Sin_of_Onin posted:

---

No

---

Sin_of_Onin posted:

---

State rights

---

Sin_of_Onin posted:

---

State rights

---

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

Sin_of_Onin posted:

---

The comparison is stupid. If NYC decided they didn't want anyone to drive in Manhattan I couldn't drive my car in Manhattan just because I have a CT license.

---

Koneg posted:

---

Sin_of_Onin posted:

---

State rights

---

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

---

Sin_of_Onin posted:

---

Guns scare me, but explosives and hazardous chemicals are perfectly OK

---

Cawlin posted:

---

So, if New York decided you needed to have a separate driver's license, even though you were licensed in Connecticut to drive within the borders of their state, you would support such a measure.

---

Koneg posted:

---

Sin_of_Onin posted:

---

Guns scare me, but explosives and hazardous chemicals are perfectly OK

---

I can't help it that guns scare you, but if you want this limitation allowed why aren't you peeing your pants over the fact that I can legally buy and transport explosives in my State - which means I can legally transport those explosives in every other State?

---

Cawlin posted:

---

Sin_of_Onin posted:

---

The comparison is stupid. If NYC decided they didn't want anyone to drive in Manhattan I couldn't drive my car in Manhattan just because I have a CT license.

---

Your understanding of the matter is flawed. Firearms permits (and driving licenses) are handled at the state level, not at the level of cities within a state. That is not to say that a city might not sometimes, in actual practice, dictate policy for the whole state (as is the case in New York), but this is a state issue, not a city issue.

So, if New York decided you needed to have a separate driver's license, even though you were licensed in Connecticut to drive within the borders of their state, you would support such a measure.

---

Sin_of_Onin posted:

---

I support States' Rights.

---

Yukishiro1 posted:

---

The Constitution is just a piece of paper.

---

Jorrdan posted:

---

The Driver's License analogy is flawed for me because I do not get a license in one state to go to another and use my car to kill people.

---

Moe_Nox posted:

---

Didn't this proposal come about because of some dude moving to the east coast that went to prison even tho he followed the law to the letter? Jersey or Connecticut osmethin

---

Jorrdan posted:

---

The Driver's License analogy is flawed for me because I do not get a license in one state to go to another and use my car to kill people.

---

Koneg posted:

---

Yukishiro1 posted:

---

The Constitution is just a piece of paper.

---

Noted.

---

Yukishiro1 posted:

---

Koneg posted:

---

Yukishiro1 posted:

---

The Constitution is just a piece of paper.

---

Noted.

---

You are such a total moron. Full faith and credit is only due to valid judgements. Lack of jurisdiction invalidates a judgement.

---

Yukishiro1 posted:

---

If California comes out tomorrow and says "we flipped a coin and determined Metalface's building permit in Ohio should not be approved" you can't take that to Ohio and demand they stop Metalface from building his nerd bunker.

---

Koneg posted:

---

When a State authorizes an individual to carry a concealed weapon it is clear they have done so within their lawful jurisdiction. The Act, which authorized the Records, as a direct result of a judicial Proceeding... should therefor be given Full Faith and Credit by other States.

---

Jorrdan posted:

---

Jorrdan posted:

---

The Driver's License analogy is flawed for me because I do not get a license in one state to go to another and use my car to kill people.

---

Koneg posted:

---

Wait... whut? A concealed carry permit does not give you the right to go anywhere and kill people so... wtf?

---

Taking one sentence out of context of the entire argument is also flawed but if that is what you need to do so be it.

---

Cawlin posted:

---

Jorrdan posted:

---

Jorrdan posted:

---

The Driver's License analogy is flawed for me because I do not get a license in one state to go to another and use my car to kill people.

---

Koneg posted:

---

Wait... whut? A concealed carry permit does not give you the right to go anywhere and kill people so... wtf?

---

Taking one sentence out of context of the entire argument is also flawed but if that is what you need to do so be it.

---

To be fair, your statement was kind of absurd Jorrdan.

Further, the statistics don't agree with you.

You are in truth, about three times more likely to kill someone in another state with your car as you are with a gun...

There are almost 3 times as many vehicle deaths each year as there are firearms homicides.

There are around 250 million passenger vehicles owned in the US, and there are around 30-35k vehicular deaths per year.

There are around 200 million privately owned firearms in the US, and there are about 12k firearms homicides per year.

If you limit the firearms homicides to those committed with legally owned firearms the numbers get even more lopsided.

It seems that we should regulate driving more carefully if you ask me.

---

Jorrdan posted:

---

Cawlin posted:

---

Jorrdan posted:

---

Taking one sentence out of context of the entire argument is also flawed but if that is what you need to do so be it.

---

To be fair, your statement was kind of absurd Jorrdan.

Further, the statistics don't agree with you.

You are in truth, about three times more likely to kill someone in another state with your car as you are with a gun...

There are almost 3 times as many vehicle deaths each year as there are firearms homicides.

There are around 250 million passenger vehicles owned in the US, and there are around 30-35k vehicular deaths per year.

There are around 200 million privately owned firearms in the US, and there are about 12k firearms homicides per year.

If you limit the firearms homicides to those committed with legally owned firearms the numbers get even more lopsided.

It seems that we should regulate driving more carefully if you ask me.

---

Perhaps I wasn't clear then. It is the intent I am speaking of behind the purchase of a firearm in one state and carrying it into another (some people actually do buy them for purposes that are not good which is why I used the DC/Virginia state line example) whereas with a car when I obtain a license my intent is to drive; not to kill people with the car (accidentally or no).

---

Aerlinthian posted:

---

Just to toss this out there, but does the first amendment fall under a "states rights" issue...?

---

Cawlin posted:

---

Jorrdan posted:

---

Cawlin posted:

---

[quote=Jorrdan]Taking one sentence out of context of the entire argument is also flawed but if that is what you need to do so be it.

---

To be fair, your statement was kind of absurd Jorrdan.

Further, the statistics don't agree with you.

You are in truth, about three times more likely to kill someone in another state with your car as you are with a gun...

There are almost 3 times as many vehicle deaths each year as there are firearms homicides.

There are around 250 million passenger vehicles owned in the US, and there are around 30-35k vehicular deaths per year.

There are around 200 million privately owned firearms in the US, and there are about 12k firearms homicides per year.

If you limit the firearms homicides to those committed with legally owned firearms the numbers get even more lopsided.

It seems that we should regulate driving more carefully if you ask me.

---

Perhaps I wasn't clear then. It is the intent I am speaking of behind the purchase of a firearm in one state and carrying it into another (some people actually do buy them for purposes that are not good which is why I used the DC/Virginia state line example) whereas with a car when I obtain a license my intent is to drive; not to kill people with the car (accidentally or no).

---

Aerlinthian posted:

---

Just to toss this out there, but does the first amendment fall under a "states rights" issue...?

---

Yukishiro1 posted:

---

What does the 1st amendment have to do with concealed carry?

---

Aerlinthian posted:

---

Yukishiro1 posted:

---

What does the 1st amendment have to do with concealed carry?

---

In that vain... What does the 1st amendment have to do with being able to carry on a conversation over the Internet without government interference?

---

Yukishiro1 posted:

---

Aerlinthian posted:

---

Yukishiro1 posted:

---

What does the 1st amendment have to do with concealed carry?

---

In that vain... What does the 1st amendment have to do with being able to carry on a conversation over the Internet without government interference?

---

Are you high?

---

Jorrdan posted:

---

Cawlin posted:

---

Jorrdan posted:

---

Perhaps I wasn't clear then. It is the intent I am speaking of behind the purchase of a firearm in one state and carrying it into another (some people actually do buy them for purposes that are not good which is why I used the DC/Virginia state line example) whereas with a car when I obtain a license my intent is to drive; not to kill people with the car (accidentally or no).

---

Intent or not, you're still more than 3 times more likely to kill someone with your car than a gun.

Further, do you really think that all people who carry firearms do so with the intent of killing someone?

Crossing state lines is an incidental part of life for lots of people, myself included. I fairly regularly cross state lines (not as regularly as when I did so on a weekly basis), and I carry a gun when I'm in my home state. My intention is certainly not to kill anyone.

---

Nope. I do not. In fact, I'd say that most people do so with no ill intent. I was simply stating why the driver's license analogy was flawed for me. I would say, for example, that more people buy guns with ill intent than cars and why some states have stricter laws than others when it comes to gun control as a result. Whether or not the gun laws should be the same across the board is another discussion and was not your original question posed.

---

Aerlinthian posted:

---

It was a point made in an example of your own construction. Sorry you got lost.

---

Aerlinthian posted:

---

The "answer" isn't what *I* want. What I want is...

---

Yukishiro1 posted:

---

I am lost because you are not making any sense.

---

Yukishiro1 posted:

---

What does any of this have to do with reciprocity for concealed carry permits?

---

Yukishiro1 posted:

---

If you want reciprocity, write to your state legislator. It is not a constitutional issue.

---

Yukishiro1 posted:

---

What does the 1st amendment have to do with concealed carry?

---

Cawlin posted:

---

Jorrdan posted:

---

Cawlin posted:

---

[quote=Jorrdan]Perhaps I wasn't clear then. It is the intent I am speaking of behind the purchase of a firearm in one state and carrying it into another (some people actually do buy them for purposes that are not good which is why I used the DC/Virginia state line example) whereas with a car when I obtain a license my intent is to drive; not to kill people with the car (accidentally or no).

---

Intent or not, you're still more than 3 times more likely to kill someone with your car than a gun.

Further, do you really think that all people who carry firearms do so with the intent of killing someone?

Crossing state lines is an incidental part of life for lots of people, myself included. I fairly regularly cross state lines (not as regularly as when I did so on a weekly basis), and I carry a gun when I'm in my home state. My intention is certainly not to kill anyone.

---

Nope. I do not. In fact, I'd say that most people do so with no ill intent. I was simply stating why the driver's license analogy was flawed for me. I would say, for example, that more people buy guns with ill intent than cars and why some states have stricter laws than others when it comes to gun control as a result. Whether or not the gun laws should be the same across the board is another discussion and was not your original question posed.

---

GrilledCheez posted:

---

I would hate to be dumb and not realize it. Coming here makes me appreciate my luck.

---

Aerlinthian posted:

---

Your attempted point is that the founders didn't foresee small firearms that can be concealed, hence your argument that no 2nd amendment status applies. So based on your very own rational, I asked you that question.

---

Jorrdan posted:

---

Cawlin posted:

---

So then you think that laws which make it illegal to carry weapons in a given state are a deterrent to those who carry a weapon into a state with the intent to commit an illegal act with that weapon in that state?

---

Actually, no I don't and I just went back and read your original question more carefully because I couldn't figure out why you would even follow this line of questioning. I tend to agree with it [reciprocity] once the carry permit has been granted. I was thinking more along the lines of circumventing the law to actually obtain the permit originally to cross state lines. I tend to get more liberal when it comes to the actual granting in the first place (and wanting stricter controls) as I think we've discussed. My fault. Long day at work and skimming.

---

Elkad posted:

---

New York's infringement of 2A rights has nothing to do with reciprocity of carry permits.


Reciprocity of driver's licenses was purely voluntary between the states. Most have great reciprocity for carry permits as well. We don't need the federal government to interfere in this. What we need is a clear ruling on our right to BEAR arms (not just possess, as Heller and McDonald covered recently).

Then it is up to the states to determine the method for that. Texas bans open carry in any form. Until a couple months ago, concealed carry was illegal in all of Wisconsin, but Open Carry was legal everywhere (now WI has CCW permits as well). Vermont doesn't issue permits, so there is no reciprocity in other states for their residents, yet anyone can carry there, either open or concealed.

New York needs a method for everyone to carry legally. The fed doesn't need to interfere in that process, just make sure the method exists (and is useable).

---

Yukishiro1 posted:

---

If the 2nd amendment gives you a right to carry concealed you don't need a permit and you certainly don't need reciprocity.

---

Cawlin posted:

---

[I do agree though that the "may issue" status for some states for CCW permits needs to go. Issuing authorities in those states have created a de facto "will not issue" status. States must at the very least all become "shall issue" imo.

---

Elkad posted:

---

Cawlin posted:

---

[I do agree though that the "may issue" status for some states for CCW permits needs to go. Issuing authorities in those states have created a de facto "will not issue" status. States must at the very least all become "shall issue" imo.

---

How about going the old Wisconsin method? Open Carry only. I have a problem with being forced to pay for a permission slip for "shall not be infringed".

Paying for extra privileges (concealing) is OK by me, as long as there is a method for everyone to carry without paying.

---

Aerlinthian posted:

---

Just remember, New York came in DEAD LAST on the Mercatus Freedom Index. I hope this case goes to the supreme court.

---

smellymotor posted:

---

wait do you really have states where people just walk around with guns on their hips?



u guys are like caricatures of yourselves

---