Everytown Takes Victory Lap as Paul Ryan Lets National Reciprocity Stall
- Thread starter Aim1
- Start date
- Status
P5 Guy
Member
https://ballotpedia.org/Gubernatorial_and_legislative_party_control_of_state_government
If the republican controlled states were able to select Senators like the Founders had given us in the US Constitution there would be a super majority. Oh and Florida would have two GOP senators, Bill Nelson would be gone, hopefully.
Repeal the 17th Amendment.
If the republican controlled states were able to select Senators like the Founders had given us in the US Constitution there would be a super majority. Oh and Florida would have two GOP senators, Bill Nelson would be gone, hopefully.
Repeal the 17th Amendment.
Health care and the tax code are their 'real' issues - not mine.
For the Supreme Court - you need 5 folks who are dedicated to the RKBA. Even if Kennedy was replaced with someone like that - that gives you only 3 that seem committed. You need for to take a case. Then you don't know if the other 'conservative' justices would go along with a strong progun decision. You might get some decision with major hidden flaws like Heller - which is used to justify all the state crap.
For the Supreme Court - you need 5 folks who are dedicated to the RKBA. Even if Kennedy was replaced with someone like that - that gives you only 3 that seem committed. You need for to take a case. Then you don't know if the other 'conservative' justices would go along with a strong progun decision. You might get some decision with major hidden flaws like Heller - which is used to justify all the state crap.
I do not think any of the holdout states will ever likely change willingly. About the only way they might is SCOTUS rulings. Even then they might kick and scream.
Probably the best route IMO is for as many states as possible pass their own Constitutional carry legislation. I think this should be the maximum push, and as perhaps more states have it, it might gain momentum. At some point the holdout states will be such miserable places to live people and business will really start to leave them for tangibly safer places to live.
CoalTrain49
Member
You're one voter.
Most people in the US don't give a carp about RKBA because only about 7% actually have a permit to carry. They do however have or don't have health care and most pay taxes. So why would you expect a GOP politician to have that high on his agenda if he knows the vast majority of his/her constituents aren't that concerned about it.
.308 Norma
Member
Sadly, I believe you're right.
Oh, but it most certainly does.
If Senators are directly elected by the people, then they have to "buy" their votes directly from the people, but if they are elected by state legislatures, then they have to go "shopping" in the state capitol and that's a very different clientele from the "joe six packs".
dh1633pm
Contributing Member
I can only bang my head against the wall so many times. All counties north of New York City voted for the other guy last election in New York. We don't have the political muscle to move that mountain that is called NYC. Full if left wing politics that rule that state. We need reciprocity the same way drivers are allowed to drive in more than one state. We will never get such as thing.
stoky wrote:
...just one more Origionalist [sic] SCOTUS pick and the weasel wordin' might be over for quite some time.
Not at all.
Add another "originalist" to the court and all that changes is the direction of the "weasel words".
And let's make sure we understand that terms that get tossed around the think-tanks like "originalist" are little more than fairy tales intended to appeal to a particular political faction yet deliver nothing to them. In both the Heller and McDonald decisions, the court - even the so-called "originalists" - made it clear that they were content to leave in place things like the current ban on machine guns. Any "originalist" would observe that if the United States were invaded and the provisions governing the "unorganized militia" under 10 U.S.C. had to be invoked, the government would be handing out its reserves of M-14 and M-16 rifles without regard to whether they were or were not fully automatic, so automatic weapons are necessary for the people to have as part of their militia responsibilities, yet all the "originalists" were silent on this obvious point.
Add another "originalist" to the court and nothing of substance changes.
.308 Norma
Member
I don't exactly see what you're getting at there, CoalTrain49. Are you really saying I "don't give a carp about RKBA" because I don't "have a permit" to carry? Permits to carry aren't required everywhere, my friend. And from what I've read and heard, the number of places where carry permits are not required is growing.
Now while I agree whole-heartedly with you that most people in the US don't give a carp about RKBA, I don't think the percentage of people in the US who have carry permits is a real good indicator of that. The number of anti-rights politicians who continue to win elections is a better indicator. But even that's not a perfect indicator because it disregards the tens of thousands, perhaps millions of voters who don't live in the big cities like New York and San Francisco. The anti-rights politicians in New York state and California get elected by the people who live in the big cities, not the people who live in the less populated areas of those states. Not only that, but many people in states like New York and California can't get carry permits even if they want them.
BTW, I actually do have an Idaho CCW License, but Idaho went constitution carry last year. So I don't need it now. Never-the-less, I've been listening to, and fighting this antigun/anti-rights nonsense since shortly after JFK was shot. And I've been a member of the NRA since 1972 - long before CCW (with a license) was made legal in Idaho. Also, if I'm still around in 2019 when my regular Idaho CCW License expires, I'll probably go ahead and get an "Enhanced" Idaho CCW License because the Enhanced Idaho CCW Licenses have reciprocity with a few more states than the regular Idaho CCW Licenses. Besides, I want to take the classes.
Last edited:
Right on. And U.S. vs Miller was on the right track.
CapnMac
Member
Which is significant for "us" as well.
Roll my medical care expenses (and coverage) to what I had in just 2012 ($1400/yr, $200 deductible) and I could buy about $3500 more in "gun stuff." (The $4900 per year with a $5K deductible with no lonng term or mid term coverage is not an improvement.)
Roll my tax base back to 2012 (or even better, 1985, the last time I made as much as I have managed to get back to this year), and that would but another $1500 in my pocket every year.
And, the Senate has come to a dead stop on medical care, with RINOs ruling the roost.
For something that ought to be easy (other than all the 2% & 3% politicos at risk for having their portfolios in fat insurance compaines take a 4-5% "hit" in dividend value).
So, getting 50 states with distinctly and decidedly different approaches to CCW to all agree seems to loom Herculean.
Particularly with 50% of the US population (and that minuscule voting percentage) in just 33 counties of the 3000 in the US. Make a person lament, it might
Well I will say this about Healthcare. It is every bit as political as the political debate about the right to keep and bear arms. There is dishonesty and misrepresentation everywhere you look. I mean you start out by misrepresenting lack of health insurance as having lack of healthcare. Very very few people in the United States lack Health Care. Many millions lack health insurance but they still have health care.
If you look at the recent scoring by the Congressional budget office they claimed X million of people would lose their health insurance. You have to read very very closely to find out that what they mean for the most part is that what they are really predicting is that a large number of people will voluntarily decide not to have health insurance because they won't be penalized anymore if they don't have it. I can understand why people would not buy health insurance if they aren't going to be penalized for not doing so but the CBO has also determined that millions of people who are now on Medicaid will go off of Medicaid if they're no longer required to have health insurance and are counting these people in the millions of people that will "lose" health insurance if this bill passes. To me it seems highly dishonest to claim a people that are voluntarily giving up something of their own volition in some cases with no Financial penalty involved as having lost anything.
This is roughly akin to the near flat-out lying from the anti-gunners about how they are only about Public Safety. They don't give a rat's ass about Public Safety. They never have. It's just their latest game to try to take away our firearms.
We could probably have a much easier time of it coming to a political solutions to these political problems if people mostly on the left but sometimes on the right stop misrepresenting the situation.
If you look at the recent scoring by the Congressional budget office they claimed X million of people would lose their health insurance. You have to read very very closely to find out that what they mean for the most part is that what they are really predicting is that a large number of people will voluntarily decide not to have health insurance because they won't be penalized anymore if they don't have it. I can understand why people would not buy health insurance if they aren't going to be penalized for not doing so but the CBO has also determined that millions of people who are now on Medicaid will go off of Medicaid if they're no longer required to have health insurance and are counting these people in the millions of people that will "lose" health insurance if this bill passes. To me it seems highly dishonest to claim a people that are voluntarily giving up something of their own volition in some cases with no Financial penalty involved as having lost anything.
This is roughly akin to the near flat-out lying from the anti-gunners about how they are only about Public Safety. They don't give a rat's ass about Public Safety. They never have. It's just their latest game to try to take away our firearms.
We could probably have a much easier time of it coming to a political solutions to these political problems if people mostly on the left but sometimes on the right stop misrepresenting the situation.
CoalTrain49
Member
I don't exactly see what you're getting at there, CoalTrain49. Are you really saying I "don't give a carp about RKBA" because I don't "have a permit" to carry? Permits to carry aren't required everywhere, my friend. And from what I've read and heard, the number of places where carry permits are not required is growing.
Now while I agree whole-heartedly with you that most people in the US don't give a carp about RKBA, I don't think the percentage of people in the US who have carry permits is a real good indicator of that. The number of anti-rights politicians who continue to win elections is a better indicator. But even that's not a perfect indicator because it disregards the tens of thousands, perhaps millions of voters who don't live in the big cities like New York and San Francisco. The anti-rights politicians in New York state and California get elected by the people who live in the big cities, not the people who live in the less populated areas of those states. Not only that, but many people in states like New York and California can't get carry permits even if they want them.
BTW, I actually do have an Idaho CCW License, but Idaho went constitution carry last year. So I don't need it now. Never-the-less, I've been listening to, and fighting this antigun/anti-rights nonsense since shortly after JFK was shot. And I've been a member of the NRA since 1972 - long before CCW (with a license) was made legal in Idaho. Also, if I'm still around in 2019 when my regular Idaho CCW License expires, I'll probably go ahead and get an "Enhanced" Idaho CCW License because the Enhanced Idaho CCW Licenses have reciprocity with a few more states than the regular Idaho CCW Licenses. Besides, I want to take the classes.
Well, we are talking about a nat'l reciprocity bill, are we not. So if we are addressing a nat'l reciprocity bill would it not be prudent to look at the number of voters who actually have a permit to carry. Those would be the voters that politicians would target, not gun owners in general. Most gun owners don't care about carry permits. If they did they there would be a lot more carry permits in the 35 states where they could get them. If most gun owners had carry permits politicians would get serious about reciprocity. Until then it will be a small minority of voters without a voice.
.308 Norma
Member
Yes, I thought this thread was about a Nat'l reciprocity bill.
You sir, are the one who somehow determined that most people don't give a "carp" about the RKBA because "only about 7% actually have a permit to carry." And while I agreed with you about most people in the US not giving a carp about the RKBA, what I said was the percentage of people having carry permits is not a real good indicator of that.
If national reciprocity were to come to pass, I would imagine when you carry in other states, you would have to abide by their rules. This would include things like off-limit places, open/ concealed prohibited, magazine limits, etc. it would only mean your permit would be recognized, so you could have the privilege of carrying there. The irony would be in the May Carry states where most residents can't.
vito
Member
The real issue is that the Republican "majority" is pretty meaningless. Yes, that means the Republicans decide on who is Speaker of the House and who is the Senate Majority Leader, but that's about as far as it goes. There is so much disagreement among those who label themselves Republican that the hoped for massive change in the direction of the country that was hoped for will likely never materialize. Add to that the Republicans who seem more focused on opposing President Trump than achieving what their constituents want to see accomplished, and who likely voted for Trump despite their legislator's displeasure with him. If Republicans were united as are the Democrats, the filibuster rule could be eliminated today and all of President Trump's agenda passed into law in a very short time. That might be the only scenario where we can get national reciprocity passed.
And by the way, those of you who seem to have such moral qualms about the over riding of "state's rights" need to think about outcomes more, and process less. The Dems will use any mechanism to try to achieve their goals, which might mean demanding state's rights on one issue, and then will turn around and demand a national approach on other issues. They are after the end game. The Dems are thrilled to see Republicans who obstruct the Republican agenda by acting "holier than thou" and conceding the ISSUE to the Dems because they believe it is a matter than belongs to the states rather than to the Federal government. I am not saying that the "means justifies the ends" but that all political issues have an outcome, and if the process you think is correct leads to the wrong outcome then you have LOST on the issue. I want to see national reciprocity of concealed carry because the end result will be that my 2nd Amendment rights will then be at least partially recognized throughout the nation, and if we try to achieve this through individual state legislation we will never win, because some states like NY, NJ, MA, CT, MD to name a few are not going to accept the 2nd Amendment's individual rights at any forseeable time in the future.
And by the way, those of you who seem to have such moral qualms about the over riding of "state's rights" need to think about outcomes more, and process less. The Dems will use any mechanism to try to achieve their goals, which might mean demanding state's rights on one issue, and then will turn around and demand a national approach on other issues. They are after the end game. The Dems are thrilled to see Republicans who obstruct the Republican agenda by acting "holier than thou" and conceding the ISSUE to the Dems because they believe it is a matter than belongs to the states rather than to the Federal government. I am not saying that the "means justifies the ends" but that all political issues have an outcome, and if the process you think is correct leads to the wrong outcome then you have LOST on the issue. I want to see national reciprocity of concealed carry because the end result will be that my 2nd Amendment rights will then be at least partially recognized throughout the nation, and if we try to achieve this through individual state legislation we will never win, because some states like NY, NJ, MA, CT, MD to name a few are not going to accept the 2nd Amendment's individual rights at any forseeable time in the future.
CoalTrain49
Member
Why not? It's a darn good indicator of who supports their right to bear arms. Isn't that part of RKBA?
Do you think it's a good idea to not practice your right to bear arms? Permits are required for concealed carry in 44 states, 35 have shall issue which means just about anyone can get a permit in one of those states if you aren't a felon.
Your line of reasoning would leave only hunters and recreational shooters supporting RKBA. 2A isn't about recreational shooters and hunters. The liberals in this country would be more than willing to regulate your ability to only carry a long gun seasonally (with a license) or take your firearms to a range where they would be used in one place only and not carried on your person.
I've had a permit to carry concealed for 27 years. I practice my right to carry every day where it's legal, not just a few weeks a year.
RKBA means bearing arms. If you care about your right to bear arms then you will do that with or without a permit, however your state regulates the practice.
I stand by my statement. Most people don't care about their right to keep and bear arms. If they did they would carry.
Politicians understand this, even if you don't.
Same issue in the peoples republic of kalafronia.
.308 Norma
Member
Of course not. I never said that. I too carry everywhere it's legal. Apparently though, unlike you, I don't carry just to exercise my right to bear arms.
Wow! That means you've been supporting our RKBA for 27 years. Thank you!
Actually CoalTrain49, I kind of agree with that. And at the risk of sending this whole conversation off on a tangent, I'll say that that's the reason I'm in favor of open carry even though I seldom practice it myself. Talk about politicians sitting up and taking notice - can you imagine how those anti-rights jerks would act if every able-bodied gun owner was openly carrying a gun everywhere it's legal?
But for various reasons, most gun owners won't do that. As I said, "I seldom practice it myself." It's legal here, but in most circumstances, I don't want to draw attention to the fact I'm carrying a gun. That doesn't mean I don't care about our RKBA though.
If only!
There's a heck of a lot more hunters and recreational shooter than there are concealed carry permit/license holders. As I see it, the problem is most of those "hunters and recreational shooters" only pay lip service to supporting the RKBA. They don't really support it. If they did, there wouldn't be nearly as many anti-rights politicians elected.But I take it you believe that most of those "hunters and recreational shooters" don't really support the RKBA because they don't carry everywhere it's legal. Is that right?
C'mon man, I know that. The fact is, I shouted down a local politician that was running for a seat in the Idaho State Senate last year, and lost by a large margin. He had the gall to tell me; "I myself like to go hunting, but I just think it's time we gun owners have a more open dialog about gun control." CoalTrain49, that's the same BS I've been listening to since, as I said before, shortly after JFK was shot. And I blew up in that politician's face! I left no doubt in the mind of anyone within hearing distance that I don't think the Second Amendment is about hunting.
I see no reason to question my ability to understand, CoalTrain49. I just disagree about what better helps politicians to understand and respect our RKBA. You claim they would understand it better if more people exercised their right to bear arms. I claim they would understand it better if more people voted in alignment with their RKBA. I have a feeling we're both right.
Last edited:
AlexanderA
Member
I don't think we can measure our support for the 2nd Amendment by whether we choose to carry a gun every day. Likewise, we can't measure someone's support for the First Amendment by whether he stands on a soapbox in a public park and makes a controversial speech every day. A right exists, whether or not it is actually exercised. I'll bet that lots of people who don't own any guns at all still believe in the validity of the 2nd Amendment. They want to have it in place in case they want to arm themselves at some later time.
The states can't dump on the US constitution, its not a states rights issue.
About medical care: invoke the 10th amendment, toss out the law. It's a shame that won't happen in our current state of soft tyranny.
And that's the real issue here. The constitution is considered a sick joke that gets in the way of "progress" by pretty much all the Democrats and a large number of republican politicians.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
