Jump to content
ajpaul59

Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017 Hudson, NC

Recommended Posts

I would like to pour hot diarrhea on all those smiling deluded old fuckers. They look like pensioner-tard refugees from the education system. 

 

Problem here is that, according to the legal fiction that permits regulating 2A out of meaningful existence in NJ, the federalists are 100% correct. Barring a SCOTUS ruling that the plain language meaning of 2A means what it says, Hudson's law is an undue usurpation of states' rights to regulate what is seen nationally as an optional right.

 

It probably won't pass and/or withstand Supreme Ct. review -- even if Trump's guy is sworn in in time -- for that reason. A right-leaning SCOTUS has already decided that NJ's particular legal fiction should stand. Replacing Scalia with the most conservative judge in the universe won't affect the court's makeup enough to cause them to treat lower court intervention in this matter any differently than they did Drake. So if the Senate miraculously passes it -- a long shot considering how many Republicfuckers are against Trump -- we'd have about 13 minutes to strap on our stuff and drive downtown before some federal court invalidates the law. I'm sure the lawyers have their briefs already written.

 

BTW does anyone understand that stupid blurb from "predict-a-gov"? The bill won't pass because "the primary sponsor is a Republican" and "the overall text of the bill does little to its chances of being enacted"? What kind of double-talk nonsense is that? Is this a shadow site for CNN?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to pour hot diarrhea on all those smiling deluded old fuckers. They look like pensioner-tard refugees from the education system.

 

Problem here is that, according to the legal fiction that permits regulating 2A out of meaningful existence in NJ, the federalists are 100% correct. Barring a SCOTUS ruling that the plain language meaning of 2A means what it says, Hudson's law is an undue usurpation of states' rights to regulate what is seen nationally as an optional right.

 

States don't have rights. But 99% of federal law is usurpation of States' powers or the Rights of the People in violation of The Constitution. I'll take just this one and turn a blind eye, thank you. I think we deserve it at this point, then we can move on to cleanup. If we have to pay for the sin you can hang me.

 

BTW does anyone understand that stupid blurb from "predict-a-gov"? The bill won't pass because "the primary sponsor is a Republican" and "the overall text of the bill does little to its chances of being enacted"? What kind of double-talk nonsense is that? Is this a shadow site for CNN?

I'm sensing ambiguous duplicity and sarcasm, but not sure. Perhaps you would agree to check the chances they gave Trump to win the Presidency. Either way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

States don't have rights. But 99% of federal law is usurpation of States' powers or the Rights of the People in violation of The Constitution. I'll take just this one and turn a blind eye, thank you. I think we deserve it at this point, then we can move on to cleanup. If we have to pay for the sin you can hang me.

 

 

I'm sensing ambiguous duplicity and sarcasm, but not sure. Perhaps you would agree to check the chances they gave Trump to win the Presidency. Either way.

I'm with you. Unconstitutionality in defense of constitutionality is no vice.

 

I'm not being a smartass. I really do not understand the words or their meanings in that context. 

 

Mathematically speaking I think they were right about Trump's odds. The numbers were screwy but he had just enough in just the right places, despite at least 5 million ineligibles voting, AT LEAST. You need "facts" to prove I voted illegally. You don't need "evidence" to prove that a human endeavor involving hundreds of millions of events (eligibility, registration, voting, counting) does not involve error. It's a statistical certainty. 

 

Plus you have:

 

* 20-30 million foreigners

* about 20 million citizen-deplorables (felons, otherwise ineligible, unregistered)

* essentially no proof of eligibility required in democrat states

* All highly motivated out of stupidity or fear to vote for Fat Legs. 

* proven fraud in 2012, when the Philly district where the local Republican leader lived did not register a single Republican vote. Imagine not one crack whore or alkie or illiterate individual stumbled into a booth and pulled the wrong lever. Districts in Detroit this year where the number of actual voters was X and the number of votes counted was 10X (one reason the recount was cut short)

 

Miracle. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm with you. Unconstitutionality in defense of constitutionality is no vice.

 

I'm not being a smartass. I really do not understand the words or their meanings in that context.

 

Mathematically speaking I think they were right about Trump's odds. The numbers were screwy but he had just enough in just the right places, despite at least 5 million ineligibles voting, AT LEAST. You need "facts" to prove I voted illegally. You don't need "evidence" to prove that a human endeavor involving hundreds of millions of events (eligibility, registration, voting, counting) does not involve error. It's a statistical certainty.

 

Plus you have:

 

* 20-30 million foreigners

* about 20 million citizen-deplorables (felons, otherwise ineligible, unregistered)

* essentially no proof of eligibility required in democrat states

* All highly motivated out of stupidity or fear to vote for Fat Legs.

* proven fraud in 2012, when the Philly district where the local Republican leader lived did not register a single Republican vote. Imagine not one crack whore or alkie or illiterate individual stumbled into a booth and pulled the wrong lever. Districts in Detroit this year where the number of actual voters was X and the number of votes counted was 10X (one reason the recount was cut short)

 

Miracle.

Interesting. I bet they could have saved a whole lot of money if they just paid you to come up with the wrong answer in 5 minutes :D

 

Speaking of which, who keeps claiming PA is a blue state (despite overwhelmingly majority Rs in both our legislative houses) and who said before the election that PA has always been a swing state, and losing the last several presidential elections does not change that?

 

You're welcome, it was my pleasure :)

 

Straight outta Pottsville.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just had a brain storm, or brain fart depending on your take.

 

As abhorrent as the notion may sound -- and here I echo Mipa's view that oppressive federal law may serve to relieve oppression within the states -- the solution here may be some sort of national carry license. I know, I know, more bureaucracy, paperwork, federal intrusion. But what if you could, for $39.95 and proof of a valid carry license from any state, obtain something similar to a SS card but for firearm carry? To make this as unobtrusive as possible each state would simply have to change the nonsense they stamp on their cheap plastic card. Or even simpler issue a simple sticker that confers some national or federal carry designation that already exists? Thus a NJ resident holding a Utah or NH permit would have the same privileges as an FBI agent, but subject to state laws on carry into schools, tranny bathrooms, lesbian wedding celebrations, etc.

 

Note the distinction is purely ceremonial, fictional, and utterly stupid but it's the kind of thing that lawyers respect in their own strange way. It's not a Utah license being shoved down Loretta Weinberg's throat, it's a federal license.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just had a brain storm, or brain fart depending on your take.

 

As abhorrent as the notion may sound -- and here I echo Mipa's view that oppressive federal law may serve to relieve oppression within the states -- the solution here may be some sort of national carry license. I know, I know, more bureaucracy, paperwork, federal intrusion. But what if you could, for $39.95 and proof of a valid carry license from any state, obtain something similar to a SS card but for firearm carry? To make this as unobtrusive as possible each state would simply have to change the nonsense they stamp on their cheap plastic card. Or even simpler issue a simple sticker that confers some national or federal carry designation that already exists? Thus a NJ resident holding a Utah or NH permit would have the same privileges as an FBI agent, but subject to state laws on carry into schools, tranny bathrooms, lesbian wedding celebrations, etc.

 

Note the distinction is purely ceremonial, fictional, and utterly stupid but it's the kind of thing that lawyers respect in their own strange way. It's not a Utah license being shoved down Loretta Weinberg's throat, it's a federal license.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to pour hot diarrhea on all those smiling deluded old fuckers. They look like pensioner-tard refugees from the education system. 

 

Problem here is that, according to the legal fiction that permits regulating 2A out of meaningful existence in NJ, the federalists are 100% correct. Barring a SCOTUS ruling that the plain language meaning of 2A means what it says, Hudson's law is an undue usurpation of states' rights to regulate what is seen nationally as an optional right.

 

It probably won't pass and/or withstand Supreme Ct. review -- even if Trump's guy is sworn in in time -- for that reason. A right-leaning SCOTUS has already decided that NJ's particular legal fiction should stand. Replacing Scalia with the most conservative judge in the universe won't affect the court's makeup enough to cause them to treat lower court intervention in this matter any differently than they did Drake. So if the Senate miraculously passes it -- a long shot considering how many Republicfuckers are against Trump -- we'd have about 13 minutes to strap on our stuff and drive downtown before some federal court invalidates the law. I'm sure the lawyers have their briefs already written.

 

BTW does anyone understand that stupid blurb from "predict-a-gov"? The bill won't pass because "the primary sponsor is a Republican" and "the overall text of the bill does little to its chances of being enacted"? What kind of double-talk nonsense is that? Is this a shadow site for CNN?

 

The reciprocity bill specifically cites interstate commerce, so it kinda squeaks around the problem of "bear arms" not being properly respected.  If they make a carve out to exclude this "regulation" of "commerce" it could certainly open up a can of worms for them.  

 

I just had a brain storm, or brain fart depending on your take.

 

As abhorrent as the notion may sound -- and here I echo Mipa's view that oppressive federal law may serve to relieve oppression within the states -- the solution here may be some sort of national carry license. I know, I know, more bureaucracy, paperwork, federal intrusion. But what if you could, for $39.95 and proof of a valid carry license from any state, obtain something similar to a SS card but for firearm carry? To make this as unobtrusive as possible each state would simply have to change the nonsense they stamp on their cheap plastic card. Or even simpler issue a simple sticker that confers some national or federal carry designation that already exists? Thus a NJ resident holding a Utah or NH permit would have the same privileges as an FBI agent, but subject to state laws on carry into schools, tranny bathrooms, lesbian wedding celebrations, etc.

 

Note the distinction is purely ceremonial, fictional, and utterly stupid but it's the kind of thing that lawyers respect in their own strange way. It's not a Utah license being shoved down Loretta Weinberg's throat, it's a federal license.

 

I hate the notion of a federal carry license for a couple of reasons.  Though, I don't think I ever saw anyone propose simply adding a federal endorsement to a state's license.  Haha.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just had a brain storm, or brain fart depending on your take.

 

As abhorrent as the notion may sound -- and here I echo Mipa's view that oppressive federal law may serve to relieve oppression within the states -- the solution here may be some sort of national carry license. I know, I know, more bureaucracy, paperwork, federal intrusion. But what if you could, for $39.95 and proof of a valid carry license from any state, obtain something similar to a SS card but for firearm carry? To make this as unobtrusive as possible each state would simply have to change the nonsense they stamp on their cheap plastic card. Or even simpler issue a simple sticker that confers some national or federal carry designation that already exists? Thus a NJ resident holding a Utah or NH permit would have the same privileges as an FBI agent, but subject to state laws on carry into schools, tranny bathrooms, lesbian wedding celebrations, etc.

 

Note the distinction is purely ceremonial, fictional, and utterly stupid but it's the kind of thing that lawyers respect in their own strange way. It's not a Utah license being shoved down Loretta Weinberg's throat, it's a federal license.

I've been suggesting this for years on various forums and people always throw up all over it because of fears of encouraging the big bad federal gubmint.  A particularly inane objection is that what is given can be taken away.  True, but the same goes for national reciprocity legislation, doesn't it?  The key distinction is that a federal license would NOT SUPERSEDE LESS RESTRICTIVE STATE LAW.  People in free states who feel they don't need a 50 state license and want to rely on their own states constitutional carry or permitting system and interstate reciprocity could do so.  They would never need to get involved with the feds.  Those who live in places like NJ, or who want to have the peace of mind to be able to carry in all 50 states without worrying about reciprocity,could get a Federal Permit.  People could have either or both, up to them.  The basis for such a license would be 1) protection of a civil right (2A), just like the Feds legislate in other civil rights areas (eg Title VII) and 2) interstate commerce, without overruling any state that chooses a less permissive standard.  The federal license could be similar to the NJ license -- training, background check and proficiency test, just without justifiable need or other form of discretion -- which would severely undercut objections or legal challenges by states like NJ,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been suggesting this for years on various forums and people always throw up all over it because of fears of encouraging the big bad federal gubmint.  A particularly inane objection is that what is given can be taken away.  True, but the same goes for national reciprocity legislation, doesn't it?  The key distinction is that a federal license would NOT SUPERSEDE LESS RESTRICTIVE STATE LAW.  People in free states who feel they don't need a 50 state license and want to rely on their own states constitutional carry or permitting system and interstate reciprocity could do so.  They would never need to get involved with the feds.  Those who live in places like NJ, or who want to have the peace of mind to be able to carry in all 50 states without worrying about reciprocity,could get a Federal Permit.  People could have either or both, up to them.  The basis for such a license would be 1) protection of a civil right (2A), just like the Feds legislate in other civil rights areas (eg Title VII) and 2) interstate commerce, without overruling any state that chooses a less permissive standard.  The federal license could be similar to the NJ license -- training, background check and proficiency test, just without justifiable need or other form of discretion -- which would severely undercut objections or legal challenges by states like NJ,

Gotcha 100% but the problem with less permissive standards is it steps on too many toes. Every shall-issue and may-issue state has its own nonsense, from justifiable need to high fees to training. Although I believe in permitless carry an entire legal industry is built on states screwing with us on guns or everything else. It goes beyond reasonable regulation more often than not. Even Vermont, which never had gun laws, prohibits carry in courtrooms and schools. That is the legal climate that will undo this law, not Weinberg kicking and screaming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gotcha 100% but the problem with less permissive standards is it steps on too many toes. Every shall-issue and may-issue state has its own nonsense, from justifiable need to high fees to training. Although I believe in permitless carry an entire legal industry is built on states screwing with us on guns or everything else. It goes beyond reasonable regulation more often than not. Even Vermont, which never had gun laws, prohibits carry in courtrooms and schools. That is the legal climate that will undo this law, not Weinberg kicking and screaming.

I want to understand what you are saying and I'm not sure I do.  Under the system I suggested, no shall issue state would be affected. Essentially, I am suggesting that that the Feds adopt a completely voluntary shall issue system, modeled after the strictest form of shall issue permitting system (ie, NJ minus justifiable need).  The training requirement could simply be based on NRA courses -- ie take a basic pistol class and maybe the equivalent of personal protection outside the home.  That would negate NJ, NY, MD, etc claiming that untrained, unvetted people would wander their streets with guns.  The answer to that would be no, the Feds are requiring pretty much exactly what you require, we are just not allowing you to arbitrarily deny people permits.  As to prohibiting carry in courtrooms and schools, even under the reciprocity law those types of restrictions would still apply.  Perhaps a federal law creating the permit could spell out areas where the permit is not valid -- courtrooms, jails, schools (without permission of the school administrator) etc.  There are certainly complications, but there are many complications and problems with national reciprocity as well.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does the count actually matter? Isn't this bill stuck in committee?

 

I know the number is a good indication of support and likelihood to pass but it's not an active metric in the short term.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm thinking functional action by our representatives in 6 months. Right now, 1/2 are mourning and 1/2 are saying " shit! I have to actually work now"

 

I like the co sponsors. It indicates the traction on this course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once you move something to federal there will never be redress. They can change the rules whenever they want and nobody will be able to be represented or fight back. Just clean reciprocity is what we need, and I'm OK with Congress doing that.

THIS^^^^

 

The next Democratic President  will appoint a liberal AG who could make the standards and/or fees onerous. They do this all the time with other regulations - environmental, labor, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Problem here is that, according to the legal fiction that permits regulating 2A out of meaningful existence in NJ, the federalists are 100% correct. Barring a SCOTUS ruling that the plain language meaning of 2A means what it says, Hudson's law is an undue usurpation of states' rights to regulate what is seen nationally as an optional right.

 

I suppose the same argument could be said about FOPA  being an undue usurpation of "state's rights"

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Constitution trumps states. Always has, always should.

I'm not a citizen of a state, I am a citizen of a country

I don't agree with anything you just said.

 

I suppose the same argument could be said about FOPA being an undue usurpation of "state's rights"

I think there is an argument that can be made that traveling through other states unmolested is within the purview of the interstate commerce clause. I think it's very thin.

 

But if we get rid of the 70,000 illegal federal laws and 2 million federal regulations (I pulled those numbers out of my ass) I will be happy to get rid of FOPA.

 

Point being, yeah, it's wrong. But the federal government is a massive, massive mess of illegal oppression and domination. That's all it does, 24/7, it breaks the law. So when they get rid of all that crap I'm willing to give up the few bones of freedom they have illegally thrown our way against the States. Your move, feds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Up to 159 cosponsors now and finally a representative from New Jersey climbed on board. Rep. Thomas MacArthur R-3 signed on yesterday. Eleven other representatives, four of which are republicans need to join him. I have written my representative ( a republican ) three times and have yet to get a response. Maybe someone with a set will run against him in the next primary election.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone see the article regarding Texas Republican U.S. Sen. John Cornyn and his plan to introduce another reciprocacy bill? Doesn't sound like that one would benefit NJ in any way though.

 

http://www.guns.com/2017/02/27/cornyn-set-to-bring-national-reciprocity-bill-to-senate/

Why do feel it wouldn't benefit us? The bill isn't posted. And may possibly mirror the house bill.

When I clicked the embedded links, Shaneen Allen popped up. That was nj

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do feel it wouldn't benefit us? The bill isn't posted. And may possibly mirror the house bill.

When I clicked the embedded links, Shaneen Allen popped up. That was nj

Correct me if I'm wrong but Shaneen Allen had a PA CCW and was arrested in NJ. That's the type of situation most people think of when they picture CCW reciprocity. That example isn't a good one for "benefiting" NJ.

 

Your point still stands. The text of the bill isn't released so we don't know yet what it contains.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Correct me if I'm wrong but Shaneen Allen had a PA CCW and was arrested in NJ. That's the type of situation most people think of when they picture CCW reciprocity. That example isn't a good one for "benefiting" NJ.

 

Your point still stands. The text of the bill isn't released so we don't know yet what it contains.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Agreed

Here's your point to ponder for Reciprocity. 12(?) states now are constitutional. No paper, no picture, nada.

Permit needs to mean " permit " regardless of star of origin.

Hardship for constitutional carry residents?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed

Here's your point to ponder for Reciprocity. 12(?) states now are constitutional. No paper, no picture, nada.

Permit needs to mean " permit " regardless of star of origin.

Hardship for constitutional carry residents?

 

and who is carrying a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of a State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm or is entitled to carry a concealed firearm in the State in which the person resides, may possess or carry a concealed handgun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK this idea has percolated through my porous brain for a couple of days. Here's the thing.

 

Reciprocity will not pass. It will squeak through the congress but out of respect for their colleagues in NJ, MA, NY, CA and half a dozen other states no democrap except for Manchin will vote for it. They will deflect criticism by telling their constituents in shall-issue states that it doesn't affect them that much, and that they will work on getting more reciprocity agreements (which they won't).

 

Solution: Federal concealed carry stamp available to all firearm licensing authorities. Good in all 50 states. Otherwise all state laws apply. Since all states are now at least "may issue" NJ, NY, etc. can't possibly have a legal leg to stand on in challenging it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...