What if Dubya said?

E

EnochGale

New member
To start a debate:

What if George said during his speech that he proposes the TX CHL system be made the law of the land. This would give shall issue to all states including those that don't shall issue but would add requirements to some shall issue states.

Or if he says the same thing but the price for it is that there would be NICS checks for private sales at gun shows (without the long waiting period nonsense though).

Would you support such proposals, why or why not?
 
What if George said during his speech that he proposes the TX CHL system be made the law of the land.

HELL NO! I don't understand why Texans get all wet and squishy over their system; no open carry under any circumstances, and some of the weirdest restrictions I've ever seen. If Junior said he would make Vermont carry the law of the land, fine, he'd get my vote.

Or if he says the same thing but the price for it is that there would be NICS checks for private sales at gun shows (without the long waiting period nonsense though).

Again, HELL NO! Tell me *exactly* what's the big fat hairy deal about private sales at gun shows as opposed to, say, my living room. There ain't none.

These two suggestions, quite frankly, are lame.
 
I'd be willing to bet that the most staunchly pro-gun folks (like Coinneach), and the most staunchly anti-gun folks would be against it.

I'd also bet that a lot of middle-of-the-road gun owners would think that it's a great idea.

I'm somewhere in the middle of the middle myself; but I don't think I'm going to stay there...

I'd hate to give up the freedom of private gun sales in Ohio like we have them now. On the other hand, I'd like to be able to carry legally to protect myself and my family.

My rational side tells me that both are an infringement on my rights. And that sacrificing these rights would be doing a disservice to my children, who I hope will be able to own and carry guns someday. My emotional side tells me that doing this would allow me to feel confident that I could defend my family if the need should arise. And that by not doing so now, my children may not be around to own guns someday.

Both have their good sides and bad sides. Why should I have to choose one or the other?

<uh, oh....I feel a "stream of consciousness" rant coming on....>

I guess it's a matter of belief. Either you believe in the Second Amendment or you don't. I can have it both ways. I can carry concealed in defiance of an immoral and unconstitutional law. I can protect my children as I see fit. I can continue to purchase and sell guns privately in my state. I can pass down this heritage to my children, unfettered by more unconstitutional laws.

I am not committing any crime against my fellow man by buying, selling, or carrying a gun. I am morally right to want to defend my family. I refuse to allow an unconstitutional law to prevent me from keeping my family safe. I will neither be comforted nor consoled by knowing that I am a law-abiding citizen while my family lies dead at my feet. I refuse to bow to the pressures of immoral men who have passed these laws and by those who refuse to repeal them. The law offers my family no protection in the face of danger. The gun offers me protection from danger, but loss of liberty via the law for having it. I am damned by the law either way.

The choice is mine. I can decide how to proceed without regard to the law. It is immoral and unconstitutional and offers me no safety. I choose to live my life in a moral way without regard to the immoral laws that men make. Their laws try to crush me into a mold that will shape my behavior and my beliefs. I am not going to let immoral men decide anything for me. I will decide and come to terms with my decision with myself, my family and my God. That is all that matters. Let posterity judge me for what I decide. I choose to be free!

</rant>


------------------
RKBA!
"The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security"
Ohio Constitution, Article I, Section 4
Concealed Carry is illegal in Ohio.
Ohioans for Concealed Carry Website
 
Private sales at the gun show is just an easy way to hack away at the private sale period. They can say it's SIMILAR to a commercial sale.

Of course, your private sale is the final loophole.

They sort of have to nip the private sales thing in the bud before REALLY implementing licencing/registration, though - and they need that before confiscating anything.

(They've been pretty stoopid though in banning/grandfathering before having a licencing/registration system).


Battler.
 
At least at present, the answer is a resounding "hell no".

See, without a firm constitutional committment to the RKBA from the courts, the legislature can always crank up the standards at any time, or even confiscate based on the resulting "gunnie rosters" created.

Now...if the Supremes do TWO things:

1) Recognize the 2A as an individual right

PLUS

2) Admit that the 14A applied the 2A against the states...

...then we're in a different boat. IF they can show a case for adding training in legal use of force and basic safety to gun carry plus a background check has a net positive effect, then we can perhaps allow it. But, we'll want TOTAL carry rights with the sole exceptions of court houses and PD stations, and the permit fees must be the *minimum* necessary to get the job done, and that needs to be so stated in the enabling law.

Side notes: in many areas of the US, the "gun culture" has been systematically destroyed. I live in a Calif county of 950,000+ (Contra Costa) with NO public firing ranges whatsoever. That's just nuts, and it's just one side effect of a population totally gun-clueless. Yet there's a high crime rate; full-tilt Vermont Carry may be more than some can handle. Sorry if that strikes anybody as grabber-ish; I do agree that Vermont Carry would be better than the current near-total disarmament and that after a period to adapt via widespread shall-issue, a "Vermont conversion" should be politically and practically possible, in maybe 5 to 10 years. TX is maybe getting ready now.

Jim
 
To our dear moderator Coinneach:

NICS checks are probably going to come to gun shows anyway for private sales. It almost happened this time around, so when it does just complain about it. The NRA supported it.
The Colorado petition drive was very successful.

As far as your comment that the idea was lame - that is not productive. If you have logical reason to oppose say so. If not, you contribute nothing.

I might say that I regard your response as pathetic but that would be contrary to the socalled spirit of the group.

You have already accepted such checks for new guns. Why didn't you start the revolution then?

Don't hold your breath for the Supremes either. Diana Ross will come out for the 2nd Amend before the SCOTUS wipes away all gun laws.

As far as the TX system - adding that to the states that don't have shall issue permits would greatly benefit those folks. Oh, I guess you don't care about them because of your purity.
 
NICS checks are probably going to come to gun shows anyway for private sales.

Bend over and take it with a smile, huh?

The NRA supported it.

Which is concrete evidence that NRA doesn't support 2A.

As far as your comment that the idea was lame - that is not productive. If you have logical reason to oppose say so. If not, you contribute nothing.

Hey, you asked. I say that further infringements on 2A are lame. Logically and philosophically.

You have already accepted such checks for new guns. Why didn't you start the revolution then?

Oh, I don't know. Maybe because I wasn't even BORN until 1969?

Don't hold your breath for the Supremes either. Diana Ross will come out for the 2nd Amend before the SCOTUS wipes away all gun laws.

*sigh* Where did I ever say that I have any faith at all in SCOTUS, or any subdivision of the Justice (sic) Dept?

As far as the TX system - adding that to the states that don't have shall issue permits would greatly benefit those folks. Oh, I guess you don't care about them because of your purity.

Look, if you examine the TX system as compared to, say, CO or AZ, you'll see how screwed it is. I mean, what about that stupid auto/revolver distinction? Your buddy Junior is responsible for that inanity. It's "shall-issue," you say? So freakin' what? We already HAVE national shall-issue; it's called the Second Amendment. Encouraging restrictions on 2A is no better than handing a tube of KY to the guy intent on having his way with you. You're still taking it up the wazoo.

Or is the concept of ZERO restrictions on RKBA too ideologically pure for you? :rolleyes:

Coinneach, taking a deep breath and going out for a smoke...
 
Hey, Enoch, you said you were raising this to start a debate. Then when Coinneach took up the "opposed" side of the issue, cited specific reasons for his opposition, and even proposed an alternative that he would support, you turned huffy. From here on the sidelines, his post is not the one that looks pathetic.

In the words of a great philosopher, can't we all just get along?
 
Awright... Let's take it easy here folks!

EnochGale never said whether he was for or against this hypothetical proposal. Just something to start a debate.

There's no reason for anyone to take comments personally, or make sarcastic remarks. Let's try and clear this up and stick to the hypothetical proposal.
 
EnochGale; If George W. said such a thing during his speech. It would inflame every socialist lib and others "Liberal Media" out their. It would make it twice as hard to get elected. They would put even more lies out. We would see the most massive geathering of the left, than you, nor I could ever imagine.

Maybe we would be victors, but I don`t want to gamble on it.

This can all take place after he is elected and forget the Price, ( NICS checks for private sales, and Gun Shows )
 
It's been many moons since I was in high school, but I seem to remember that Drivers Education took about half a year.

I see no reason why Weapon Education can't take up the rest of the school year. Train the kids in Gun Safety, basic techniques and let them shoot some shotguns and .22's belonging to the school.

Then put a barcode on the back of each kids' Drivers License. Issue each gun store and police department battery-powered barcode readers. With no connections to any State or Federal database. Have the barcode trigger a red light for one set of numbers, and a green light for any other number.

Green--sell them the weapon/carry wherever and whatever you want.
Red--don't sell them the weapon/leave your weapons at home.

It's easy, it's cheap and it's anonymous. With no transmission capability in the barcode readers, the Federal Government would be rather efficiently shut out of the loop. And it would be nice to only have to worry about a 9-volt battery running low, instead of NICS being down for the next four months.

Comments?

LawDog

[This message has been edited by LawDog (edited August 01, 2000).]
 
Lawdog, I like it.

I've been proposing something somewhat similar, a system whereby you seek private firearms safety/legal/basictactical training on your own somewhat at the level Ayoob does with LFI-1 parts one and two. Your "diploma" at that point serves as your "CCW" along with lacking a felony record (as in Vermont Carry).

In other words, there's no gov't records of who's packing.

And assuming you're not a felon or violent misdemeanor(note1) "prohibited person" and are found packing sans diploma, a first offense should be mild - $50 fine and a "fix it ticket" to go get training. Second offense, crank the fine up to where it'd be cheaper to have gotten the training.

That way, if you're not "generally a gun person" but are law abiding and have a sudden urgent need/desire to pack, you can do so with acceptable risk levels while having scheduled the training. If that makes sense.

This sort of "Vermont with training" might fly politically in states that would otherwise convert to shall-issue, or maintain it.

Some creative options: put a special $10/$20 tax on the classes to pay for state computer upgrades allowing street cops to determine the felony status on pullovers faster and more reliably. That'll help with broad LEO support...

Jim

Note1: in most states that revoke gun rights on misdemeanors, it's for a limited time period after the specified offense. Calif has a whole schedule worked out, with generally 5 or 10 years worth of scheduled no-guns depending on conviction.

At least for the immediate future, we're gonna have to live with this.
 
lawdog/Jim M,

Not bad at all in my way of thinking & a quick read of it all. Sounds promising. Don't really see how we could get all "up" about it .... perhaps a true compromise. We'd not be giving up anything private, etc.

I do have one caveat in that we do, still, (allegedly) have The 2nd. In absolute principle, I'm am in the "Coin's a wimp" camp (many ;) s, BTW) because possession of no item is any offence - only the mis-use of same. On that I will stand firm.

However, in the political climate, I can understand the need for a true compromise (never happen) where we would actually be "allowed" national reciprocity CCW (with not many strings) & I am willing to give a little to gain a little (lot).

But & alas, GWB, if stating such on TeeWee, would be raped by the pundits in a heartbeat nor will the "elite" ever "allow" us commoners any further freedoms without huge turnovers - which I believe won't happen neither.
 
If you disagree with an idea, most polite people would explain why without insult.

Coinneach chose to respond with out logic and
insults to TX. That lowered my opinion of his response. We got the CHL bill through compromise - how about that. The GOA tried to rave about Vermont and sabotage the bill.

If that was the case and it did happen, we can point to CHL holders who would now be injured, dead or raped. I personally would rather have them safe them listen to folks wait for the Second Coming of Vermont.

Later discussion by others was productive.

I also think that we should make reasonable and strong positive proposals. Liberals and Dems say look at Bush for signing those gun laws. Then the GOP just tries to hide that he did that.

I would respect the man more if he said that he did a GOOD thing and the rest of the country could benefit from it.

As far as Vermont carry, that will never happen in conceivable real time.

If we could get a CHL system like TX for the country, jump at it. If you don't like it, carry without it.

I also want to say something about politeness again. I posed a debate. Debate is based on facts and logic. Let's continue this here.

No hard feelings to anyone but let's do ideas and suppor them. The TX system works and might sell.
 
I guess I'd react about the same as if he said we should all put shoe polish in our ears.
I don't think he is that dumb.
 
Let's see, the hypothetical offer is that Junior would allow us to put our names in a state database of pistol packers, in exchange for us also putting our names in a Federal database of gun purchasers.

I don't get it. What's the upside?

Carry permit? We don't got no carry permits. We don't NEED no steenking carry permits. The 2nd Amendement to the Constitution of the United States is our damn permit!

--The Beez
 
Going with the Rat on this one. Why should we need a permit or training? Far as I am concered the first court to rule on the second amendment has it covered.

Bliss v. Commonweath (1822) Kentucky SC


This was a case of a man bearing a sword cane and the goverment charging that he could not carry concealed. He (BLISS) appealed his conviction, arguing that it (law) violated the Kentucky state constitution. "that the right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the state shall not be questioned"

But to be in conflict with the constitution, it is NOT essential that the act should contain a prohibition against bearing arms in EVERY possible form; it is the right to bear arms in the defence of the citizens and the state, that is secured by the constitution, and WHATEVER restrains the full and complete exercise of that right, though not an entire destruction of it, is FORBIDDEN by the explicit language of the constitution. If, therefore, the act in question imposes ANY restraint on the right, immaterial what appellation may be given to the act, whether it be an act regulating the manner of bearing arms,or ANY other, the consequence, in reference to the constitution, is precisely the same, and its collison with that instrument equally obvious. And can there be entertained a resonable doubt but the provison of the act import a restraint on the right of the citizens to bear arms? The court apprehends not.
THE RIGHT EXISTED AT THE ADOPTION OF THE CONSTITUTION; it had then no limits short of the moral power of the citizens to exercise it, and it in fact consisted in nothing else but in the liberty of the citizens to bear arms...FOR, IN PRINCIPLE, THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A LAW PROHIBITING THE WEARING OF CONCEALED ARMS, AND A LAW FORBIDDING THE WEARING SUCH AS ARE EXPOSED; AND IF THE FORMER BE UNCONSTITUIONAL, THE LATTER MUST BE SO LIKEWISE.

Not only did "the right to bear arms" include CONCEALED weapons, but this "right existed at the adoption of the [Kentucky] constitution--which reinforces exitsting evidence that the carrying of concealed arms was an accepted and recognized practice in the early years of the Repulic. In response to this decision, "the section was altered in the new constitution of that state, by the addition of the clause, 'BUT THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY MAY PASS LAWS TO PREVENT PERSONS FROM CARRYING CONCEALED ARMS'"

I guess when a constitution gets in your way just write in an exeption. Thank God those idiots couldnt get hold of THE constitution.

They were infinging in 1822!



[This message has been edited by oberkommando (edited August 02, 2000).]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top