• 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.

Let us please,not get caught up in National Resprosity again.

Ghost1958

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2015
Messages
420
Location
Kentucky
Yes I misspelled it. On purpose. Because there is no such thing possible for the Fed to do.

Any state that wants too can simply ignore and not recognize it.
Fed agents are not going to be busting state cops for arresting you over not recognising your permit.

Of course if you are able to fight your way thru every level of state court until you get to a federal court you MIGHT win. Assuming you don't get a liberal judge.



It was a red herring to hang fix NICS on to get it passed.
It'll be the red herring to try to get a federal red flag law passed.

Let's please don't drink the NR kool-aid again and let some insane infringement ride NR then be separated from it, and the infringement passed.
Like fix NICS was.
 

Ghost1958

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2015
Messages
420
Location
Kentucky
Uh, OP, hasn’t the previous forum discussion started 26 Nov 18 [ https://forum.opencarry.org/index.php?threads/the-last-chance-to-get-national-concealed-carry-reciprocity-passed.137146/page-2#post-2236580 ] beaten this horse dead?

Just saying, and majority of the that thread’s words are speel’d korrectly!

Hadn't seen it. And it appears to wrangle more about drugs.
.
I'm simply pointing out that states do not have to recognize nor enforce any Federal law, they don't wish too.

And that it was used as a, smoke screen to pass fix NICS. And some gun owners fell for it. Even with Rep Thomas Massey screaming from the roof tops exactly what the scheme to pass fix NICS was.

If one thinks for a second that CA, NJ, ILL, etc are going to recognize and honor a National Reciprocity Fed law, I have a refurbished alien space ship to sell that person.

I'm just hoping enough gun owners have wised up that National reciprocity isn't used to get some federal red flag law or other gun control idiocy passed.
If you don't want to read the post, all due respect, don't read it or discuss it.
Just saying.
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
4,196
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Hadn't seen it. And it appears to wrangle more about drugs.
.
I'm simply pointing out that states do not have to recognize nor enforce any Federal law, they don't wish too.

And that it was used as a, smoke screen to pass fix NICS. And some gun owners fell for it. Even with Rep Thomas Massey screaming from the roof tops exactly what the scheme to pass fix NICS was.

If one thinks for a second that CA, NJ, ILL, etc are going to recognize and honor a National Reciprocity Fed law, I have a refurbished alien space ship to sell that person.

I'm just hoping enough gun owners have wised up that National reciprocity isn't used to get some federal red flag law or other gun control idiocy passed.
If you don't want to read the post, all due respect, don't read it or discuss it.
Just saying.
That is not a reason to start a new thread. The last post on the original thread was just 2 days ago. You didn't look very hard.
Having 2 of more threads addressing the same subject fragments any possibility of hearing all sides of the issue. Capisce?
 

Ghost1958

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2015
Messages
420
Location
Kentucky
That is not a reason to start a new thread. The last post on the original thread was just 2 days ago. You didn't look very hard.
Having 2 of more threads addressing the same subject fragments any possibility of hearing all sides of the issue. Capisce?

As I said. Hadn't seen it. Then when it was pointed out to me there are about 6 posts about NR and the rest squabbling about drug laws.

But. Since having a more specific thread actually so far discussing it's subject matter seems to upset at least 2 subject monitors here I'll post no further in this thread.
What I wanted to point out is pointed out.
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
4,196
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
As I said. Hadn't seen it. Then when it was pointed out to me there are about 6 posts about NR and the rest squabbling about drug laws.

But. Since having a more specific thread actually so far discussing it's subject matter seems to upset at least 2 subject monitors here I'll post no further in this thread.
What I wanted to point out is pointed out.
When Grapshot was with us he would have locked your post and combined ir with the original post. This was always standard operating procedure before Grape moved onto bigger and better things. I'm sure John has a full plate, and I'm sure these fine details John doesn't catch. Just say'n.
 

Ghost1958

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2015
Messages
420
Location
Kentucky
When Grapshot was with us he would have locked your post and combined ir with the original post. This was always standard operating procedure before Grape moved onto bigger and better things. I'm sure John has a full plate, and I'm sure these fine details John doesn't catch. Just say'n.
Then it'd very lucky for John he has you and Solus to act as moderatord in the fine details department.
Otherwise stars might fall from the sky, cats and dogs fornicating , all manner of mayhem might occur. Lol.

Don't get twisted it's a joke lol.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
7,082
Location
here nc
Then it'd very lucky for John he has you and Solus to act as moderatord in the fine details department.
Otherwise stars might fall from the sky, cats and dogs fornicating , all manner of mayhem might occur. Lol.

Don't get twisted it's a joke lol.
Careful your steel kunckles will rust.
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,829
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
I'm simply pointing out that states do not have to recognize nor enforce any Federal law, they don't wish too.
Why are "simply pointing out" a falsehood? Whether or not a federal law is enforceable within a state depends on the law and how it relates to the 9th and 10th Amendments. as well as other verbiage throughout the Constitution and federal law.

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Federal laws commensurate with powers delegated to the United States (aka the feds) by the Constitution are most certainly enforceable in a state, whether that state wants to comply or night. In fact, if you'll read the Constitution's requirements for States joining the union, along with a State's Constitution, you'll quickly find the States agreed to do just that i.e. follow federal law when they applied for Statehood.

Federal laws commensurate with powers prohibited to the States are similarly enforceable.

Put simply, your "States retain full power and authority" is admirable, but it is most certainly not Constitutional, so sayeth the Constitution.

If one thinks for a second that CA, NJ, ILL, etc are going to recognize and honor a National Reciprocity Fed law...
States refusing to follow Constitutionally sound federal laws is becoming more commonplace. Doesn't make it right, and the feds retain both the authority and the power to enforce, if necessary.

I'm just hoping enough gun owners have wised up that National reciprocity isn't used to get some federal red flag law or other gun control idiocy passed.
You're insistence that reciprocity absolutely will be packed or even include red flag or other gun control laws may prove to be accurate. Then again, it may not.

My point is that when people write their Congressmen, it's not some knuckle-dragging "ugh... Need reciprocity!" People have the option to include an "unless" clause:

Dear Congressman X: Please support both concealed and open carry reciprocity laws, unless they're laced with red flag or other gun control laws. If that's the case, then please fight it with all you've got.

There! Was that so hard? Of course not. And it's not difficult for Congressional staffers and members of Congress themselves to understand, either. They get it.

Indeed, my Congressman certainly gets it. In fact, he supports strict 2A non-interference i.e. "shall not infringe" by government at all levels, local, county, state, and federal, including laws preventing government infringement in accordance with the Second Amendment's prohibition.
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,829
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
PS: The thread continues because many inaccurate things have been said, and those saying it speak only for themselves, not for the rest of us. We're speaking up, in response. This is the epitome of message forum discussion. Closing dynamic threads of conversation like these is the message forum equivalent of shooting one's self in the head. Only the most childish message forums do that. Mature message forums continue the dialogue. They don't play "king of the hill." They foster communication designed to challenge, where people learn.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
11,668
Location
White Oak Plantation
The OP's point stands. No G-Man is gunna frog march a local cop in front of a fed-robed-thug judge cuz he jacked up a outta stater due to the local cop not recognizing NR.

Please stick to the point of this thread and not derail it over constitutional theory...that is routinely ignored by all sorts of governments and their minions.
 

Ghost1958

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2015
Messages
420
Location
Kentucky
Since9 is right that fed agents can enforce fed law in state that does not acknowledge a fed law.

But. No state city county etc can be forced to recognize or enforce a federal law it does not wish too.

That is constitutionally sound and has been since this nation's inception, along with long ago being settled by SCOTUS.

National Reciprocity is a red herring smoke screen to attach bills like fix NICS too.

State can't be forced to recognize it by the fed. And the fed certainly had neither the intention nor the resources to enforce it themselves.
 

gutshot II

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2017
Messages
537
Location
Central Ky.
Let's look at what is presently being done on this subject. Federal law says that illegal immigrants should be arrested and held for pickup by federal authorities. Some cities/counties/states refuse to do that and also impede federal authorities' attempts to enforce these laws. Federal law says it is illegal to carry a gun within 1000 ft. of school property. Does anyone see a rush by local cops to enforce that law? Most states have firearms preemption statutes. Some of those statutes have enforcement provisions. Does anyone here see a big push to enforce any of these things by local cops and local prosecutors? What makes anyone think that local cops will do anything different than what they do now if we should ever be foolish enough to get the federal government involved in concealed carry. Anything the government can give you, they can take away, and more. There will someday be an administration elected that will make life very difficult for gun owners. Why would we want them involved in concealed carry? This is a state issue and should remain so.
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,829
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
You're perspectives are askew. Reciprocity is NOT the feds "giving" us anything. It's the feds enforcing the Second Amendment by making it illegal to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms. While it could be abused as a red herring, that's a highly pessimistic attitude, one that automatically tosses the baby out with the bathwater while fighting against any and all good that it would bring.
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,829
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
Please stick to the point of this thread and not derail it over constitutional theory...
First, our Constitution is not theory. It's "the supreme Law of the Land," and transgressions are addressed daily at all levels of government and law enforcement, your supremely pessimistic view notwithstanding.

Second, comments like, "if you are able to fight your way thru every level of state court until you get to a federal court" are grossly misleading. When a state violates state law or state constitution, one must percolate through the state courts. However, when a state violates federal law, it's a federal matter and begins in federal court i.e. Jones v. State of Colorado.

Specifically: "The federal district court is the starting point for any case arising under federal statutes, the Constitution, or treaties." - Source: Introduction to the Federal Court System, Justice 101, Offices of the United States Attorneys, United States Department of Justice.

Ergo, no such fighting one's way through every level of state court required. :)
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
11,668
Location
White Oak Plantation
First, our Constitution is not theory. It's "the supreme Law of the Land," and transgressions are addressed daily at all levels of government and law enforcement, your supremely pessimistic view notwithstanding.
First, please include all of my statement you quote. Misleading it is to cherry pick my comments. Second, the 2A is absolute in its wording, no? The feds would be perpetuating the false notion that CC is a privilege via NR vs. coming flat out and stating that any prior restraints, or actions by the state employees to enforce clearly unconstitutional prior restraints, on the peaceable exercise of our 2A (OC/CC) by any LAC is a clear violation of the supreme law of the land, the 2A...and the violator, usually a cop (and legislators for enacting any prior restraint, and judges for not summarily striking down any prior restraint) will be dealt with criminally and civilly.

Pretty confident that the feds aint gunna do that. Government minions typically give lip service to our 2A guarantee.

Second, comments like, ...
I made no comments regarding this topic. Please do not use my comments/posts to debate multiple members and their comments/posts.
 

Ghost1958

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2015
Messages
420
Location
Kentucky
You're perspectives are askew. Reciprocity is NOT the feds "giving" us anything. It's the feds enforcing the Second Amendment by making it illegal to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms. While it could be abused as a red herring, that's a highly pessimistic attitude, one that automatically tosses the baby out with the bathwater while fighting against any and all good that it would bring.
It was already used as a, red Herring. It was used by Congress and the NRA to get fix NICS passed in a bait and switch Even though all the while congressman Massey was shouting from the roof tops to gun owners that was what was being done.

National Reciprocity is not the Feds territory , and unenforcable in states that don't recognize it.

It's nothing more than some gun owners pipe dream Congress and the NRA use to move more gun control thru Congress.

Getting side tracked by it is going to wind up costing us again. Exactly like last time.
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,829
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
First, please include all of my statement you quote.
No. I'll include the part I'm addressing, including contextual surrounding. Nothing more.

You do not get to dictate how others respond to your posts, OC for ME. What do you think this is? Your personal kingdom? It's a message forum! Please treat others here accordingly, with the respect they deserve.

Misleading it is to cherry pick my comments.
No. Cherry-picking, also known as the fallacy of incomplete evidence, is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position. It has little or nothing to do with responding to individual segments of a person's post on a message forum. I will admit, however, that it can certainly seem that way if when one person is providing salient argument and the other continually ignores the argument, instead choosing bits and pieces at which to either poke fun or worse, denigrate the other person.

Second, the 2A is absolute in its wording, no?
Absolutely.

The feds would be perpetuating the false notion that CC is a privilege via NR vs. coming flat out and stating that any prior restraints, or actions by the state employees to enforce clearly unconstitutional prior restraints, on the peaceable exercise of our 2A (OC/CC) by any LAC is a clear violation of the supreme law of the land, the 2A...
To paraphrase, you opine that national reciprocity is the feds attempt to negate/undermine/bypass/circumvent our Second Amendment in order to regulate either CC, OC, or both via law enforcement.

IF that were actually the fed's goal, then absolutely, that would be a clear violation of "the supreme Law of the Land."

Where you and I disagree, OC for ME, is that you assume any bill supporting national reciprocity would, absolutely, be used to govern carry, to turn it into a privilege.

I vehemently disagree, for a number of reasons.

I happen to know a (small) number of members of Congress personally. I happen to know how they really feel about our Second Amendment and gun control.

I know that some would like to ban firearms altogether, wrongly believing inanimate objects themselves are responsible for violence and that a ban would solve violent crime. These people are incapable of learning from history, much less observing ongoing factual evidence.

I know that some are for increasing gun control while others are for reducing it.

I know that some support very limited gun control in certain, exceptional circumstances.

And I know one or two would be very happy with either bills or court decisions that made it a crime to interfere with anyone's right to keep and bear arms in any way.

The point is, OC for ME, you cannot dismiss all legislature based on preconceived notions. You have to look at the bill. You have to examine it's wording, it's sponsors. A reciprocity bill could be used as another venue. But it could also be directed solely towards enforcing the Constitutional rights of the people by reaffirming the 2nd, 9th, and 10th amendments.

I strongly disagree with anyone who automatically shoots from the hip merely because something could be used for ignoble purpose. After all, consider what you're carrying on your hip. Consider how the antis feel about that. Your approach to a national reciprocity bill is precisely the same approach as the antis towards your firearm: Oooh! It's bad! Get rid of it!

I'm serious, OC for ME: You're approaching reciprocity bills with the same degree of misunderstanding, ignorance, and vehement hate that haters approach the idea of citizens carrying firearms.

You're also assuming that I would support any reciprocity bill. Absolutely not true. I would support a bill that enforced our 2A rights. I would oppose any bill that attempted use this as a means to degrade our 2A rights, morph our rights into privileges, or increase local, county, state, or federal authority as to who, what, when, where, how, or why we carry.

Quite the opposite.

Nor do I make the mistake of assuming that just because a bill is entitled "national reciprocity" that it will always trend towards the worst. That's a highly unrealistic and pessimistic tack.

I believe if it was written by Representative Pelosi or Senator Feinstein, that would almost certainly be true. However, if it was written by someone who respects the Second Amendment as it is written, that would almost certainly be false.

Now, would such a bill get off the ground in today's Congress? No. Perhaps if power shifts back in 2020. We'll see.

Written properly, a national reciprocity bill could just as easily be a 2A-protective measure that essentially tells the states to stop violating everyone's Constitutional rights and freedoms, and as a federal regulation governing the protection of Constitutional rights, it carries penalties for states and persons within the state who violate it. I see it operating on the same principle as anti-discrimination laws in the workplace which give discrimination victims access to the courts for suits against law-violating businesses.

and the violator, usually a cop (and legislators for enacting any prior restraint, and judges for not summarily striking down any prior restraint) will be dealt with criminally and civilly.

Pretty confident that the feds aint gunna do that.
The feds have already done that on many levels, most notably, anti-discrimination laws as I previously mentioned.

I made no comments regarding this topic. Please do not use my comments/posts to debate multiple members and their comments/posts.
Sorry, OC for ME, but once again, you do not get to dictate how others manage their posts. In the case of the snippet of which you speak, no, that was not from you, nor did I attribute it to you (see enclosed graphic). But it's my choice, not yours, as to whether or not I choose to reply to multiple posters in my post.



Have a nice day, OC for ME. Or not. Your choice.
 
Last edited:

Ghost1958

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2015
Messages
420
Location
Kentucky
All one needs do is look at history.
Given any chance the Fed always takes and never gives concerning the RTKABA. Even though they legally have no such authority.

NR
1 Is a smoke screen for advancing anti gun bills. That is all its been used for.

2. is NOT in the Federal govt authority to create , or enforce. It violates the 2A and the 10th A.

3. There is nothing to be gained by legitimizing gun permits, which are blatant infringement by passing NR.

Doing so is simply allowing the creation of unconstitutional fed law, to effect unconstitutional state law.

It's a ludicrous, unenforcable, dangerous idea.

The only authority the fed has concerning the RTKABA, is SCOTUS striking down any and all gun regulation.
The Fed can't even legally mandate a speed limit or one state to recognize anothers drivers licence because it is a STATES rights issue. Constitutionally
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
11,668
Location
White Oak Plantation
...But it's my choice, not yours, as to whether or not I choose to reply to multiple posters in my post. ...

Have a nice day, OC for ME. Or not. Your choice.
True.

Rude it is to use a member's post as a vehicle to engage other members. Interwebz ink is cheap and the time to engage individually is trivial in my view. Your view seems to be different.

I have a nice day every day. Thank you for the salutation. Ditto
 
Top