This could be a very good thing.

The positive bills currently listed:

HR 131 - Strengthens FOPA

HR 86 - Repeal GFSZA

HR 402 - Reciprocity (well, some see this as good, others not. That's a debate for another thread, for the lebentyseventh time.)

Most every other bill currently introduced that deals with firearms adds restrictions. Those are bad bills.
 
It should, but a Federal court has not declared it to be so yet. One problem is the greatly varying requirements for the different states permits. Driver's licenses are basically the same from state to state.

Even that should not be a problem. Just take the stricter of them and make it for all. But don't be fooled. The minute you turn anything over to the Feds, you just gave up all rights to the issue. You have to be on guard all the time for sneaky ways they try to get control.
 
Even that should not be a problem. Just take the stricter of them and make it for all. But don't be fooled. The minute you turn anything over to the Feds, you just gave up all rights to the issue. You have to be on guard all the time for sneaky ways they try to get control.

Really? You want NY or IL or HI rules?

No, let's use the LEAST RESTRICTIVE rules as a model. Like SD, for instance. No training, no fingerprints, no pictures, no big fee, no long wait. If permits are necessary (and I'm not saying they are), this is the model to follow, one that's as close to what 2A says as any.
 
Why not use Vermont instead?

The reality is that under any of the national reciprocity bills that I've seen or heard of, Vermonters will actually suffer unless your state institutes a permission slip process where none exists now. I'm sure you already knew that, Charles, and most supporters of national reciprocity have heard it before, even if they don't understand why it's true. When people say they don't care that Vermonters will be less free under national reciprocity, they prove that selfishness, not freedom, not rights advocacy, is at the bottom line of their wish to get it passed.

The only thing from the federal level that can "help" gun owners is for the Supreme Court to "interpret" the 2A in a manner consistent with the words contained within it. That's never going to happen though. Justices are cowards, usurpers, agenda-driven hacks every bit as much as the legislators, presidents and regulators they were created to protect us from. So the best we can hope for is to continue to work at the state level. Even if the worst gun rights states stay the same or get worse, there are still enclaves (like VT, AZ, AK, MT and one that I'm forgetting right now) where the citizen has the most freedom to choose how/when/where or if to carry without government getting between them and their decision-making processes. Even taking the few constitutional carry states out of the equation, the majority of states are much easier to get papered in than NJ or IL or whatever most rights-oriented people would call "the worst" states.

But under no circumstance can it legitimately be said that expanded liberty is served by forcing the freest state to institute freedom-killing legislation in order to benefit from the freedom-expansion legislation, and that's the exact position Vermont would be put in under national reciprocity. As Charles alluded to, the best national reciprocity would be every state using what little sovereignty it has left to repeal all carry laws/restrictions and adopt Vermont's hands-off approach. Unfortunately, that ain't going to happen either, so get your states to do what Alabama, Kansas and other states have done by accepting permission slips from every state that issues them until every state recognizes every other state's permit, and national reciprocity will be realized. It still won't help Vermont carriers, but it will keep the federal beast out of it, and that's always, 100% of the time, better than the alternative.

Blues
 
Why not use Vermont instead?

That's really swinging for the fences. That's the way it ought to be.

My reply was to counter the argument of using the most restrictive licensing models. If a license to carry is the thing, it should be the least restrictive model.
 
there are still enclaves (like VT, AZ, AK, MT and one that I'm forgetting right now)

Wyoming. :)

Still far, far too many stupid "rules" about where one can CC here, but there are no restrictions on open carry except on "federal property." Nobody can give any rational reasons for those restrictions, of course, and a great many people simply ignore them...

Circumstances and location are very important, of course, but non-compliance will get us to liberty much faster than kissing politicans' fannies and begging for their kind permission.
 
I would like someoneto explain something to me. As I have posted before, I sell guns in Michigan for a national firearms retailer. If an out of state buyer from a gun control state comes to my store, however, I am obligated to conduct that transaction not only in accordance with MI and federal law, I also have to conduct in accordance with the gun control laws of the buyer's state. So if their state requires a 3 day waiting period or has magazine restrictions or even bans on certain guns, I am bound to observe and honor those laws. If they can legally carry in their state, they can also carry here. Yet, if I travel to one of those states and try to conduct a firearms transaction or carry, they are under no obligation to reciprocate and honor MI's laws. Worst case, they will throw my butt in jail. Does this make sense to anyone else?
 
I'd venture to say that in many, if not most cases, it is driven by nothing less than emotionless, conscienceless, soulless tyrants imposing tyranny.

True. And the surfs who willingly and even happily subject themselves to such tyranny do so out of "feel good" emotion :-)
 

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
49,523
Messages
610,662
Members
74,992
Latest member
RedDotArmsTraining
Back
Top