• 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.

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
7,664
Location
here nc
wow, one must wonder if the burr/hamilton duel started off so genteelly, good day to you burr, and back attcha hamilton?

1547076146943.png
 

Ghost1958

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2015
Messages
680
Location
Kentucky
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.



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.



Absolutely.



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.



The feds have already done that on many levels, most notably, anti-discrimination laws as I previously mentioned.



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.

Trouble is the Fed can't penalize a state or city for ignoring a federal NR law anymore than they can for being sanctuary cities or states

Fed has no constitutional authority to force a state to recognize it's decrees.

That is simply how it is And even the Fed acknowledges it.
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
"The theory of nullification has never been legally upheld by federal courts."

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullification_(U.S._Constitution)

Examples:

Between 1798 and the beginning of the Civil War in 1861, several states threatened or attempted nullification of various federal laws. None of these efforts were legally upheld. The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions were rejected by the other states. The Supreme Court rejected nullification attempts in a series of decisions in the 19th century, including Ableman v. Booth, which rejected Wisconsin's attempt to nullify the Fugitive Slave Act. The Civil War ended most nullification efforts.

In the 1950s, southern states attempted to use nullification and interposition to prevent integration of their schools. These attempts failed when the Supreme Court again rejected nullification in Cooper v. Aaron, explicitly holding that the states may not nullify federal law.
 

Ghost1958

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2015
Messages
680
Location
Kentucky
"The theory of nullification has never been legally upheld by federal courts."

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullification_(U.S._Constitution)

Examples:

Between 1798 and the beginning of the Civil War in 1861, several states threatened or attempted nullification of various federal laws. None of these efforts were legally upheld. The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions were rejected by the other states. The Supreme Court rejected nullification attempts in a series of decisions in the 19th century, including Ableman v. Booth, which rejected Wisconsin's attempt to nullify the Fugitive Slave Act. The Civil War ended most nullification efforts.

In the 1950s, southern states attempted to use nullification and interposition to prevent integration of their schools. These attempts failed when the Supreme Court again rejected nullification in Cooper v. Aaron, explicitly holding that the states may not nullify federal law.
Correct. But that's a different thing entirely.

As all thru our history abd settled case law.

A state my refuse to recognise or enforce any Federal law it wishes.

Now. Federal LE can come into that state and enforce federal law and the State cant stop them.

But at no time in no location can the Fed require a state to enforce federal law if it does not wish too.

A recent example is Sanctuary cities.

ICE can enforce fed law in say CA.

But CA nor any state county or city unit of gov in it can be forced by the fed to enforce fed law. Or recognize it.

The state is not "nullifying " anything. It is simply exercising it's constitutional right to not recognize nor enforce said fed decree.

As anti gun states WILL do with a NR decree.
 

KBCraig

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
4,607
Location
Granite State of Mind
A recent example is Sanctuary cities.

ICE can enforce fed law in say CA.

But CA nor any state county or city unit of gov in it can be forced by the fed to enforce fed law. Or recognize it.

The state is not "nullifying " anything. It is simply exercising it's constitutional right to not recognize nor enforce said fed decree.

As anti gun states WILL do with a NR decree.
I've been trying to convince my fellow NH state representatives of this.

Some are all in on a bill to "ban sanctuary cities". I keep asking them: how do you ban not doing something that they're under no legal obligation to do? And do you really want to set that precedent of forcing local government to enforce federal issues *ahem*bumpstocks*ahem*?
 

Ghost1958

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2015
Messages
680
Location
Kentucky
I've been trying to convince my fellow NH state representatives of this.

Some are all in on a bill to "ban sanctuary cities". I keep asking them: how do you ban not doing something that they're under no legal obligation to do? And do you really want to set that precedent of forcing local government to enforce federal issues *ahem*bumpstocks*ahem*?
Some conservative reps are pandering to voters who don't know any better.

The fed trying to force a state to recognize or enforce fed law is unconstitutional.
Any law passed trying to enable the fed to do so would be tossed out on the first court challenge on constitutional grounds.

As it should be.

Side note. Any state that wished too could ignore and not enforce the bump stock ban.
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
But CA nor any state county or city unit of gov in it can be forced by the fed to enforce fed law. Or recognize it.
Sure they can.

The state is not "nullifying " anything. It is simply exercising it's constitutional right to not recognize nor enforce said fed decree.
I really don't know why you keep claiming states have a "constitution right to not recognize or enforce said fed decree" when each and every one of all 50 of these United States specifically stated otherwise in their state constitutions, echoing what's in the United States Constitution.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 15

Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1

Article VI, Clauses 2 and 3

And many other similar points. In fact, the word "state" is mentioned 137 times in our Constitution. When states applied for membership in the Union, they expressly agreed to abide by Constitutionally-lawful federal regulation. The Constitutions of all 50 of these United States say the same.

You continue to make a claim when both the U.S. Constitution and the Constitutions of all 50 states say otherwise. It's like arguing with a tree that thinks it's a bird. You've gotten this notion into your head yet you refuse to listen to all reason, much less to actually read where both state law and the supreme law of the land says you're in error.
 

Ghost1958

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2015
Messages
680
Location
Kentucky
Sure they can.



I really don't know why you keep claiming states have a "constitution right to not recognize or enforce said fed decree" when each and every one of all 50 of these United States specifically stated otherwise in their state constitutions, echoing what's in the United States Constitution.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 15

Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1

Article VI, Clauses 2 and 3

And many other similar points. In fact, the word "state" is mentioned 137 times in our Constitution. When states applied for membership in the Union, they expressly agreed to abide by Constitutionally-lawful federal regulation. The Constitutions of all 50 of these United States say the same.

You continue to make a claim when both the U.S. Constitution and the Constitutions of all 50 states say otherwise. It's like arguing with a tree that thinks it's a bird. You've gotten this notion into your head yet you refuse to listen to all reason, much less to actually read where both state law and the supreme law of the land says you're in error.
This one has been settled long long ago, 4 separate times by SCOTUS

The Fed CANNOT force a state to enforce or recognize a federal law. Period.

Do you not read the news even today?
Several states refused to enforce fed marijuana laws.

Do you honestly think if Trump could force a sanctuary City to enforce immigration laws he wouldn't have already?

This was settled before the civil rights act which is why the NG was Federalised to enforce it Alabama.

You are, like many, simply wrong on this.

For your edification.

 
Last edited:

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
This one has been settled long long ago, 4 separate times by SCOTUS
Cite, please.

The Fed CANNOT force a state to enforce or recognize a federal law. Period.
Comma, Question Mark...

Again, sure they can. They do it all the time by withholding federal funds for states found not to be in compliance of federal law.

force - strength or energy exerted or brought to bear : cause of motion or change : active power; capacity to persuade or convince; to compel by physical, moral, or intellectual means; to make or cause especially through natural or logical necessity.

In the 1970s, the feds "forced" states to drop their speed limits to 55 mph. All states complied, although some, like Nebraska and North Dakota responded by dropping the fine for upwards of 40 mph over the 55 mph limit to $5 payable on the spot.

Do you not read the news even today?
Do you not see my many thousands of posts quoting daily news?

Several states refused to enforce fed marijuana laws.
The fight never began because Obama was in office. If you recall, even Kamala Harris, a former California DA, has a reputation for aggressively pursuing marijuana law violations in that state. Interestingly enough, "the news even today" reports she was doing so while smoking pot herself. Hypocrite...

Once Obama refused to fight that battle, the war against MJ was lost.

Do you honestly think if Trump could force a sanctuary City to enforce immigration laws he wouldn't have already?
There's winning a battle and winning the war. Good commanders pick their battles.

You are, like many, simply wrong on this.
Your incessant insistance does not make it so, Ghost.

For your edification...
I'm not going to argue each of these cases with you, Ghost. I am going to encourage you to re-read these cases in light of the Constitution itself. You're amazingly pro-Constitutional, until it comes to areas where federal law overrides state law. Then, you take the side of the Supreme Court of the United States.

The Supreme Court of the United States and the Constitution of the United States are not synonymous. They're closely aligned in many ways, but SCOTUS has diverged from the Constitution on many cases, including "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
 

Ghost1958

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2015
Messages
680
Location
Kentucky
Cite, please.



Comma, Question Mark...

Again, sure they can. They do it all the time by withholding federal funds for states found not to be in compliance of federal law.

force - strength or energy exerted or brought to bear : cause of motion or change : active power; capacity to persuade or convince; to compel by physical, moral, or intellectual means; to make or cause especially through natural or logical necessity.

In the 1970s, the feds "forced" states to drop their speed limits to 55 mph. All states complied, although some, like Nebraska and North Dakota responded by dropping the fine for upwards of 40 mph over the 55 mph limit to $5 payable on the spot.



Do you not see my many thousands of posts quoting daily news?



The fight never began because Obama was in office. If you recall, even Kamala Harris, a former California DA, has a reputation for aggressively pursuing marijuana law violations in that state. Interestingly enough, "the news even today" reports she was doing so while smoking pot herself. Hypocrite...

Once Obama refused to fight that battle, the war against MJ was lost.



There's winning a battle and winning the war. Good commanders pick their battles.



Your incessant insistance does not make it so, Ghost.



I'm not going to argue each of these cases with you, Ghost. I am going to encourage you to re-read these cases in light of the Constitution itself. You're amazingly pro-Constitutional, until it comes to areas where federal law overrides state law. Then, you take the side of the Supreme Court of the United States.

The Supreme Court of the United States and the Constitution of the United States are not synonymous. They're closely aligned in many ways, but SCOTUS has diverged from the Constitution on many cases, including "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Yes fed law supercedes state law.
But it is up to the feds to enforce it.
Everyone knows this.
Even the fed AG knows it.

The Fed cannot force a state to use it's own LE, prisons, county jails, etc to enforce fed law or even house a fed prisoner.

No less than 4 SCOTUS decisions, and the anti commandeering act and current events if nothing else prove you wrong.

Now since I know you won't accept that you are simply dead wrong on this issue you may have the last word.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,539
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
A request was made for citations. None was forthcoming.

On OCDO we are responsible for “citing to authority”. It is reasonable not to cite every little thing, to assume that some claims are obvious to all. However, if one makes a claim regarding the law, and specifically that four SCOTUS rulings exist on a particular point, then one has a rhetorical responsibility to specifically cite those four rulings—that is if one wants to retain a shred of credibility.
 

Ghost1958

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2015
Messages
680
Location
Kentucky
A request was made for citations. None was forthcoming.

On OCDO we are responsible for “citing to authority”. It is reasonable not to cite every little thing, to assume that some claims are obvious to all. However, if one makes a claim regarding the law, and specifically that four SCOTUS rulings exist on a particular point, then one has a rhetorical responsibility to specifically cite those four rulings—that is if one wants to retain a shred of credibility.

Sigh. If four SCOTUS decisions proving you are mistaken , and the fact that at this moment city after city and state after state are refusing to enforce fed immigration law, are not enough for though they are for everyone else including the Fed itself I'm at a loss to know what to cite for you specifically.

Back to topic. NR is a red herring that if passed as a federal law can and will be ignored by NY NJ.

Now if you think there will be a fed agent tailing all state LE when one busts you for no reciprosity in order to arrest him for arresting you, then ride that unicorn of smoke.

Maybe the NRA will find your battle through the state courts to reach a fed court with a non liberal judge.
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
4,570
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
This one has been settled long long ago, 4 separate times by SCOTUS

The Fed CANNOT force a state to enforce or recognize a federal law. Period.

Do you not read the news even today?
Several states refused to enforce fed marijuana laws.

Do you honestly think if Trump could force a sanctuary City to enforce immigration laws he wouldn't have already?

This was settled before the civil rights act which is why the NG was Federalised to enforce it Alabama.

You are, like many, simply wrong on this.

For your edification.

Thank you for citing the cases.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,539
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Sigh. If four SCOTUS decisions proving you are mistaken , and the fact that at this moment city after city and state after state are refusing to enforce fed immigration law, are not enough for though they are for everyone else including the Fed itself I'm at a loss to know what to cite for you specifically.

Back to topic. NR is a red herring that if passed as a federal law can and will be ignored by NY NJ.

Now if you think there will be a fed agent tailing all state LE when one busts you for no reciprosity in order to arrest him for arresting you, then ride that unicorn of smoke.

Maybe the NRA will find your battle through the state courts to reach a fed court with a non liberal judge.
You are confusing me with the person who actually asked your for citations (which you continue to refuse to provide). I a merely pointing out that that behavior is eroding your already thin credibility.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,539
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Ghost provided a link.
A cite was requested in post #30. In looking at all posts since, no link was provided. If he provided a cite in an earlier post, the adult response is, “I already did in post #xx,” not simply repeating the claim sans citation.

Of course, if the goal is not an adult discussion...
 

Ghost1958

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2015
Messages
680
Location
Kentucky
You are confusing me with the person who actually asked your for citations (which you continue to refuse to provide). I a merely pointing out that that behavior is eroding your already thin credibility.
One more time in case you missed it the first time.

https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2018/05/23/anti-commandeering-an-overview-of-five-major-supreme-court-cases/

This is old settled constitutional law. 1842 in fact.

My credibility is fine. Your only the third person I ever conversed with that did not know this since Trump came to office because of sanctuary cities cropping up.

Now please research this yourself as I've cited plenty.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
7,664
Location
here nc
A request was made for citations. None was forthcoming.

On OCDO we are responsible for “citing to authority”. It is reasonable not to cite every little thing, to assume that some claims are obvious to all. However, if one makes a claim regarding the law, and specifically that four SCOTUS rulings exist on a particular point, then one has a rhetorical responsibility to specifically cite those four rulings—that is if one wants to retain a shred of credibility.
Oh pot calling...

Only when it is in your interests ~ roflmao...really?
 

Ghost1958

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2015
Messages
680
Location
Kentucky
A cite was requested in post #30. In looking at all posts since, no link was provided. If he provided a cite in an earlier post, the adult response is, “I already did in post #xx,” not simply repeating the claim sans citation.

Of course, if the goal is not an adult discussion...
Since9 quoted the cites in the same post he asked for one.
 
Top