New PA bill to recognize all nonresident carry licenses

[Brychan]

Arms are no more dangerous than a car and those are on all the streets.

 

[Brooklyn]

If arms are not dangerous, then why have we built an entire discipline around handling them safely? Why have we created a set of rules that instructs kids to leave them be and inform an adult of their presence?

No, arms are dangerous unless used properly and with discipline, and to insist otherwise is to give the opposition a real reason to insist to others that you are crazy and not to be believed, as your very own actions prove you wrong.

Now, you may attempt to argue that arms are dangerous only when people improperly interact with them, but that's true of nearly every dangerous object. The most dangerous weapons in existence are perfectly harmless if left alone. But that informs us of nothing of the nature of those objects. No, dangerousness of an object is measured by the amount of danger the object poses when it is interacted with by someone who is ignorant of that object's properties.


That something is dangerous doesn't diminish the right to them. That's the point of the right to keep and bear arms being a right, and perhaps even contributed to the inclusion of protection of that right in the Constitution.


We'll get nowhere by attempting to lie about the nature of arms.

Concede this and you do not get SS. The right is not relevant, this issue is whats reasonable. I am out of town so this needs to wait.

The Government power to regulate Behavior is not in question. We do not teach guns how to be safe with people, we teach people how to be safe with guns. It not semantics its to critical to reversing the burden of proof.

I guarantee one can do more damage to others with fire than with a gun. I guarantee one can start a riot with the right words. Further,I guarantee it will happen. But yet some fool will say the words that statr the riot are protected but the gun that prevents it is not.

Suffer fools at your own risk -- will not indulge their idiocy. A gun is weapon,but its not dangerous.

This idiocy is why the criminal justice system is off the rails, and why guns are put in jail and violent felons are released.

There is no rational basis for gun control. I think it worth a thread on how to get SS from the court without actually asking for it, since by asking fir it, and conceding that guns are dangerous you will never get SS, and even if you do you have conceded the " critical interest" test. That leaves only narrowly tailored to distinguish from IS . And given the court inability to think clearly -- that looks a lot like IS plus..


If you really want SS you must not conceded the public safety argument. Guns are not dangerous people are.

A felon unarmed is more likely to hurt and old lady than an armed law abiding citizen -- which completely severs the causal link between guns and crime, and thus the critical interest is in law enforcement not gun control.

Concede this point and you are done.

Btw this argument is the only reason we have CCW in > 40 states.

If the worst that happens is some cognitively defective liberal stops taking to you that's a bonus -- do not waste time on fools.

 

[kcbrown]

Concede this and you do not get SS. The right is not relevant, this issue is whats reasonable. I am out of town so this needs to wait.

And you wonder why I think we're likely to lose.

I'll wait for your response until you get back. Take your time. We'll still be here.

The Government power to regulate Behavior is not in question. We do not teach guns how to be safe with people, we teach people how to be safe with guns. It not semantics its to critical to reversing the burden of proof.

But claiming that the objects in question are not dangerous will not get us there.

We teach people how to be safe with guns precisely because guns are dangerous in the sense that most people use the term.

If they were not dangerous, we would not need to teach people how to be safe with them. If they were not dangerous, we would let children possess them without a second thought.

One does not need to teach a person how to be safe with, e.g., a pillow. A pillow has no characteristics that would result in danger to self or others in the hands of the ignorant. It is not a dangerous object by any reasonable definition. Arms, cars, knives, certain chemicals, welding torches, etc., all have the characteristic that danger to self or others will result from being handled by the ignorant. This is why we do not let children possess them. It is that which causes the average person to regard them as dangerous.

I guarantee one can do more damage to others with fire than with a gun. I guarantee one can start a riot with the right words. Further,I guarantee it will happen. But yet some fool will say the words that statr the riot are protected but the gun that prevents it is not.

No, the words that start the riot are not protected. Speech which is "incitement to riot" is explicitly illegal, and the laws against it have been upheld as Constitutional.

Suffer fools at your own risk -- will not indulge their idiocy. A gun is weapon,but its not dangerous.

In the way most people think of the dangerousness of objects, it is. Therein lies the problem.

If you really want SS you must not conceded the public safety argument. Guns are not dangerous people are.

And laws which control guns don't actually control guns, they control people.

Look, you're not going to get anywhere in front of the court with the argument that guns have no characteristics which make them dangerous. If you try to make that argument, you will lose, because you will be going up against the meaning of "dangerous" that most people use in their daily lives.

A felon unarmed is more likely to hurt and old lady than an armed law abiding citizen -- which completely severs the causal link between guns and crime, and thus the critical interest is in law enforcement not gun control.

Concede this point and you are done.

I see no need to concede that point by claiming that guns aren't dangerous. People make use of dangerous objects, such as cars, knives, chainsaws, welding torches, etc., all the time.

No, the standard for imposing burdensome regulation on arms is not whether they are dangerous, but whether they are unusually dangerous.

Btw this argument is the only reason we have CCW in > 40 states.

I doubt we have it because we've claimed that guns aren't dangerous in the sense that most people mean. Were that the case, then most CCW states would impose no training requirements whatsoever.

If the worst that happens is some cognitively defective liberal stops taking to you that's a bonus -- do not waste time on fools.

That's not the worst that happens when the opposition paints you as being crazy for your insistence that guns aren't dangerous. The worst that happens is what is likely to happen: the court believes them. If the court believes them on that, then it will dismiss your argument as being nonsensical and crazy, and the opposition will win.

This is why you do not want to be making that argument.

It is in part because of the dangerous (in the way most people mean) nature of arms that I argue that scrutiny is the improper standard of review for this particular right, and that strict scrutiny is the only method of scrutiny that is even remotely acceptable, because the right simply will not survive at all with anything less.


When making a legal argument, you must use terminology in the way the court is going to use it. That means that "dangerous" will be a characteristic the court is going to consider arms to have. Attempt to deny that, and the court will laugh your ass out of the room. And you will lose it all as a result.

 

[kcbrown]

Arms are no more dangerous than a car and those are on all the streets.

Precisely.

That something is dangerous does not mean it is unusually dangerous. Guns are no more dangerous than any other tool that demands respect from its wielder. Their dangerousness is not unusual. It is for that reason that it is not rational to regulate them any more heavily than any other dangerous tool.

But we'll get nowhere by attempting to deny the dangerous nature of arms. If we try that, the court will dismiss our argument on its face, and we will lose.

 

[Brooklyn]

You have conceded the argument.

The court will never remove the power of the legislative branch to decide for itself if the danger is unusual or not..

Moreover incitement is a action. Simple posession is not.

The public, that is other that the idiot in ca Md etc. Know that the problem is dangerous people. Those that live day to day with crime see such people everday and they watch the plolitical class and interestingly those who have the least to fear from guns call for gun control while turning the justice system in a joke.

And its time to call them on it.


Stop backing up.. or accept the ban on guns. They have the burden of proof and you just conceded half their burden.

Stop trying to seem reasonable.... they don't care..you get no bonus points.

I am not kidding..

If you concede this then you are stuck.. I can make the op force case and win.

PS. If we keep insisting that all ad are nd's we will soon find out what strict liability can do to gun owner ship.. stop backing up...

 

[Mr H]

Brooklyn...

You're a brother, and you know I appreciate what you bring to this.

But...

We can talk in vagaries all day, about what won't work, but it leaves us no better than where we started.

It seems to me that kcbrown is speaking from a position (much as where I am), of trying to make these things happen within the framework we're given.

You seem ready (and we may be there soon, I just don't quite see it) to jump the tracks and run a new tack. The problem there?? Without getting intop details, not many are going to grasp your point.

I understand we have OPSEC issues. But unless some of this starts being put down in writing so that 'genpop' can see what we're needing, you'll get pushback.

I said this elsewhere... and I'm going to keep saying it... We're all on the lists. We need to decide when to start speaking our minds and get our money's worth.

 

[Brooklyn]

Brooklyn...

You're a brother, and you know I appreciate what you bring to this.

But...

We can talk in vagaries all day, about what won't work, but it leaves us no better than where we started.

It seems to me that kcbrown is speaking from a position (much as where I am), of trying to make these things happen within the framework we're given.

You seem ready (and we may be there soon, I just don't quite see it) to jump the tracks and run a new tack. The problem there?? Without getting intop details, not many are going to grasp your point.

I understand we have OPSEC issues. But unless some of this starts being put down in writing so that 'genpop' can see what we're needing, you'll get pushback.

I said this elsewhere... and I'm going to keep saying it... We're all on the lists. We need to decide when to start speaking our minds and get our money's worth.

No its the back story. We can not win in court if we do not win the public. The public is just starting to get a clue..

Now if you look at what op force has done for 80 years... they have demonized guns and gun owners and codlied criminals. That's plain enough. The first in isolation makes even less sense that the second.

But the fact that gun control is a cover for coddling criminals to be exploited.
The public is getting its first clue.


My purpose here is to explore new ways of opening minds....its not ready for prime time yet.. push back is fine . It helps the process.



So far I have a draft of a nat reciprocity that I floated....I am going to talk to folks at grpc and get feedback or push back...

I also think I have an idea for getting training standards..without compromising SS..

Now this will not be secret...I don't do that. And if it holds up it will not need surprise to work...but again want to get some feedback at grpc..

I guarantee I will not be going off half cocked...

My time is so short right now that these brain storming sessions are all I can get to..

I am sure I will have at least talking points before grpc ..and it will not be ' presented ' or shopped.. just looking for feedback or push back., either is good



But its really evolutionary not revolutionary....

 

[kcbrown]

I have moved my response to Brooklyn's latest in this thread here, so as to minimize the thread-jack...

 

[rambling_one]

OP hijack needs to stop.

 

[HazyDayz]

Me too. "I can see Pennsylvania from my house"

Same. I'm hopeful.

 

[Kharn]

So where's the bill going?

 

[SKroh]

Has there been any news on this?

 

[Threeband]

So where's the bill going?

Has there been any news on this?

Any news from Harrisburg?

 

[press1280]

Has there been any news on this?

No, it looks like it's still in committee.
Another reciprocity bill was just introduced: http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/billinfo/billinfo.cfm?syear=2013&sind=0&body=H&type=B&bn=2436
Sets up the exact criteria for reciprocity, although I don't see anything that wouldn't prevent Kane from simply sitting on her hands and doing nothing. She definitely wouldn't be able to axe agreements like she has been, so it's better than the status quo.

 

[swinokur]

Last I checked it was sitting in committee. But that was over a month ago IIRC.

 

[ryan_j]

Maybe a message to Prince is in order... he might know.

 

[ryan_j]

Oh I love this part:

I am hard pressed to understand how an individual’s zip code makes them more or less of a “menace to society.” On the contrary, I believe that an individual’s mailing address may indicate that they actually are in greater need of a means of self-defense than others. You may be surprised to find out that even Pennsylvania law allows someone from out-of-state to get a license to carry a firearm in the Commonwealth.

 

[industrialTerp]

This would be nice, considering it's why I have a Utah CHL...

 

[ryan_j]

Maybe a message to Prince is in order... he might know.

And he said the status is what it is, so I guess nothing yet.

 

[rambling_one]

I sent the following to Governor Corbett in early May:

I was born in the Wilkes-Barre General hospital, but raised in Maryland when my dad took a job at Bethlehem Steel Sparrows Point during WWII and mom was a welder in the shipyard.

Though I live in Maryland, Pennsylvania is still “home” to me – except for my immediate family, all the relatives still live in Luzerne, Kingston, and the Harvey’s Lake area.

My wife and I travel quite a bit since retiring from the Pentagon after thirty-eight years of service to my country.

We pull a travel trailer and I have seven out-of-state permits which afford us the protection every American citizen is entitled to.

Your Attorney General, Kathleen Kane, has gone after out-of-state permits with a vengeance. As a consequence, my ability to carry in PA under my Arizona, Florida, and Utah permits has now been cancelled.

Sir, this is not right and I ask that you intervene on behalf of Americans who want to spend time and money in your great state, but hesitate to do so over Ms. Kane’s arbitrary action.

I cannot apply for a PA permit because Maryland will not issue a permit for self defense without a resident proving that s/he has been attacked, survived and is under perpetual threat.

An alternative that makes sense to me is for PA to issue non-resident permits. I would purchase one in a heart beat.

Thank you.

rambling_one

Got the following E-mail this morning: Your message was deleted without being read on Friday, August 22, 2014 4:40:23 PM UTC.