
Posted by: runner at January 04, 2017 06:56 PM (c6/9Q)
429
"Because you suck and we hate you".
That said, my wife really likes the VP9.
Posted by: Holdfast at January 04, 2017 06:43 PM
I think we can call that a wash in the redeeming qualities category.
Clearly a woman of taste and discernment.
That said, my wife really likes the VP9.
Posted by: Holdfast at January 04, 2017 06:43 PM
I think we can call that a wash in the redeeming qualities category.
Clearly a woman of taste and discernment.
Posted by: Duncanthrax at January 04, 2017 06:57 PM (DMUuz)
430
Posted by: Deplorable Male Logic at January 04, 2017 06:51 PM (lKyWE)
I didn't know what that was. Now I do and yes, I want one.
I didn't know what that was. Now I do and yes, I want one.
Posted by: CaliGirl at January 04, 2017 06:57 PM (IgBFP)
431
@411 There was a guy in NH who made a fortune during the .com boom. He bought a huge amount of land and among his toys was a tank with the weapons removed.
There was a legend that he like to chase deliver people when they came to his house. Don't know about the chasing but he definitely had a tank.
----------------
Ahnald *might* have one. Shortly after he left office here in California, he ran an ad on TV offering people a chance to run over things in "his" tank (a Sheridan, iirc). I'm not sure whether the tank was actually his, or just one that he'd purchased the priviledge of using for his event.
There was a legend that he like to chase deliver people when they came to his house. Don't know about the chasing but he definitely had a tank.
----------------
Ahnald *might* have one. Shortly after he left office here in California, he ran an ad on TV offering people a chance to run over things in "his" tank (a Sheridan, iirc). I'm not sure whether the tank was actually his, or just one that he'd purchased the priviledge of using for his event.
Posted by: junior at January 04, 2017 06:58 PM (ZvmQn)
432
Tucker Carlson is making another Congressman (D) stutter.
Posted by: Mortimer, Finish Her! at January 04, 2017 06:58 PM (zu88C)
433
Nude Fake News Thread
Posted by: Grump928(C) at January 04, 2017 06:58 PM (LTHVh)
434
Yeah, I'm all for reciprocity, but I believe the feds should stay the hell out of it.
Dude. Reciprocity in a variety of matters is quite literally one of the jobs of the Feds. Now, that ability to legislate reciprocity has limits, but it is clearly set forth.
Dude. Reciprocity in a variety of matters is quite literally one of the jobs of the Feds. Now, that ability to legislate reciprocity has limits, but it is clearly set forth.
Posted by: Sporkatus at January 04, 2017 06:58 PM (eXSOZ)
435
Trump to restructure intelligence agencies
Posted by: runner at January 04, 2017 06:56 PM (c6/9Q)
--------------
Good. Long overdue. First thing he can do is get rid of ODNI.
Posted by: runner at January 04, 2017 06:56 PM (c6/9Q)
--------------
Good. Long overdue. First thing he can do is get rid of ODNI.
Posted by: bluebell at January 04, 2017 06:59 PM (sBOL1)
436
also, not a bit tired of the winning.
Posted by: Grump928(C) at January 04, 2017 06:59 PM (LTHVh)
437
I'm about as pro gun as you can be and still be functional. I'd love a Federal Carry permit in place of this.
I'm not going to kick if this works, it only benefits me. But I have to admit, carrying a gun is a discipline. And I don't have a problem with some sort of proof of training be required for getting it.
That said, it's going to be PPQ time at the range this weekend. I need to see if my finger problems are due to the G19's finger grooves or if I'm getting arthritis pain. From 9mm. Sheesh.
I'm not going to kick if this works, it only benefits me. But I have to admit, carrying a gun is a discipline. And I don't have a problem with some sort of proof of training be required for getting it.
That said, it's going to be PPQ time at the range this weekend. I need to see if my finger problems are due to the G19's finger grooves or if I'm getting arthritis pain. From 9mm. Sheesh.
Posted by: Mark Andrew Edwards at January 04, 2017 07:00 PM (sh70B)
438
If you leave me to live freely, you are in no danger from the Mech Infantry Brigade in my barn.
Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at January 04, 2017 07:02 PM (EUMr7)
439
OK, so maybe I do want a 9mm. Some years ago I had a Browning Hi-Power in 9mm and I really, really wish I had kept it.
Posted by: Ruthless at January 04, 2017 06:55 PM
Some say JMB's crowning achievement (although he shouldn't get the bulk of the credit), and still a viable choice. Plus you can drop in a barrel, modify a magazine, and shoot .41AE.
That said, while the P-35 is still viable, there are probably better choices out there today.
I've heard good things about the new Ruger American Compact in 9. A friend claims ~3" groups at 50 yards. I'm skeptical, but since I still generally shoot a little better than he does, it's intriguing.
Posted by: Ruthless at January 04, 2017 06:55 PM
Some say JMB's crowning achievement (although he shouldn't get the bulk of the credit), and still a viable choice. Plus you can drop in a barrel, modify a magazine, and shoot .41AE.
That said, while the P-35 is still viable, there are probably better choices out there today.
I've heard good things about the new Ruger American Compact in 9. A friend claims ~3" groups at 50 yards. I'm skeptical, but since I still generally shoot a little better than he does, it's intriguing.
Posted by: Duncanthrax at January 04, 2017 07:02 PM (DMUuz)
Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at January 04, 2017 07:02 PM (EUMr7)
441
It was bandied about in the press a few year ago that Bill Gates wanted to install a mini nuke reactor for power generation on his property in WA state.
I don't know what ever happened on that, but my stance is if he's got the bucks, which he obviously does, why not? He'd still be liable if someone managed to cause harm to others with it, or if it spewed radiation into the environment. Unlike gubmint reactors, which get qualified immunity for harms caused.
See the EPA pollution of that CO river as an example.
I don't know what ever happened on that, but my stance is if he's got the bucks, which he obviously does, why not? He'd still be liable if someone managed to cause harm to others with it, or if it spewed radiation into the environment. Unlike gubmint reactors, which get qualified immunity for harms caused.
See the EPA pollution of that CO river as an example.
Posted by: GnuBreed at January 04, 2017 07:04 PM (oZEJt)
Posted by: teej at January 04, 2017 07:05 PM (gJ3Vg)
443
1, Full Faith and Credit.
2. Am I the last person left who cares about Art. IV Sec. 4?
3. Therefore, be it resolved, those states who deny or interfere with the rights of the citizenry, both within and without their borders, while promoting invasion of foreign populations and burdening the citizenry with their support, shall henceforth be stripped of Statehood, and returned to the status of Territories; and shall likewise be denied representation in Congress; until such time as they may be Reconstructed in a manner more worthy of Citizens of the United States.
DISCUSS.
/mic drop
2. Am I the last person left who cares about Art. IV Sec. 4?
3. Therefore, be it resolved, those states who deny or interfere with the rights of the citizenry, both within and without their borders, while promoting invasion of foreign populations and burdening the citizenry with their support, shall henceforth be stripped of Statehood, and returned to the status of Territories; and shall likewise be denied representation in Congress; until such time as they may be Reconstructed in a manner more worthy of Citizens of the United States.
DISCUSS.
/mic drop
Posted by: Brother Cavil, Cylon without a basestar at January 04, 2017 07:06 PM (vyqqu)
444
>>I'm about as pro gun as you can be and still be functional. I'd love a Federal Carry permit in place of this.
We have one. It's the 2nd Ammendment.
We have one. It's the 2nd Ammendment.
Posted by: garrett at January 04, 2017 07:07 PM (hjpzi)
445
440
>>>I'd love a Federal Carry permit in place of this.
OH FUCK NO
Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at January 04, 2017 07:02 PM (EUMr7)
THIS.
>>>I'd love a Federal Carry permit in place of this.
OH FUCK NO
Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at January 04, 2017 07:02 PM (EUMr7)
THIS.
Posted by: flounder, rebel, vulgarian, deplorable, winner at January 04, 2017 07:08 PM (GX63o)
446
Posted by: Serious Cat at January 04, 2017 06:39 PM
Find out if your alternator has an internal voltage regulator. sometime the voltage regulator is bad and it won't let the alternator charge the battery. Some internal regulators can be changed. All external regulator can be changed.
Find out if your alternator has an internal voltage regulator. sometime the voltage regulator is bad and it won't let the alternator charge the battery. Some internal regulators can be changed. All external regulator can be changed.
Posted by: Cicero Skip at January 04, 2017 07:11 PM (FIrEF)
447
>>>Dude. Reciprocity in a variety of matters is quite
literally one of the jobs of the Feds. Now, that ability to legislate
reciprocity has limits, but it is clearly set forth.
Posted by: Sporkatus<<<
Okay. You're right about administration of reciprocity in principle on a federal level as set forth by the Constitution. But this matter falls more into the realm of the SCOTUS, not Congress. I could have clarified my statement by saying that there is no need for federal legislators to refine the 2nd amendment. EVER.
literally one of the jobs of the Feds. Now, that ability to legislate
reciprocity has limits, but it is clearly set forth.
Posted by: Sporkatus<<<
Okay. You're right about administration of reciprocity in principle on a federal level as set forth by the Constitution. But this matter falls more into the realm of the SCOTUS, not Congress. I could have clarified my statement by saying that there is no need for federal legislators to refine the 2nd amendment. EVER.
Posted by: Fritz at January 04, 2017 07:14 PM (uWHRB)
448
All this and I still can't get concealed carry in NJ unless I can prove that someone is actively trying to kill me? How about 50 state national concealed carry?
Posted by: Steven at January 04, 2017 07:19 PM (jQYAf)
449
Most of the crew served and AFV stuff will go away when you figure in the cost to operate them. Heck even a long day on the range with a .50 is more then I make in a week these days.
Posted by: Big V at January 04, 2017 07:21 PM (wuhZk)
Posted by: Aviator at January 04, 2017 07:21 PM (/Nite)
451
1, Full Faith and Credit.
2. Am I the last person left who cares about Art. IV Sec. 4?
I've been hammering that like you wouldn't believe.
2. Am I the last person left who cares about Art. IV Sec. 4?
I've been hammering that like you wouldn't believe.
Posted by: rickb223 at January 04, 2017 07:23 PM (dSqvH)
452
I'd love a Federal Carry permit in place of this.
OH FUCK NO
Posted by: Herr Morgenholz
Yeah. No. What the feds give, the feds can take away.
OH FUCK NO
Posted by: Herr Morgenholz
Yeah. No. What the feds give, the feds can take away.
Posted by: rickb223 at January 04, 2017 07:23 PM (dSqvH)
453
Is that the same problem with any federal legislation, even this reciprocity bill?
I know, likely dead thread now But it would be very convenient for me to be able to drive to Oregon, just show one ID in case the local LE asks questions.
I know, likely dead thread now
But it would be very convenient for me to be able to drive to Oregon, just show one ID in case the local LE asks questions.Posted by: Mark Andrew Edwards at January 04, 2017 07:26 PM (sh70B)
454
The left has abused the commerce clause since the '40s as they wish, and at this point it is too far gone to get back to a proper reading f the Constitution. As such I'm fine with abusing it for our purposes.
Posted by: Don at January 04, 2017 07:36 PM (Q2pWM)
455
Please cite the Constitutional basis for your argument that there is/was ANY distinction made by the Framers.
Please cite the post where I said they did make a distinction.
Please cite the post where I said they did make a distinction.
Posted by: pep at January 04, 2017 07:38 PM (LAe3v)
456
The local officials simply will not even allow the discussion of the idea.
The local officials need to be slapped into shape by the feds. A Trump court will find that the 2nd Amendment says what it actually says. Chicago has already been slapped down by the Supremes - NY and New Jersey need to follow.
The local officials need to be slapped into shape by the feds. A Trump court will find that the 2nd Amendment says what it actually says. Chicago has already been slapped down by the Supremes - NY and New Jersey need to follow.
Posted by: An Observation at January 04, 2017 07:42 PM (HNC7V)
457
"Unless you believe that we all should have access to the most sophisticated weapons including nuclear then everyone is a totalitarian. We are just arguing about degrees."
Nukes are a nonsense argument. Very few would be able to own them in any case. The reality of nukes is that laws don't protect us from the, the cost and difficulty of acquiring them does.
The real argument is things like manpads, RPGs and grenades. These all have a very legitimate militia use but are also very dangerous and something people can afford. They have limited criminal application, which is probably why they pose little problem in places like the US.
Nukes are a nonsense argument. Very few would be able to own them in any case. The reality of nukes is that laws don't protect us from the, the cost and difficulty of acquiring them does.
The real argument is things like manpads, RPGs and grenades. These all have a very legitimate militia use but are also very dangerous and something people can afford. They have limited criminal application, which is probably why they pose little problem in places like the US.
Posted by: Don at January 04, 2017 07:44 PM (Q2pWM)
458
#368 The FBI famously switched from 9mm to 10mm after the disastrous 1986 Miami shootout. I read a bunch of articles about that. Bottom line: when engaging highly skilled and highly motivated people wearing body armor, rifles would be a better choice than any pistol. And better training for the FBI agents would have given them a better outcome, no matter which handgun they were using.
I don't think anybody really buys the theory the FBI put forward about needing to switch to 10mm. They should have just sent all their agents to better training and kept the 9mm.
To help reduce recoil, the FBI was using "downloaded" 10mm rounds. Which is where the .40 SW round came from: it has the same bullet diameter as 10mm, and the same power as a downloaded 10mm.
The 10mm pistols were a bit large in the grip for anyone with small hands (many females but some males as well). And the pistols had to be heavy-duty; even if downloaded rounds are the norm, the pistol has to be built to take the full pressure of a max-loaded round. It wouldn't do to accidentally load a full-power round and have the gun explode in one's hand! The .40 SW rounds have a shorter overall length, which in turn means the grip can be smaller, which is better for small hands; and the max power of .40 SW is less than the max power of 10mm so the guns need not be as heavy-duty, and therefore not as heavy.
But hits with a 9mm will do the job. Hits with a .40 SW will do the job. Misses with anything will not do the job.
P.S. I bought a book that purported to estimate effectiveness of handgun ammo by tabulating shootings and recording the number of "one-shot stops". It recorded cases where someone was shot a single time, and numbers on how often that one shot was a stop. A friend of mine pointed out the big flaw in this method: usually, if one shot fails to stop the assailant, one keeps shooting. So less-effective rounds won't have many one-shot events, and there was a suspicious correlation between the number of one-shot events recorded and the success scores (i.e. if they found 100 single-shot events with round X, and 200 single-shot events with round Y, then round Y always had a higher one-shot-stop percentage). He wanted to see a study that tabulated all shootings that resulted in a stop, and see the average number of hits per shooting. "Average hits to stop" would be a very interesting metric. My guess is that the AHTS for 9mm would be pretty similar to AHTS for .40 SW, given identical bullet design (don't compare 9mm FMJ to a good .40 hollowpoint).
Bullet design makes a huge difference. From what I have read, being shot with a 9mm FMJ is similar to being stabbed by an icepick. You might bleed out and die but it isn't an instant stop. Rifle bullets do a lot more; all handguns basically suck, so it's important to have a good bullet design that mitigates the sucky handgun ballistics. But most important of all: get hits rather than misses.
I don't think anybody really buys the theory the FBI put forward about needing to switch to 10mm. They should have just sent all their agents to better training and kept the 9mm.
To help reduce recoil, the FBI was using "downloaded" 10mm rounds. Which is where the .40 SW round came from: it has the same bullet diameter as 10mm, and the same power as a downloaded 10mm.
The 10mm pistols were a bit large in the grip for anyone with small hands (many females but some males as well). And the pistols had to be heavy-duty; even if downloaded rounds are the norm, the pistol has to be built to take the full pressure of a max-loaded round. It wouldn't do to accidentally load a full-power round and have the gun explode in one's hand! The .40 SW rounds have a shorter overall length, which in turn means the grip can be smaller, which is better for small hands; and the max power of .40 SW is less than the max power of 10mm so the guns need not be as heavy-duty, and therefore not as heavy.
But hits with a 9mm will do the job. Hits with a .40 SW will do the job. Misses with anything will not do the job.
P.S. I bought a book that purported to estimate effectiveness of handgun ammo by tabulating shootings and recording the number of "one-shot stops". It recorded cases where someone was shot a single time, and numbers on how often that one shot was a stop. A friend of mine pointed out the big flaw in this method: usually, if one shot fails to stop the assailant, one keeps shooting. So less-effective rounds won't have many one-shot events, and there was a suspicious correlation between the number of one-shot events recorded and the success scores (i.e. if they found 100 single-shot events with round X, and 200 single-shot events with round Y, then round Y always had a higher one-shot-stop percentage). He wanted to see a study that tabulated all shootings that resulted in a stop, and see the average number of hits per shooting. "Average hits to stop" would be a very interesting metric. My guess is that the AHTS for 9mm would be pretty similar to AHTS for .40 SW, given identical bullet design (don't compare 9mm FMJ to a good .40 hollowpoint).
Bullet design makes a huge difference. From what I have read, being shot with a 9mm FMJ is similar to being stabbed by an icepick. You might bleed out and die but it isn't an instant stop. Rifle bullets do a lot more; all handguns basically suck, so it's important to have a good bullet design that mitigates the sucky handgun ballistics. But most important of all: get hits rather than misses.
Posted by: mr_jack at January 04, 2017 07:47 PM (M59SC)
Posted by: redc1c4 at January 04, 2017 07:48 PM (r7kgE)
460
402 take the car back he's required by to warranty it
Posted by: MAx at January 04, 2017 07:51 PM (/RZxG)
461
Fed Permit? Holy shit, no.
Posted by: Mr Aspirin Factory at January 04, 2017 07:52 PM (89T5c)
462
The commies haven't got their orders to not go on Tucker's show.
Posted by: Mr Aspirin Factory at January 04, 2017 07:55 PM (89T5c)
463
Posted by: Brother Cavil, Cylon without a basestar at January 04, 2017 07:06 PM (vyqqu)
____
#Failifornia, for instance?
as a native here, i'm good with that.
it would certainly get rid of all our stupid dun laws...
____
#Failifornia, for instance?
as a native here, i'm good with that.
it would certainly get rid of all our stupid dun laws...
Posted by: redc1c4 at January 04, 2017 07:55 PM (r7kgE)
464
Bullshit on the states deciding who gets to enjoy the FUCKING FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. You states can go ahead and license beauticians but they are not mentioned in the FUCKING FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.
I do not give up my rights as expressed in the FUCKING FEDERAL CONSTITUTION just because I cross a state line.
I do not give up my rights as expressed in the FUCKING FEDERAL CONSTITUTION just because I cross a state line.
Posted by: Anchovy at January 04, 2017 08:04 PM (c86/W)
465
I'd just stake the federal jurisdiction on the 14th and 2nd amendments, personally. Screw the commerce clause.
Posted by: Sayyid at January 04, 2017 08:21 PM (ALFiz)
466
You raise some valid concerns on constitutionality, but, several states basically make it impossible for residents of those states and visitors to get permits and carry there.
For example, I can't carry in several states even though I can legally carry in 35 or 36 other states with my two permits. My choice is to disarm myself when I travel to or through those states or just not go there.
NY, MD, CA, NJ and other states basically deny citizens the right to carry there. A federal law would put an end to that. Although I could see a conservative Supreme Court ruling against some aspects of a law on state's rights issues.
For example, I can't carry in several states even though I can legally carry in 35 or 36 other states with my two permits. My choice is to disarm myself when I travel to or through those states or just not go there.
NY, MD, CA, NJ and other states basically deny citizens the right to carry there. A federal law would put an end to that. Although I could see a conservative Supreme Court ruling against some aspects of a law on state's rights issues.
Posted by: WarEagle82 at January 04, 2017 08:53 PM (ZQShL)
467
On the other hand, if my state has to recognize homosexual "marriage certificates" then why don't those states have to recognize my CCW permit? Isn't it the same basic principle at work in the two cases?
Posted by: WarEagle82 at January 04, 2017 09:02 PM (ZQShL)
468
where's the GAINZ thread?
Posted by: chris not rock at January 04, 2017 09:20 PM (WO0/g)
469
I have mixed feelings about this, myself. There are states where exercising your concealed carry license from somewhere else can still run you afoul of their local gun laws, in ways that have nothing to do specifically with concealed carry.
Like limits on magazine capacity, for example. Or going into places where gun possession is prohibited by the state where you are, while it's permitted by the state where you live.
I don't really trust the courts right now to protect the rights of a gun-owner in such an instance.
On the other hand, screw you, bitches, because Second Amendment. I'd be fine with the idea of every state being forced to allow concealed carry without having to apply for some crappy license, like Vermont allows. Yeah, it'd cause some problems, because literally anyone could just be carrying a gun at any time. But it would also solve a lot of problems, because literally anyone could just be carrying a gun at any time.
Maybe this push for reciprocity could eventually result in such a situation; I don't know. I'll try to be optimistic and keep an open mind about it.
Like limits on magazine capacity, for example. Or going into places where gun possession is prohibited by the state where you are, while it's permitted by the state where you live.
I don't really trust the courts right now to protect the rights of a gun-owner in such an instance.
On the other hand, screw you, bitches, because Second Amendment. I'd be fine with the idea of every state being forced to allow concealed carry without having to apply for some crappy license, like Vermont allows. Yeah, it'd cause some problems, because literally anyone could just be carrying a gun at any time. But it would also solve a lot of problems, because literally anyone could just be carrying a gun at any time.
Maybe this push for reciprocity could eventually result in such a situation; I don't know. I'll try to be optimistic and keep an open mind about it.
Posted by: The Deplorable Prothonotary Warbler at January 04, 2017 09:40 PM (0OG8D)
470
Damn, I hate that I am late to this thread.
I am firmly in the camp that 'Shall not be infringed' means I can carry open or concealed, 7 round mag or 100 round drum in whatever state I want, whenever the fuck I want.
It really is that simple.
It is not open to interpretation.
Shall.
Not.
Be.
Infringed.
There is no need for a federal reciprocity law. We already have it in the Bill of Rights.
I am firmly in the camp that 'Shall not be infringed' means I can carry open or concealed, 7 round mag or 100 round drum in whatever state I want, whenever the fuck I want.
It really is that simple.
It is not open to interpretation.
Shall.
Not.
Be.
Infringed.
There is no need for a federal reciprocity law. We already have it in the Bill of Rights.
Posted by: TehAdmiral at January 04, 2017 10:39 PM (O+RfY)
471
I agree that "shall not be infringed" means what it says. And I think it's clearly unConstitutional that some places have bans on ownership of firearms. But no right is unlimited; courts have even found restrictions on the First Amendment (like the classic example of shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theatre).
The Second Amendment does not allow any weapon; private ownership of nukes is not guaranteed by it. But it was clearly intended to permit ownership of the usual weapons of war, which means that an M16 or M4 carbine must absolutely be legal for US citizens to own and carry ("keep and bear"), yes even full-auto models, and this nonsense about Federal tax stamps is shameful.
My understanding is that when the country was founded, some private individuals owned their own cannons, and cannons were the most deadly weapons of war of their day.
Just as courts have found it Constitutional to require permits before big rallies (not a violation of the First Amendment), courts are unlikely to find it unConstitutional to require a permit for concealed carry. But it had better be "shall-issue" permits, not a system like in New York City where the police get to decide whether you "need" it or not (and if you aren't one of the elite with connections, you never are considered to "need" it).
I share Ace's concerns with Federalism, but I can't get upset over a law requiring states to obey one of the Amendments in the Bill of Rights. And it's undeniable that one of the strategies of the gun-banners is to try to make legal ownership as fraught with complications as possible. It should be simple to understand and comply with the law, and reciprocity would help in that regard.
The Second Amendment does not allow any weapon; private ownership of nukes is not guaranteed by it. But it was clearly intended to permit ownership of the usual weapons of war, which means that an M16 or M4 carbine must absolutely be legal for US citizens to own and carry ("keep and bear"), yes even full-auto models, and this nonsense about Federal tax stamps is shameful.
My understanding is that when the country was founded, some private individuals owned their own cannons, and cannons were the most deadly weapons of war of their day.
Just as courts have found it Constitutional to require permits before big rallies (not a violation of the First Amendment), courts are unlikely to find it unConstitutional to require a permit for concealed carry. But it had better be "shall-issue" permits, not a system like in New York City where the police get to decide whether you "need" it or not (and if you aren't one of the elite with connections, you never are considered to "need" it).
I share Ace's concerns with Federalism, but I can't get upset over a law requiring states to obey one of the Amendments in the Bill of Rights. And it's undeniable that one of the strategies of the gun-banners is to try to make legal ownership as fraught with complications as possible. It should be simple to understand and comply with the law, and reciprocity would help in that regard.
Posted by: mr_jack at January 04, 2017 10:52 PM (M59SC)
472
totally should be done on second ammendment grounds (although not plausible)
So now I may be able to carry my gun wherever I goddamn please in the United states of america
So now I may be able to carry my gun wherever I goddamn please in the United states of america
Posted by: connor at January 04, 2017 11:15 PM (05wnl)
473
" States do in fact make compacts permitting just this sort of reciprocity -- I don't know why we need a federal law to do it."
I have a Missouri concealed carry permit, but I spend a fair amount of time in both Iowa & Illinois. Iowa recognizes Missouri's CC permit, but Illinois does not. Would like to carry there so I think a federal law to force Illinois to comply would be a good thing.
I have a Missouri concealed carry permit, but I spend a fair amount of time in both Iowa & Illinois. Iowa recognizes Missouri's CC permit, but Illinois does not. Would like to carry there so I think a federal law to force Illinois to comply would be a good thing.
Posted by: Zombie Ronald Reagan, you're our only hope! at January 05, 2017 12:39 AM (YHjWR)
474
States should be allowed to determine their own laws. Feds put their fingers into to any things.
On the other hand, the whole concept of needing a permit to carry a weapon to defend yourself is absurd. I should be able to carry whatever I want to defend myself. Without a government permit.
On the other hand, the whole concept of needing a permit to carry a weapon to defend yourself is absurd. I should be able to carry whatever I want to defend myself. Without a government permit.
Posted by: PaterNovem at January 05, 2017 01:00 AM (wxQ53)
475
Would you have the same hesitation and state's rights arguments about Emancipation?
If your only quibble is Commerce Clause, then blame SCOTUS for being such whore on what they let Congress ram through on the Commerce Clause. Could just as easily be Section 8: "provide for the common Defence"
"To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States"
They could also use Section 10 powers, and declare the requirement for a permit by the state to be an "ex post facto Law".
If your only quibble is Commerce Clause, then blame SCOTUS for being such whore on what they let Congress ram through on the Commerce Clause. Could just as easily be Section 8: "provide for the common Defence"
"To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States"
They could also use Section 10 powers, and declare the requirement for a permit by the state to be an "ex post facto Law".
Posted by: dustydog at January 05, 2017 07:30 AM (6BLvJ)
476
Don't know if anyone else has made this point cuz too many points to read BUT have you ever tried to do a road trip in this country while carrying your firearms with you? It is a nightmare. I have had to carry a book with firearm regs for every state and adjust accordingly every time I cross state lines.
Oh, no putting in the glovebox here! Crap, have to keep them in the trunk but I am driving an SUV. Illinois? Drive thru without stopping. New Jersey? Drive around.
In too many states you run a real risk of being charged with a felony and losing your civil rights over...exercising your civil rights!!! Tell me again why states rights are more important?
Oh, no putting in the glovebox here! Crap, have to keep them in the trunk but I am driving an SUV. Illinois? Drive thru without stopping. New Jersey? Drive around.
In too many states you run a real risk of being charged with a felony and losing your civil rights over...exercising your civil rights!!! Tell me again why states rights are more important?
Posted by: MJG at January 05, 2017 02:27 PM (S/YAa)
477
This end run around states rights has existed for decades since the Supreme Court determined that the commerce clause permits the federal government to regulate anything.
I'm tired of being the only group that plays by the rules. Let's foist some laws on the liberals that they abhor and let's see whether we can all come together to find that the tenth amendment means something.
I'm tired of being the only group that plays by the rules. Let's foist some laws on the liberals that they abhor and let's see whether we can all come together to find that the tenth amendment means something.
Posted by: Chad at January 06, 2017 01:35 AM (gue31)
Processing 0.05, elapsed 0.0664 seconds.
15 queries taking 0.0151 seconds, 486 records returned.
Page size 274 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.
MuNuvians
MeeNuvians
Frequently Asked Questions
The (Almost) Complete Paul Anka Integrity Kick
Primary Document: The Audio
Paul Anka Haiku Contest Announcement
Integrity SAT's: Entrance Exam for Paul Anka's Band
AllahPundit's Paul Anka 45's Collection
AnkaPundit: Paul Anka Takes Over the Site for a Weekend (Continues through to Monday's postings)
George Bush Slices Don Rumsfeld Like an F*ckin' Hammer
Paul Anka Haiku Contest Announcement
Integrity SAT's: Entrance Exam for Paul Anka's Band
AllahPundit's Paul Anka 45's Collection
AnkaPundit: Paul Anka Takes Over the Site for a Weekend (Continues through to Monday's postings)
George Bush Slices Don Rumsfeld Like an F*ckin' Hammer
Top Top Tens
Democratic Forays into Erotica
New Shows On Gore's DNC/MTV Network
Nicknames for Potatoes, By People Who Really Hate Potatoes
Star Wars Euphemisms for Self-Abuse
Signs You're at an Iraqi "Wedding Party"
Signs Your Clown Has Gone Bad
Signs That You, Geroge Michael, Should Probably Just Give It Up
Signs of Hip-Hop Influence on John Kerry
NYT Headlines Spinning Bush's Jobs Boom
Things People Are More Likely to Say Than "Did You Hear What Al Franken Said Yesterday?"
Signs that Paul Krugman Has Lost His Frickin' Mind
All-Time Best NBA Players, According to Senator Robert Byrd
Other Bad Things About the Jews, According to the Koran
Signs That David Letterman Just Doesn't Care Anymore
Examples of Bob Kerrey's Insufferable Racial Jackassery
Signs Andy Rooney Is Going Senile
Other Judgments Dick Clarke Made About Condi Rice Based on Her Appearance
Collective Names for Groups of People
John Kerry's Other Vietnam Super-Pets
Cool Things About the XM8 Assault Rifle
Media-Approved Facts About the Democrat Spy
Changes to Make Christianity More "Inclusive"
Secret John Kerry Senatorial Accomplishments
John Edwards Campaign Excuses
John Kerry Pick-Up Lines
Changes Liberal Senator George Michell Will Make at Disney
Torments in Dog-Hell
Greatest Hitjobs
The Ace of Spades HQ Sex-for-Money Skankathon
A D&D Guide to the Democratic Candidates
Margaret Cho: Just Not Funny
More Margaret Cho Abuse
Margaret Cho: Still Not Funny
Iraqi Prisoner Claims He Was Raped... By Woman
Wonkette Announces "Morning Zoo" Format
John Kerry's "Plan" Causes Surrender of Moqtada al-Sadr's Militia
World Muslim Leaders Apologize for Nick Berg's Beheading
Michael Moore Goes on Lunchtime Manhattan Death-Spree
Milestone: Oliver Willis Posts 400th "Fake News Article" Referencing Britney Spears
Liberal Economists Rue a "New Decade of Greed"
Artificial Insouciance: Maureen Dowd's Word Processor Revolts Against Her Numbing Imbecility
Intelligence Officials Eye Blogs for Tips
They Done Found Us Out, Cletus: Intrepid Internet Detective Figures Out Our Master Plan
Shock: Josh Marshall Almost Mentions Sarin Discovery in Iraq
Leather-Clad Biker Freaks Terrorize Australian Town
When Clinton Was President, Torture Was Cool
What Wonkette Means When She Explains What Tina Brown Means
Wonkette's Stand-Up Act
Wankette HQ Gay-Rumors Du Jour
Here's What's Bugging Me: Goose and Slider
My Own Micah Wright Style Confession of Dishonesty
Outraged "Conservatives" React to the FMA
An On-Line Impression of Dennis Miller Having Sex with a Kodiak Bear
The Story the Rightwing Media Refuses to Report!
Our Lunch with David "Glengarry Glen Ross" Mamet
The House of Love: Paul Krugman
A Michael Moore Mystery (TM)
The Dowd-O-Matic!
Liberal Consistency and Other Myths
Kepler's Laws of Liberal Media Bias
John Kerry-- The Splunge! Candidate
"Divisive" Politics & "Attacks on Patriotism" (very long)
The Donkey ("The Raven" parody)
News/Chat