Is this a good compromise?

[Marksman]

With the exception of Maryland, New York and a few other extremist states, most of the United States already has Shall-Issue CCW. So why these truely free-states agree to such a 'compromise'?

 

[Mike OTDP]

I'm going to disagree with a lot of people. Trading UBCs for all transfers in exchange for a national preemptive act and national shall-issue would be a reasonable trade.

Provided that enforcement included criminal penalties. Without criminal punishment for states that try to end-run the Federal legislation, you get problems. We're seeing that with regard to FOPA-protected transportation of firearms. No criminal penalties means the NY and NJ cops can harass at will. Put hard time in a Federal prison behind it, and the problems go away.

 

[Ranger Tom]

To Mike OTDP:

Please reread Article 2 of the Bill of Rights.

 

[Mike OTDP]

Politics is the art of the possible.

 

[Ranger Tom]

To Mike OTDP:

Please reread Article 2 of the Bill of Rights.

 

[Mr H]

I take it you mean the part about "shall not..."????

 

[eruby]

 

[Brooklyn]

I'm going to disagree with a lot of people. Trading UBCs for all transfers in exchange for a national preemptive act and national shall-issue would be a reasonable trade.

Provided that enforcement included criminal penalties. Without criminal punishment for states that try to end-run the Federal legislation, you get problems. We're seeing that with regard to FOPA-protected transportation of firearms. No criminal penalties means the NY and NJ cops can harass at will. Put hard time in a Federal prison behind it, and the problems go away.

Thats funny. You want a federal law to put LEOS in jail...

ONLY THE COURT CAN DO WHAT WE WANT. The anti side has nothing to trade, no credibility that they will honor such a trade, and no political capital to pass anything we oppose. That's why they want to trade

 

[Brooklyn]

Politics is the art of the possible.

Thats even funnier -- they are not going to trade what they can get for what we can't. They will trade what they can't get without us for what we will get without them..

Seriously.....


NO NO NO NO

 

[Doctor_M]

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!
Compromise not required.

+100

 

[rtruhn]

With the exception of Maryland, New York and a few other extremist states, most of the United States already has Shall-Issue CCW. So why these truely free-states agree to such a 'compromise'?

But they're not at ALL reciprocal in every instance. It's a patchwork of issue, reciprocity, and state/local regulation on what "concealed carry" means. Streamlining the process, having it recognized in all 50 states, and consolidating the rules/regulations/rights/responsibilities would be a significant step in the correct direction.

 

[abean4187]

the link to the underlying article no longer works by the way.

Hmmm, I just clicked on it and it opened fine for me.

Try googling "ending-war-gun-control-5-easy-steps-video/" and click on the guns.com link. Should be one of the top hits.

 

[MDFF2008]

For me the question is enforcement. What's to enforce the states to comply? What's to prevent states from non-compliance?

I mean we already see places like NY and MA who openly say they don't comply with FOPA.

 

[HollowPoint]

Sounds like a compromise to the previous compromise that came after we compromised the original compromise.


NO NO and NO!

 

[RavensFan11]

I understand where you were coming from and would support some kind of compromise if the other side would truly live up to their end of the bargain, which as many have said here, is not to be expected. It would be a happy day when we did not have to spend our time and money defending our Constitutional rights....seemingly every minute of every day!

 

[ShallNotInfringe]

Sounds like a compromise to the previous compromise that came after we compromised the original compromise.

NO NO and NO!

Lol.

Here's a counter compromise... Convert HQL to Carry Permit with no further requirements in MD.

 

[Gryphon]

Most states already have some form of background checks. Use our Socialist Republik of Merryland as an example, which by the way has no supposed "gun show loop hole." But they have still banned many desirable semi-auto long guns because the inept think they look evil, still require pre-approval of all handgun models, now require an HQL to exercise a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution - which they ignore, will still require a 7 day waiting period even though you have been pre-approved and have a HQL, etc. All while doing nothing to target the criminal element. No, I am against trying to "negotiate" or "compromise" with the ass hats that are running the asylum. Besides, subsequent like-minded ass hats will renege - as is always the case. Seat belts won't be a primary offense, cell phones won't be a primary offense, cameras only in school zones, rain tax, blah, blah, blah. The government has been infringing on our liberties since before the ink of the Constitution was dry, and it has to stop, and that isn't going happen if we let them continue to erode the 2A.

 

[danb]

Hmmm, I just clicked on it and it opened fine for me.

Try googling "ending-war-gun-control-5-easy-steps-video/" and click on the guns.com link. Should be one of the top hits.

the links work now. odd.

 

[tdant]

No

 

[jrumann59]

For me the question is enforcement. What's to enforce the states to comply? What's to prevent states from non-compliance?

I mean we already see places like NY and MA who openly say they don't comply with FOPA.

Well if the Fed Gov't wanted to force enforcement they could always go to the tried and true fed highway dollars method first, that usually gets compliance if that doesn't work they could force re-districting through back channels to get the votes split more to their liking at the next election.