If everyone had some way for most people to get a driver’s license, then sure, no one would ever step in and force Ohio to accept anyone else’s driver’s licenses. But lets say that Ohio said that you had to prove you “needed” to drive a car and the only way to prove need was to be really rich or important. Would you really be surprised if the federal government said “fuck it, everyone has to accept everyone else’s driver’s licenses”
I don’t think there is any proof that permit holders are more dangerous than non-permit holders. I don’t think there is any proof that the “may issue” and “no issue” states are any less dangerous than shall issue states.
There are no states that have zero requirements to get a CCW. Some states do not impose any ADDITIONAL requirements to CARRY a gun than they impose to OWN a gun but EVERY state has requirements. No felons, no drug abusers, no wifebeaters, no dishonorably discharged, etc.
Manufacturing the term assault weapon (which wasn’t a real thing) because you want people to think they are like assault rifles (which are a real thing). That’s why there are so many gun controllers who think that assault weapons are machine guns. And when it turns out they were wrong about that they rationalize their mistake by saying that they still allow high rates of fire. When you point out that they have the same rate of fire as a revolver, they get dangerously close to saying we should just ban guns.
The funny thing is that the gun controllers could have imposed hat standard nationwide a long time ago. I mean seriously if the gun controllers said they were in favor of national CCW with Texas standards and pre-empting the field in the area, they could have had it. Now thy complain that they have to deal with Vermont standards.
We had to “force” states to recognize all sorts of rights, from the right to abortion to the right to sit at the lunch counter to letting gay people get married. We had to force states to do these things because they would not do them on their own. If the right to an abortion I so frikking compelling, I would have thought it would be easier to convince people. But you couldn’t convince people so we forced them to accept abortion, minority rights, gay rights. And now gun rights.
I can literally take every fucking rebuttal from the state’s rights threads and use them here. I find it ironic and amusing and sad and pathetic that so many who are against state’s rights and in favor of federal supremacy seem to abandon that principle when the rights at issue are 2nd amendment constitutional rights.
But the federal government didn’t do that, did it?
Your opinion is noted, but not given any weight because it seems to be seriously misinformed and misleading: there is proof.
I’m reasonably sure that you’ll have some reason(s) that those aren’t valid studies, or don’t show that a place is more “dangerous” or some such, but the fact that you don’t think there is proof is immaterial: there is proof.
There is broad consensus on the issue and there are a few holdouts. 43 states have shall issue permits, that about as close to consensus as you can get. So they are trying to make a federal law about it. I didn’t see a one single amendment proposed that tried to create a national CCW with some higher standard than reciprocity (which significantly higher than common denominator).
"then how can they make someone obey Ohio laws with respect to CCR? "
That is the question I answered.
“Why shouldn’t Ohio be able to insist on it’s state standards for everyone in the state, regardless of residency?”
For the same reason that Kansas shouldn’t be allowed to insist on its standards for obtaining an abortion. For the same reason that Alabama shouldn’t be able to enforce their standards for where you sit on a bus. For the same reason that Arizona shouldn’t be able to enforce their standards for how to extract confessions from a suspect. For the same reason that Colorado shouldn’t be able to enforce their standard for which marriages to honor, the list goes on and on and on. By the time you get over 40 states agreeing on a thing, I say fuck states rights.
So like BlueMerle, you want to use force to force people to allow you to use force in case someone tries to force you to do something you don’t want to do, right? :rolleyes:
It’s a deliciously circular, ironic bit of fuckery that BlueMerle brought up, and yeah, I enjoyed pointing it out. I’m also enjoying being able to point it out again now that you brought it up, so thanks for the opportunity, Damuri.
By the way, that was a terrible attempt to draw equivalence.
That article is highly misleading. There are no empirical studies that show that concealed carry increases gun violence (it usually doesn’t decrease gun violence much either), its all statistical noise.
Texas CCW holders are more law abiding than Texas police officers, who in turn are more law abiding than the general population. This is the fact of the matter. Despite the fact that 5314 CCW holders out of 215,000 CCW holders have been arrested (not convicted or even indicted, arrested) of everything from murder to jaywalking (funny how they only mention things like murder and rape), they are STILL more law abiding than police officers.
The footnote is to an article that shot down the relatively unsupported notion that lax CCW rules would have a pronounced deterrent effect on crime. John Donohue never said that lax carry laws = more crime. He said lax carry laws /= less crime. This was somewhat big news a while back, I suspect that not enough people change their carrying habits for it to make a difference.
And the Violence Policy Center has been less than honest about guns for years.
That statement that “Texas CCW holders were arrested for ***weapons-related crimes ***at a rate 81% higher than that of the state’s general population age 21 and older.” is misleading. It makes you think that CCW holders shoot people 81% more often than the general population. When in fact the statistic refers mostly to illegal possession, that means they were ARRESTED (not convicted or even indicted) for carrying and they may or may not have had their license on them at the time or they were carrying too close to a school or church or in a bar, etc. All the “proof” you see is highly stylized to fool people who are either easily fooled or WANT to be fooled.
Here is a pretty good article on how the gun controllers have been distorting data in some cases:
That is a pretty stupid distinction you are trying to make there. It highlights the weakness of your argument. If the law allowed for universal open carry, your response would be that the 2nd amendment don’t have the words “open” carry in it?
I suppose that congress could have allowed ALL carry but they restricted themselves to concealed carry. the type of carry type that most states require licenses for. There are a SHITLOAD of states that do not require licenses for open carry. Is THAT what you would have preferred? A law that said that all states have to give reciprocity for BOTH open AND concealed carry? Would THAT have passed you pettifoggery of constitutional interpretation?
Bo, you are right on the line and maybe over with your behavior, here. You’ve referred to another’s post as ‘bullshit’. In this one your use of ‘bit of fuckery’ is too much. In addition, in your response to Damuri Ajashi upthread refers to his post as misinformed - which is fine - and misleading - which may or may not be fine, depending.
Calm the hell down and dial back the angry rhetoric or suffer the consequences.
Yes. Its called self defense. I want the federal government to force states to allow me to have access to the means to defend myself. The kind of self defense that Korean store owners used to stop the sacking of Koreatown in LA. The kind of self defense that black rights activists used to protect themselves from the KKK in the South. The kind of self defense that gay militant groups used to protect their community from homophobes.
Of course it was, because to you there are good constitutional rights and bad constitutional rights.:rolleyes:
The right to carry in an enumerated right. Do you think the right goes away because its concealed carry? What kind of retarded distinction are you trying to make?
The universe of carry can be divided into concealed carry and open carry. The laws regarding open are significantly more lax in most states than laws regarding concealed carry. Congress chose to provide reciprocity for more regulated of the two.
You want to change that? Try winning some elections. But in order to do that, you would probably have to drop gun control as an issue in most swing states. You lose votes in the entire rust belt from Pennsylvania to Wisconsin, you lose votes in Virginia and North Carolina. I can’t think of a swing state where you don’t lose net votes on the gun issue. You can pretty much blame Trump on Hillary’s moving to the left of Bernie on the gun issue as much as you could blame it on anything else.
The only one I can think of that might be the case in is perhaps Minnesota, maybe, on the right day, with the window blowing the right way and all the planets in alignment.
It’s not complicated, nor even a remotely new idea - see, the constitution doesn’t guarantee the right to carry concealed, so it’s ok to make that illegal. And it doesn’t guarantee the right to open-carry either, so that can be illegal too.
So, nobody can have a gun, and it’s perfectly legal (as long as you ignore all the times those laws have been found to be unconstitutional.) But it takes time to challenge those laws, and they usually go through the 9th circuit (motto: only 80%* of our appealed decisions have been overturned!) first.
*the average across all circuits is something in the 60-70% range, so not quite as bad as it looks.