• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

National Reciprocity

SouthernBoy

Regular Member
Joined
May 12, 2007
Messages
5,837
Location
Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
imported post

roscoe13 wrote:
SouthernBoy wrote:
For example, to what standard, rules, and laws would they submit us to? Virginia is more lenient than most all (perhaps all) of the other Southern states, so would Virginia become the standard? Or perhaps we'd use Texas, but there goes open carry. And then there are Vermont and Alaska. A permit would now be forced on those citizens who need no such thing at present.

So use Vermont as the standard... No permit required in the US. Sounds good to me;)
In the strict sense, I agree. Vermont is the model. Virginia follows closely behind.

Where is it stated in the Bill of Rights and in the state constitutions that a right must be regulated as a privilege?
 

SouthernBoy

Regular Member
Joined
May 12, 2007
Messages
5,837
Location
Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
imported post

KBCraig wrote:
Brian D. wrote:
Wasn't it due to pressure from Congress that all the states now recognize each others' drivers licenses?
No. There is no national mandate that states recognize each others' drivers licenses. The several States voluntarily agreed to recognize licenses when they signed the Interstate Motorists Compact in the 1970s. Not all states even issued drivers licenses until 1953, when South Dakota was the last state to require driver licensing.

"What the feds mandate, the feds can take away." Don't let the feds' nose under the tent when it comes to concealed carry. What a can of worms that would be! How long do you think "national CCW" would last under President H. Clinton, or President Pelossi?

Kevin
Your second paragraph is dead on in regards to the idea, and concerns, about letting the federal government be a party to our rights. We have seen time and time again the folly of such actions. Nothing but trouble and nothing but loss of rights.

It's as simple as this. Governments, all governments, are essentially evil, and they only know how to do one thing.. and that is to grow. Left unchecked, they will eventually swallow up the governed because that's what they do. It is the right and the duty of the people to control their government, by armed force if need be, in order for them to insure their own peace and tranquility, and the future security of their progeny. To do less is to reap the tides of evil and slavery.

Our Founders were most aware of this which is the reason that Patrick Henry and George Mason convinced James Madison of the absolute need for a Bill of Rights. Think about this. In all of history, we are the only nation which at the time of our creation, reserved to the people the right to throw off their government, and institute new government, using any force necessary to achieve the desired end. This has never occurred before or since. Here is the proof;

"..Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
Thomas Jefferson, The Declaration of Independence
 

massltca

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2006
Messages
407
Location
Maryville, Tennessee, USA
imported post

Very true. I can see why the founding fathers feared a strong central government. Going to war with out the authorization of Congress, suspension of habeas corpus, warrentless wiretapping, its pretty frightening what is happening to freedom in our country. Some people argue that the second amendment doesn't apply to the states, that doesn't make any sense to me. If you use that line of reasoning then the rest of the bill of rights doesn't apply either. These are rights that apply to all human beings and the states cannot infringe upon them any more than the federal government can.
 

sjhipple

Regular Member
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
1,491
Location
Concord, New Hampshire, USA
imported post

massltca wrote:
Very true. I can see why the founding fathers feared a strong central government. Going to war with out the authorization of Congress, suspension of habeas corpus, warrentless wiretapping, its pretty frightening what is happening to freedom in our country. Some people argue that the second amendment doesn't apply to the states, that doesn't make any sense to me. If you use that line of reasoning then the rest of the bill of rights doesn't apply either. These are rights that apply to all human beings and the states cannot infringe upon them any more than the federal government can.

I have a pretty good idea I know who you might be voting for ;)(initials: RP).



As far as Vermont being the national model, I think Alaska is an even better model. No permit required, PLUS there's a permit you can get if you want that quite a few states honor.
 

massltca

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2006
Messages
407
Location
Maryville, Tennessee, USA
imported post

ama-gi wrote:
massltca wrote:
Very true. I can see why the founding fathers feared a strong central government. Going to war with out the authorization of Congress, suspension of habeas corpus, warrentless wiretapping, its pretty frightening what is happening to freedom in our country. Some people argue that the second amendment doesn't apply to the states, that doesn't make any sense to me. If you use that line of reasoning then the rest of the bill of rights doesn't apply either. These are rights that apply to all human beings and the states cannot infringe upon them any more than the federal government can.

I have a pretty good idea I know who you might be voting for ;) (initials: RP).



As far as Vermont being the national model, I think Alaska is an even better model. No permit required, PLUS there's a permit you can get if you want that quite a few states honor.
Yup you have me pegged I'm a staunch libertarian and I support Ron Paul. He's the only one running that has the balls to speak the truth. I've said it and I've heard other people say that no candidate that supports the war will win this election. I'm sick of it and I think that most of America is too. We need a president that will bring some integrity back to the office and whohas gone on record that he supports the freedoms that our country was founded on.
 

sjhipple

Regular Member
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
1,491
Location
Concord, New Hampshire, USA
imported post

massltca wrote:
Yup you have me pegged I'm a staunch libertarian and I support Ron Paul. He's the only one running that has the balls to speak the truth. I've said it and I've heard other people say that no candidate that supports the war will win this election. I'm sick of it and I think that most of America is too. We need a president that will bring some integrity back to the office and whohas gone on record that he supports the freedoms that our country was founded on.
+1
 

roscoe13

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 18, 2007
Messages
1,134
Location
Catlett, Virginia, USA
imported post

ama-gi wrote:
massltca wrote:
     
As far as Vermont being the national model, I think Alaska is an even better model.  No permit required, PLUS there's a permit you can get if you want that quite a few states honor.

If Vermont were indeed the national model, the Alaska style permit would be totally irrelevant...
 

nemo

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2006
Messages
275
Location
Winchester, Virginia, USA
imported post

ama-gi wrote:
I would love to have national reciprocity,
I realize that I am going counter to contemporary legal though, if that is the right word, but I always thought that the second amendment, all by its lonesome, was all that anyone needed for national reciprocity. I have also always thought that every singlegun law was unconstitutional, too.

It would be much more preferable to get Congress back to their proper role where they can't regulate firearms at all (unless they cross state lines).
All it takes is for enough voters to tell congress what to do. Congress sure sin't going to do it on its own.
 

SouthernBoy

Regular Member
Joined
May 12, 2007
Messages
5,837
Location
Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
imported post

nemo wrote:
ama-gi wrote:
I would love to have national reciprocity,
I realize that I am going counter to contemporary legal though, if that is the right word, but I always thought that the second amendment, all by its lonesome, was all that anyone needed for national reciprocity. I have also always thought that every singlegun law was unconstitutional, too.

It would be much more preferable to get Congress back to their proper role where they can't regulate firearms at all (unless they cross state lines).
All it takes is for enough voters to tell congress what to do. Congress sure sin't going to do it on its own.
Amen.
 
Top