But if it was discovered that another state had done away with any testing requirement to obtain a drivers license and they were just giving them out to anyone with the $25 processing fee, wouldn’t you want Ohio to be able to bar people from that state from driving within Ohio? Wouldn’t you want Ohio to be able to determine what is safe and acceptable within their borders?
I’m not really sure what you’re saying here.
How is this any different than a driver license? Ohio doesn’t get to force visitors to apply for an Ohio DL in order to drive within it’s borders. All they can do is require them to obey Ohio laws while doing so.
Because states like NJ and others are arresting people and charging them with felony gun possession for no other reason than they’re in possession of a gun and not engaged in any criminal activity. The only crime they committed was crossing an imaginary line on a map. We’re talking about soccer moms, among others, here.
Are you ok with that? I’m not.
We can’t force any state to stop doing that without NCCR.
And again, it’s common practice for states to accept the standards of other states for various reasons. This one just happens to be about CC.
And I pointed out what Ohio cannot do, which is what you ignored.
And if the law is that they have to have 8 hours of training before they may carry a gun concealed, then how is someone from Missouri who has 0 hours of training following that law?
This is far from true. If you are a lawyer in Missouri, then you have to pass the Ohio bar in order to practice law in Ohio. Same with many, many professions and activities. Ohio has the option of granting reciprocity, but not a requirement.
Really, driver’s licenses are one of the very few things that is granted reciprocity universally, and it is done voluntarily by the states.
So, no, there are no standards that a state is forced to accept that is imposed by another state. You just want it to be because it’s about guns.
Honestly not sure what you are talking about here. I have not been trying to insult you, veiled or otherwise, just trying to get you to stop assuming motivations and poorly interpreting my posts to mean something the opposite of what they mean. Not sure what post you feel that I “didn’t care for” either. But for whatever it is, I’ve let it go.
You were claiming that I thought that Ohio should have authority over Missouri, lay that thought process out for me, if you really think that is the case, otherwise, stop trying to ascribe motivations to me.
Are you aware of any state that has done that? Do you reasonably think that any state would do that?
What I “want” and what the currently-accepted division of power between the states and federal government actually is are miles apart. I’m willing to work within the legal and political realities of our day to advance my interests.
Obviously this leapt right over your head. One tactic which can be employed in a discussion is the use of deliberately inaccurate terminology in an effort to score points by manipulating or misleading others. One can use this tactic or at least defend its use our one can - and should - deplore it. You’re trying to have the best of both worlds, using it when it benefits you and decrying it when it doesn’t.
But it doesn’t work that way. You can insist on accuracy or you can make stuff up, but you cannot expect to get away with doing both.
How well versed do I need to be? Sure, maybe there are a few other phrases you could use that are just a bit closer to a call for violence that would still fall under protected speech, but that was not my point. My point was that it was said that they are all about safety and responsibility, and I showed that they are also about alienating other american citizens and openly calling them out as the enemy.
They could. They choose not to. They choose to honor reciprocity with other states on DL’s, but they don’t have to. It would be silly for them to do so, as that would cause any number of problems, but if a state started letting toddlers drive without any training, then it would make sense for other states to not honor that state’s license without further testing or training.
I assume since you advocate the underlined, you are for open borders? (I actually have no idea your position on that, so you just may be, in which case, you actually bolster your point, but if not, then you are kind of wanting it both ways there.)
Anyway, that won’t actually do anything to prevent people who are ignorant of he gun laws of the state that they are in from going awry of them. There are still laws that need to be followed that differ from state to state, and breaking those laws is illegal.
Unless you advocate that the next step is that all state gun laws are also made uniform.
NCCR won’t stop a state from enforcing its gun laws, even if the CCW part of it transfers.
And I do note in your phrasing that you want to force states to change. You do want Missouri to dictate the gun laws of Ohio.
It is common for states to choose to voluntarily engage in reciprocity for various things. Can you name any times when states are required to accept reciprocity?
You’re conflating professional requirements with individual rights. No one has a constitutional right to practice law in Ohio, or any other state. Same goes for medicine.
And yes, states are required to accept the standards of other states and the federal government for a variety of issues.
Which is an irrelevant “whataboutism” argument.
No, and that is why DL’s are universally accepted in the all the states.
If CCW’s all had a level of requirements that were acceptable to most or all states, then they would have reciprocity too.
That there are states that have 0 requirements to get a CCW is why states should have the right to reject reciprocity. The same as if there were states that required 0 training to operate a motor vehicle, states would reject reciprocity from that state too.
Yeah, that’s not how it played out at all.
I pointed out that dismissing someone’s argument because they misuse a word or phrase is not a useful debate tactic. If you are trying to claim that people are deliberately missing terminology as a “tactic” then I don’t know that that’s really a thing, and it is certainly not something that has been used or defended in this thread. I did not know it was a tactic to be deplored. Can you give me an example of it in use, so I can see what it is you are talking about?
I also pointed out that insulting your debating opponents by calling them gun-grabbers is also not a useful debate tactic. I have not called anyone in this thread a “gun-nut”, as I find that term to be insulting, instead I refer to them as gun advocates. If someone wants to call me a gun control advocate, well, then that’s not entirely accurate, but it does at least describe the side of the debate I am on. If someone wants to call me a gun grabber, then that’s not just insulting, it is inaccurate, as I have no desire to grab anyone’s gun.
I am not conflating anything, I am talking about the times when a state will accept the standards of another state.
Accept the standards of the federal government, I agree. Required to accept the standards of other states? I’ll need an example.
That’s all they can do? Why is that? What law prevents them from doing anything more? :dubious:
Force, huh? :rolleyes:
When you say “there are states with 0 requirements” I assume you’re talking about the states that allow constitutional carry. Meaning that anyone who can legally own a gun can legally carry a gun in that state. Am I right about that?
If so, then surely you understand that since the state (in the case of constitutional carry) has not issued a permit the individual would not have reciprocity with any other state regardless of NCCR. They would have no permit with which to show in another state. And would therefore not be allowed to carry in another state, again, regardless of NCCR.
If they wished to carry in another state they would have to go through the process of obtaining a permit from the state they reside in and would then be subject to all the background checks and training required.
So saying “some states have zero requirements” is a straw man, a red herring. It’s meaningless.
You conveniently clipped the part about soccer moms being arrested for crossing an imaginary line on a map and me specifically asking you if you were ok with that and instead focused on my use of the word ‘force’ in order to stop this practice.
wow… have a nice day.
Except that some states have impossible requirements for CCW, thus the bill is needed, unless the idea is gun owners cant cross state lines.
And no states have 0 requirements. They include being a citizen, age 21 and not having a criminal record.
No.
[/quote]
If so, then surely you understand that since the state (in the case of constitutional carry) has not issued a permit the individual would not have reciprocity with any other state regardless of NCCR. They would have no permit with which to show in another state. And would therefore not be allowed to carry in another state, again, regardless of NCCR.
If they wished to carry in another state they would have to go through the process of obtaining a permit from the state they reside in and would then be subject to all the background checks and training required.
So saying “some states have zero requirements” is a straw man, a red herring. It’s meaningless.
[/QUOTE]
I was throwing out Missouri there, as I just randomly picked it, but there are states with no training requirements to get an actual CCW permit, like, for instance, South Dakota, Alabama, Mississippi, or Texas.
Then there are states like Utah, which requires a “Weapon Familiarity Certification”, which I don’t know what that means, and the links on that page are out of date, but I assume (though I could be wrong, given that there is no info) is less robust than even the 8 hours in Ohio.
I will note that all of those states ccw’s are actually honored in Ohio, because our state chose to do so.
OTOH, you also have states with higher requirements, like California, who considers Ohio’s requirements to be too lax, and they desire a higher qualified person to carry a gun in public. They would no longer be able to ensure that those who are armed with lethal weapons are up to the standards that their populace desires.
I think you need better information. I live in TX, have a valid LTC and I can assure you there is a training requirement.
see training requirements.
In CA the CCW permit process is by county and is highly poltitized. In many counties you simply cant get a CCW, no matter your qualifications.
I’m very familiar with Utah’s requirements. Utah requires a “firearms familiarity course certified by BCI” which includes this required training (PDF). They typically run ~4 hours long.