Spats McGee
Administrator
youngunz4life said:
And what, precisely, makes it "ludicrous at best" to think that the feds will want to set federal standards? I'd call that naive, at best.
Last edited:
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Contact your representative now for ccw
- Thread starter Daugherty16
- Start date
And what, precisely, makes it "ludicrous at best" to think that the feds will want to set federal standards? I'd call that naive, at best.
American Made
New member
You know some states don't like the fed govt because the feds can push them around. They want all of the control(to include the politicians). The fact is, there are goods and bads to both states and fed govts. the federal government of the United States of America is not all that bad and has done some good things for the country. I do agree this world seems a little more tangled and complicated these days...hopefully someday we can loosen up some of the excess baggage and get back to basics.
------------------------------------------------
I dare not speak for my fellow Marine brethren, but as far as I'm concerned, I think you may be surprised to discover how much more similar-minded we are in thought than different. I will not dispute for one moment that the American Civil War did to the federal/state relationship what many claim it did; I'll even go so far as to do you two better: there was some "watershed" movement at the beginning of the 20th century that allowed the feds to claim even more power for themselves, and then, of course, World War II and its immediate aftermath allowed the feds to consolidate that power, cement its standing, and extend it even more.
I absolutely believe in the "radical" notions of the right to secession and the right of a people to self-determination. If, God forbid, it ever came to something drastic, for myself, I know with whom I'd stand.
My kin are some of those brave "Yankees" who, some two and a half centuries ago, stood up to the tyranny of a foreign government by defending their homes, enterprises, and farms with their lives in the name of self-government and self-determination. The challenge they faced, and the risks they willingly shouldered, are on par with those we face today. Many of us carry on that same tradition. We want exactly what you want; it doesn't matter if our accents are different, or if our blood and our hearts are connected to a different homeland.
Perhaps I'm more amused by those around this country who feel such sentiments are entitled only to those who, by accident of birth or bloodline, happen to find themselves on one side of an arbitrarily-drawn geographic line; and those who feel that the proper resolution to the troubles in which we find ourselves is best addressed through the resurrection of old animosities which should remain buried in the past. I am definitely guilty of needling those who feel this way. But I think they do far more harm than good to our cause.
I took an oath to support the Constitution of the United States, and from that time to this, understood the term is in plurality. This Country is composed of States; and when that Government which was established by those States, and that flag, which bears upon it's broad folds and stars, representing those States, is used for the purpose of coercing some of those States, I say my flag I took a bullet for has already been degraded.
The Federalist No. 39
Conformity of the Plan to Republican Principles:
That it will be a federal and not a national act, as these terms are understood by the objectors; the act of the people, as forming so many independent States, not as forming one aggregate nation, is obvious from this single consideration, that it is to result neither from the decision of a majority of the people of the Union, nor from that of a majority of the States. It must result from the unanimous assent of the several States that are parties to it, differing no otherwise from their ordinary assent than in its being expressed, not by the legislative authority, but by that of the people themselves. Were the people regarded in this transaction as forming one nation, the will of the majority of the whole people of the United States would bind the minority, in the same manner as the majority in each State must bind the minority; and the will of the majority must be determined either by a comparison of the individual votes, or by considering the will of the majority of the States as evidence of the will of a majority of the people of the United States. Neither of these rules have been adopted. Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a federal, and not a national constitution.
------------------------------------------------
I dare not speak for my fellow Marine brethren, but as far as I'm concerned, I think you may be surprised to discover how much more similar-minded we are in thought than different. I will not dispute for one moment that the American Civil War did to the federal/state relationship what many claim it did; I'll even go so far as to do you two better: there was some "watershed" movement at the beginning of the 20th century that allowed the feds to claim even more power for themselves, and then, of course, World War II and its immediate aftermath allowed the feds to consolidate that power, cement its standing, and extend it even more.
I absolutely believe in the "radical" notions of the right to secession and the right of a people to self-determination. If, God forbid, it ever came to something drastic, for myself, I know with whom I'd stand.
My kin are some of those brave "Yankees" who, some two and a half centuries ago, stood up to the tyranny of a foreign government by defending their homes, enterprises, and farms with their lives in the name of self-government and self-determination. The challenge they faced, and the risks they willingly shouldered, are on par with those we face today. Many of us carry on that same tradition. We want exactly what you want; it doesn't matter if our accents are different, or if our blood and our hearts are connected to a different homeland.
Perhaps I'm more amused by those around this country who feel such sentiments are entitled only to those who, by accident of birth or bloodline, happen to find themselves on one side of an arbitrarily-drawn geographic line; and those who feel that the proper resolution to the troubles in which we find ourselves is best addressed through the resurrection of old animosities which should remain buried in the past. I am definitely guilty of needling those who feel this way. But I think they do far more harm than good to our cause.
I took an oath to support the Constitution of the United States, and from that time to this, understood the term is in plurality. This Country is composed of States; and when that Government which was established by those States, and that flag, which bears upon it's broad folds and stars, representing those States, is used for the purpose of coercing some of those States, I say my flag I took a bullet for has already been degraded.
The Federalist No. 39
Conformity of the Plan to Republican Principles:
That it will be a federal and not a national act, as these terms are understood by the objectors; the act of the people, as forming so many independent States, not as forming one aggregate nation, is obvious from this single consideration, that it is to result neither from the decision of a majority of the people of the Union, nor from that of a majority of the States. It must result from the unanimous assent of the several States that are parties to it, differing no otherwise from their ordinary assent than in its being expressed, not by the legislative authority, but by that of the people themselves. Were the people regarded in this transaction as forming one nation, the will of the majority of the whole people of the United States would bind the minority, in the same manner as the majority in each State must bind the minority; and the will of the majority must be determined either by a comparison of the individual votes, or by considering the will of the majority of the States as evidence of the will of a majority of the people of the United States. Neither of these rules have been adopted. Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a federal, and not a national constitution.
Last edited:
This isn't law and I don't expect it to be, but if it was it would give anit-gunners and the governor of Illinois another reason not to pass our own CCW law.
If Illinois wants to only issue to residents 21 and over, conduct a criminal background check with the county and national databases, and require an 8 hour class. I am OK with that.
Let's say the bill won't appease anti-gun politicians in Illinois minus those provisions (which it won't), instead of just being able to compromise and pass a bill stipulating 21 years of age, 8 hour training, & check... the anti-gun politicians can argue that under HR 822, passing a CCW law of any kind allows certain people under the age of 21, with no training and not having undergone a criminal background check to carry in Illinois.
It would be a hard sell.
When we argue this again in Illinois, I wouldn't be surprised if the anti-gunners mention HR 822 anyway... even though it isn't law, the spectre of 822 will be invoked...
If Illinois wants to only issue to residents 21 and over, conduct a criminal background check with the county and national databases, and require an 8 hour class. I am OK with that.
Let's say the bill won't appease anti-gun politicians in Illinois minus those provisions (which it won't), instead of just being able to compromise and pass a bill stipulating 21 years of age, 8 hour training, & check... the anti-gun politicians can argue that under HR 822, passing a CCW law of any kind allows certain people under the age of 21, with no training and not having undergone a criminal background check to carry in Illinois.
It would be a hard sell.
When we argue this again in Illinois, I wouldn't be surprised if the anti-gunners mention HR 822 anyway... even though it isn't law, the spectre of 822 will be invoked...
youngunz4life
New member
countzero
You might be missing the point and/or please don't listen to everything you hear. This same hogwash was being said when LEOSA was trying to pass(for decades). Someone said that on the thread. Is it true? maybe but I doubt it.
Federal law trumps state law. The passing of the bill(when it happens) will cause some other things to happen pretty immediately in my opinion whether just before, at the same time, or immediately after. I am confident - obviously there are people that disagree with me, but it is good we have a record of this thread for when this all eventually "goes down" - that when this bill passes it WILL NOT MATTER that Illinois states that they do not want people CCWing in their state. federal law will trump state law and IL will only be able to restrict residents like you.
To add further, I believe that the law will state the only CCWs valid for United States travel will be CCW issued from your home state. i do not believe someone from NV getting a non-resident CCW from UT will be covered(at least at first). Now if IL still says that they will not issue CCW for their home residents, that will be a sight to see but it seems you all would allow it.
To be blunt, the federal government very well might tell IL they have to allow their residents to participate in some fashion or another in this new program. Now, either the federal government truly is trying to steal people's rights, gain total control, and all of these other conspiracy theories, or they are going to just make CCW legal and do some good. By the way, no state has the get-go to say no when they DO pass this bill. Case in point when America decided that 18yr olds able to drink wasn't correct conformity. It was a state issue...well the federal government stopped highway money and a host of other stuff until each state bowed down and agreed to change the drinking age from 18 to 21(almost like a parent using tricks and tactics to out-wit a loved child).
Bottom line, I am either right or completely wrong. I am very confident that I am right. People should take it when we can get it and only time will tell.
Saying:
is sad and disheartening. I like the fire but you guys(as in Illinois) obviously need some help because - as mentioned - 'get out and vote them all out' doesn't seem to be working, sort of like trying to get America to boycott the gas stations at this point.
all the best
This isn't law and I don't expect it to be, but if it was it would give anit-gunners and the governor of Illinois another reason not to pass our own CCW law.
You might be missing the point and/or please don't listen to everything you hear. This same hogwash was being said when LEOSA was trying to pass(for decades). Someone said that on the thread. Is it true? maybe but I doubt it.
Federal law trumps state law. The passing of the bill(when it happens) will cause some other things to happen pretty immediately in my opinion whether just before, at the same time, or immediately after. I am confident - obviously there are people that disagree with me, but it is good we have a record of this thread for when this all eventually "goes down" - that when this bill passes it WILL NOT MATTER that Illinois states that they do not want people CCWing in their state. federal law will trump state law and IL will only be able to restrict residents like you.
To add further, I believe that the law will state the only CCWs valid for United States travel will be CCW issued from your home state. i do not believe someone from NV getting a non-resident CCW from UT will be covered(at least at first). Now if IL still says that they will not issue CCW for their home residents, that will be a sight to see but it seems you all would allow it.
To be blunt, the federal government very well might tell IL they have to allow their residents to participate in some fashion or another in this new program. Now, either the federal government truly is trying to steal people's rights, gain total control, and all of these other conspiracy theories, or they are going to just make CCW legal and do some good. By the way, no state has the get-go to say no when they DO pass this bill. Case in point when America decided that 18yr olds able to drink wasn't correct conformity. It was a state issue...well the federal government stopped highway money and a host of other stuff until each state bowed down and agreed to change the drinking age from 18 to 21(almost like a parent using tricks and tactics to out-wit a loved child).
Bottom line, I am either right or completely wrong. I am very confident that I am right. People should take it when we can get it and only time will tell.
Saying:
I'll be the first to admit that our laws concerning gun ownership and carry in Illinois are bad - but they're OUR BAD LAWS
OURS !
is sad and disheartening. I like the fire but you guys(as in Illinois) obviously need some help because - as mentioned - 'get out and vote them all out' doesn't seem to be working, sort of like trying to get America to boycott the gas stations at this point.
all the best
oneounceload
Moderator
When the "standards" will be set by tge folks in DC, NYC, Chicago, San Francisco, etc., will those of you in favor of those bill be able to live with that?
The Federal gov't has screwed the pooch on EVERY single social program, every single interstate program, and every single gun law it has ever been involved with.
This won't make it easier, it will make it harder as states that are current somewhat "lenient" by anti groups will be politically forced to adopt the stricter new standards that WILL become part of the Federalization of your state's CCW laws
Seems way too many young folks do not remember LBJ and his "Great Society" and the subsequent downfall of American freedoms and lifestyles under the guise of more freedoms
Please, be careful for what you wish for, you just might get it!
The Federal gov't has screwed the pooch on EVERY single social program, every single interstate program, and every single gun law it has ever been involved with.
This won't make it easier, it will make it harder as states that are current somewhat "lenient" by anti groups will be politically forced to adopt the stricter new standards that WILL become part of the Federalization of your state's CCW laws
Seems way too many young folks do not remember LBJ and his "Great Society" and the subsequent downfall of American freedoms and lifestyles under the guise of more freedoms
Please, be careful for what you wish for, you just might get it!
I take issue with folks that state we are only slowly winning the CCW war. I found the map Al Norris published in another thread over a month ago. Take a look at all of the green counties in the US. We have an overwhelming state level support of CCW even in the states like CA where half of the counties are permissive may issue. Why do we need the Feds to stick their nose in business best left to the states. There are only a few hold out areas best dealt with by the courts.
Yes, let's be patient.
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4777284&postcount=44
Yes, let's be patient.
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4777284&postcount=44
youngunz4life
New member
oneounceload
Do you concede that IF the states are still allowed to make their own decisions on how residents get their CCW & this bill doesn't regulate that, this bill is a good thing?
I would agree with your post if I thought what you said would happen, and that is why I ask. I want to know if you'd be ok IF that didn't happen.
Just like a good business, a micromanaging boss can be a very bad thing. That is why it is still important to allow the states to have the authority with how they do things.
This won't make it easier, it will make it harder as states that are current somewhat "lenient" by anti groups will be politically forced to adopt the stricter new standards that WILL become part of the Federalization of your state's CCW laws
Do you concede that IF the states are still allowed to make their own decisions on how residents get their CCW & this bill doesn't regulate that, this bill is a good thing?
I would agree with your post if I thought what you said would happen, and that is why I ask. I want to know if you'd be ok IF that didn't happen.
Just like a good business, a micromanaging boss can be a very bad thing. That is why it is still important to allow the states to have the authority with how they do things.
youngunz4life
Do you concede that IF the states are still allowed to make their own decisions on how residents get their CCW & this bill doesn't regulate that, this bill is a good thing?
I would agree with your post if I thought what you said would happen, and that is why I ask. I want to know if you'd be ok IF that didn't happen.
Just like a good business, a micromanaging boss can be a very bad thing. That is why it is still important to allow the states to have the authority with how they do things.
I agree it would be a good thing if nothing bad happens.
Heck I even believe the federal government has an obligation to step in.
With out the amendments this bill could have been a good thing.
This bill is a Trojan Horse the way it read right now.
oneounceload
Moderator
Why do you think the Feds, once they get involved, will just step out of the middle of this? They WON'T - look at their "wars" - on poverty, education, terrorism, etc. all just another part of a bloated system where their 'one-size-fits-all" mentality just doesn't work.
TSA was supposed to be a small department, now it is the fastest-growing group.
The feds will do the same with this - there will be departments set up, meetings, and some form of uniformity to devise - and if you think NYC, DC, etc. will allow open, blatant CCW to become allowable, you are missing it entirely - they will push for THEIR form of uniformity - with a lot of regulations, costs, etc................
TSA was supposed to be a small department, now it is the fastest-growing group.
The feds will do the same with this - there will be departments set up, meetings, and some form of uniformity to devise - and if you think NYC, DC, etc. will allow open, blatant CCW to become allowable, you are missing it entirely - they will push for THEIR form of uniformity - with a lot of regulations, costs, etc................
Spats McGee
Administrator
Federal law does trump state law, but 822 does not apply to states that flat prohibit CC. Take a look at Section 3: relating to 926D(a)(2): http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h112-822youngunz4life said:Federal law trumps state law. The passing of the bill(when it happens) will cause some other things to happen pretty immediately in my opinion whether just before, at the same time, or immediately after. I am confident - obviously there are people that disagree with me, but it is good we have a record of this thread for when this all eventually "goes down" - that when this bill passes it WILL NOT MATTER that Illinois states that they do not want people CCWing in their state. federal law will trump state law and IL will only be able to restrict residents like you.
To add further, I believe that the law will state the only CCWs valid for United States travel will be CCW issued from your home state. i do not believe someone from NV getting a non-resident CCW from UT will be covered(at least at first). Now if IL still says that they will not issue CCW for their home residents, that will be a sight to see but it seems you all would allow it.
youngunz4life
New member
it is a yes or no question
Spats, I appreciate that. Thanx.
oneounceload, so do you concede what I said IF I end up being right about that(even though you think it won't come to that)? *refer to my post127*
Spats, I appreciate that. Thanx.
oneounceload, so do you concede what I said IF I end up being right about that(even though you think it won't come to that)? *refer to my post127*
oneounceload
Moderator
It becomes moot if nothing changes with the states - you will still be allowed to carry in states like mine (FL) from just about everywhere else, while you'll still NOT be able to carry in IL-so what will it have accomplished then?
Federal intervention in ANYTHING inevitably leads to restrictions, whether it was with holding highway money to get state to raise the drinking age or similar - if you really do not think this will go the same way..............
well, let's just say I would be very surprised, as they haven't done anything right when it comes to usurping states' rights for some well-intentioned, but misguided national "uniformity"
Federal intervention in ANYTHING inevitably leads to restrictions, whether it was with holding highway money to get state to raise the drinking age or similar - if you really do not think this will go the same way..............
well, let's just say I would be very surprised, as they haven't done anything right when it comes to usurping states' rights for some well-intentioned, but misguided national "uniformity"
Last edited:
American Made
New member
Federal law trumps state law.
------------------------
Not if the federal law is outside of the Constitution. The only authority the States delegated can be found in Article 1 section 8...
The supremacy of the constitution is an admonition to all departments, both state and federal, that they were bound to obey the restrictions it imposes. In relation to the federal government, it literally declares that its laws must conform to its exclusive and concurrent powers; and in relation to the state governments, it implies, that theirs must also conform to their exclusive and concurrent powers. It neither enlarges nor abridges the powers delegated or reserved. And it is enforced, not by an oath to be faithful to the supreme constructions of the federal departments, but by an oath to be faithful to the supremacy of the constitution.
------------------------
Not if the federal law is outside of the Constitution. The only authority the States delegated can be found in Article 1 section 8...
The supremacy of the constitution is an admonition to all departments, both state and federal, that they were bound to obey the restrictions it imposes. In relation to the federal government, it literally declares that its laws must conform to its exclusive and concurrent powers; and in relation to the state governments, it implies, that theirs must also conform to their exclusive and concurrent powers. It neither enlarges nor abridges the powers delegated or reserved. And it is enforced, not by an oath to be faithful to the supreme constructions of the federal departments, but by an oath to be faithful to the supremacy of the constitution.
Last edited:
I take issue with folks that state we are only slowly winning the CCW war. I found the map Al Norris published in another thread over a month ago. Take a look at all of the green counties in the US. We have an overwhelming state level support of CCW even in the states like CA where half of the counties are permissive may issue. Why do we need the Feds to stick their nose in business best left to the states. There are only a few hold out areas best dealt with by the courts. - Alaska444
I agree and I have a feeling that we are close in Illinois.
Here is a link to a progressive (liberal) talk show, where the host and the guests talk about a number of issues, including changing attitudes in the African American community (typically responsible for electing staunch anti-gun politicians), they talk about a lot of different things - they start talking about gun control at around 11:16 in the piece.
http://www.illinoiscarry.com/news//3-69.php
We only need 3 state representatives to change their vote.
Three representatives ! That's 3 votes away from a super-majority that would over-rule a veto and trump home-rule laws for the municipalities that try to ban carry within their city limits.
A lot has changed since the issue was debated last, Wisconsin passed their CCW law, and Illinois has become the only state that doesn't allow some sort of carry. The fact that Illinois is the last state is a huge factor in making politicians think twice about current Illinois gun law.
It's possible that if we didn't have 2 court cases going on right now that we would be debating the Illinois carry law again. Now things are on hold on the legislative front while everyone waits to hear what the courts say.
Even if the bill was defeated again, gubernatorial elections are not that far away.
Originally, I was for this bill, as it stated within its "Findings" section that the bill was being enacted on 14th amendment authority.
That, despite the authority cited in the Congressional Record (Commerce Clause). However, by the time the Bill left the committee, that section and related language were stripped from the Bill. What was voted on (and passed) and sent to the Senate was a bill whose sole authority is as stated in the Congressional Record:
Sorry, using the Commerce Clause is simply a further expansion of FedGov power that I cannot support.
That, despite the authority cited in the Congressional Record (Commerce Clause). However, by the time the Bill left the committee, that section and related language were stripped from the Bill. What was voted on (and passed) and sent to the Senate was a bill whose sole authority is as stated in the Congressional Record:
[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 27 (Friday, February 18, 2011)]
[House]
[Page H1252]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office (www.gpo.gov)
By Mr. STEARNS:
H.R. 822.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant to the following:
Article I, Section 8, Clause 3, Commerce Clause
Sorry, using the Commerce Clause is simply a further expansion of FedGov power that I cannot support.
As long as the original findings were left intact, I was willing to support the legislation.
Those findings cited both Heller and McDonald as binding case law and the 14th amendment as authority to expand the right to keep and bear arms. That is what a court would look at, should the law be challenged.
That no longer applies. That authority was removed, and the only authority that is left is that which was stated in the C.R. Using the Commerce Clause, any Congress can add any restrictions/qualifications it so decides.
The Supreme Court has as recently as 2004, decided that there are no limits to that Congressional authority (See Raich). Barring something unusual happening with the upcoming "Obama Care" hearings at SCOTUS, how would we stop the Congress?
Besides, we are well within range of getting the right to carry, via the Courts. That is more permanent than some legislation that can be turned (any which way) at any point the legislators decide.
Those findings cited both Heller and McDonald as binding case law and the 14th amendment as authority to expand the right to keep and bear arms. That is what a court would look at, should the law be challenged.
That no longer applies. That authority was removed, and the only authority that is left is that which was stated in the C.R. Using the Commerce Clause, any Congress can add any restrictions/qualifications it so decides.
The Supreme Court has as recently as 2004, decided that there are no limits to that Congressional authority (See Raich). Barring something unusual happening with the upcoming "Obama Care" hearings at SCOTUS, how would we stop the Congress?
Besides, we are well within range of getting the right to carry, via the Courts. That is more permanent than some legislation that can be turned (any which way) at any point the legislators decide.
Today, 06:56 AM #137
icedog88
Senior Member
Join Date: April 16, 2011
Location: norwich ct
Posts: 256
Best case: the IDEA of the bill passing, forces states to adopt a more universal form of reciprocity between ALL states therefore eliminating the need to pass it!Then we could all be happy. Hey, a guy can dream, right?
__________________
"The bended knee is not a tradition of our Corps"-LtGen. Holland M "Howlin' Mad" Smith, USMC,1949
Have you forgotten yet? Look down and swear by the slain of the War that you'll NEVER forget. [Siegfried Sassoon,"Aftermath,"1919]
Travel and reciprocity are not that much of an issue for me personally since I spend almost all of my time on the west coast. The only two states in my travel zone that I don't have reciprocity are Oregon and CA. This bill will not do anything for the CA issue, but as the map that Al put forth shows, we are now winning in over half of the CA counties right now and I suspect more will come soon.
As far as Oregon, I could drive 8 hours and pick up an OR CCW permit anytime, but since I rarely go to OR at this point, it is also a moot issue as well.
Thus, this bill will not do anything of benefit for me at this time. It will on the other hand give congress the authority to Federalize the entire CCW permit process which is NOT a good thing my friends. Stop this Trojan horse and just be patient with where we are heading. In 10 years, the sea of green on Al's map will likely be the answer.
In addition, with a few noted exceptions, you can in almost every part of the US with the combination of a couple of CCW permits from different states, meet your travel needs right now. Stay the course and don't let the camel under the tent, he will never leave.
Travel and reciprocity are not that much of an issue for me personally since I spend almost all of my time on the west coast. The only two states in my travel zone that I don't have reciprocity are Oregon and CA. This bill will not do anything for the CA issue, but as the map that Al put forth shows, we are now winning in over half of the CA counties right now and I suspect more will come soon.
As far as Oregon, I could drive 8 hours and pick up an OR CCW permit anytime, but since I rarely go to OR at this point, it is also a moot issue as well.
Thus, this bill will not do anything of benefit for me at this time. It will on the other hand give congress the authority to Federalize the entire CCW permit process which is NOT a good thing my friends. Stop this Trojan horse and just be patient with where we are heading. In 10 years, the sea of green on Al's map will likely be the answer.
In addition, with a few noted exceptions, you can in almost every part of the US with the combination of a couple of CCW permits from different states, meet your travel needs right now. Stay the course and don't let the camel under the tent, he will never leave.
Lucky for you! On the east coast, not so much. Been over that a couple of times in this thread. Waiting for the laws or the politicians to change here is like watching kids pick their noses. It's gross, doesn't turn out well, and they are at it forever!