On the surface, it sounds good, but it paves the way for total federalization.
Texas already has reciprocity in 35 states.
Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming
Just don't try to go to Canada :) You'll get told you cant' cross the lines with a weapon concealed.
(01-23-2014 03:36 PM)EverRespect Wrote: [ -> ]On the surface, it sounds good, but it paves the way for total federalization.
It does, yes.
If the proponents of "gay marriage" succeed in forcing every state to recognize "gay marriages" as something legal and valid, whether those states want to or not, it really will mark The. End. of limited government in this country and we will be on a final, irrevocable path to the total federalization of everything. I suppose federalization of CCW permits will be a part of that, too.
(01-23-2014 04:07 PM)Native Georgian Wrote: [ -> ] (01-23-2014 03:36 PM)EverRespect Wrote: [ -> ]On the surface, it sounds good, but it paves the way for total federalization.
It does, yes.
If the proponents of "gay marriage" succeed in forcing every state to recognize "gay marriages" as something legal and valid, whether those states want to or not, it really will mark The. End. of limited government in this country and we will be on a final, irrevocable path to the total federalization of everything. I suppose federalization of CCW permits will be a part of that, too.
Oh you guys and your little conspiracies
(01-23-2014 04:07 PM)Native Georgian Wrote: [ -> ] (01-23-2014 03:36 PM)EverRespect Wrote: [ -> ]On the surface, it sounds good, but it paves the way for total federalization.
It does, yes.
If the proponents of "gay marriage" succeed in forcing every state to recognize "gay marriages" as something legal and valid, whether those states want to or not, it really will mark The. End. of limited government in this country and we will be on a final, irrevocable path to the total federalization of everything. I suppose federalization of CCW permits will be a part of that, too.
Why is gay marriage any different than when the Supreme Court forced all states to recognize inter-racial marriages?
In general, I support this. My only concern is the lack of uniformity of standards to obtain one (some states you get it for asking, others require training, etc).
Can a state that requires training, when a holder from a state that doesn't, make going through training a condition of receiving a new permit if you move there (like is done for driver's licenses)?
(01-23-2014 04:07 PM)Native Georgian Wrote: [ -> ]...forcing every state to recognize "gay marriages" as something legal and valid, whether those states want to or not, it really will mark The. End. of limited government in this country and we will be on a final, irrevocable path to the total federalization of everything.
Not Wickard v. Filmore? Or the New Deal? The Great Society? The ACA? Or when women were allowed to vote? Or slavery was abolished? Or an endless list of other things "big government" does?
It's not all that... It's the scary scary gays getting the same protections under the law that are offered to others... That's what shows the federal govt. is going too far?
I'd say this isn't a good idea.
(01-23-2014 05:37 PM)RaiderATO Wrote: [ -> ] (01-23-2014 04:07 PM)Native Georgian Wrote: [ -> ]...forcing every state to recognize "gay marriages" as something legal and valid, whether those states want to or not, it really will mark The. End. of limited government in this country and we will be on a final, irrevocable path to the total federalization of everything.
Not Wickard v. Filmore? Or the New Deal? The Great Society? The ACA? Or when women were allowed to vote? Or slavery was abolished? Or an endless list of other things "big government" does?
It's not all that... It's the scary scary gays getting the same protections under the law that are offered to others... That's what shows the federal govt. is going too far?
The federal government has been "going too far" for a long, long time. You listed some good examples of that alongside some bad examples, but yes all-in-all it is a harmful process that has been developing for a long time.
(01-23-2014 05:21 PM)dbackjon Wrote: [ -> ]In general, I support this. My only concern is the lack of uniformity of standards to obtain one (some states you get it for asking, others require training, etc).
Can a state that requires training, when a holder from a state that doesn't, make going through training a condition of receiving a new permit if you move there (like is done for driver's licenses)?
In VA at least, requirements are by county standard and not state.
If you have a heartbeat and no felonies, my county will give you a CCW. We have had 3 murders in the last decade.
(01-23-2014 03:36 PM)EverRespect Wrote: [ -> ]On the surface, it sounds good, but it paves the way for total federalization.
I don't even like it on the surface... It's New York's damn business if they want to allow person A to carry. Let the courts decide if NY's definition is ok with the 2nd amendment.
....
That being said I would be open to something removing the criminalization of the infraction and also for travel on interstate highways to be permitted (interstate commerce).
But if I carry my gun to New York while visiting my family the state should have a right to take it from me while I am in NY.