best article i've read, well thought out, great points

[chrish]

Just wanted to pass this along after I stumbled across it this evening. After my recent dip into the pool of insanity and my knee jerk fears stemming from the aurora shooting, scalia interview, etc...this was a welcomed read. So I thought others might also find it encouraging as well as great information when the topic comes up in discussions.

http://reasonedpolitics.blogspot.com/2012/07/an-open-letter-to-gun-control-advocate.html

About the only thing i don't agree w/ is the national permit. But that's b/c I don't agree w/ any permit. I would prefer to see gun sales tightened on people that shouldn't get them and the rest of us legal folks to be allowed to concealed or open carry anywhere anytime. But that's never going to happen, so his argument regarding nationally recognized CCW permits is somewhat of a good idea and I suppose I'd back national reciprocity if it ever comes to a serious vote/push. Baby steps. I personally don't trust gun registration either, but that's a lost cause too. Each and every one of us has made a purchase and had a background check done. So we are on the radar, regardless. Should the powers-that-be ever need/want to come after those that own or have owned, they know who we are <end paranoia>.

[wyntrout]

Great article. Thanks for the post... now if he just knew the difference between "lose" and "loose". Loose means not tight... pronounced like "goose". Yeah, nit-picking, but he used that word a bunch!

Wynn:)

[Longitude Zero]

The author makes some good points along with some really uneducated ones. His drivers license example is flat out wrong as there really is NO standardization nationwide. As to CCW requirements the only way to make it the same nationwide is the FEDS get involved. No thanks to that.

His allegations about Gerald Loughner are unsubstantied and he has no proof that an evaluation would have prevented him from obtaining weapons. I suspect he would have been able to fool most clinicians. People in his position are VERY GOOD about manipulating the mental health system. In truth the NRA has recouped what small number of members stupidly defected after the mental health issue on the NICS.

He is very uninformed in saying that gun owners want national standards. I know of NOBODY other than the author positing that assertion.

He makes good points however he needs to stick with facts he can prove and not make bald assertions that are easily disproven since that weakens and stupifies his position.

[muggsy]

The author makes some good points along with some really uneducated ones. His drivers license example is flat out wrong as there really is NO standardization nationwide. As to CCW requirements the only way to make it the same nationwide is the FEDS get involved. No thanks to that.

His allegations about Gerald Loughner are unsubstantied and he has no proof that an evaluation would have prevented him from obtaining weapons. I suspect he would have been able to fool most clinicians. People in his position are VERY GOOD about manipulating the mental health system. In truth the NRA has recouped what small number of members stupidly defected after the mental health issue on the NICS.

He is very uninformed in saying that gun owners want national standards. I know of NOBODY other than the author positing that assertion.

He makes good points however he needs to stick with facts he can prove and not make bald assertions that are easily disproven since that weakens and stupifies his position.

+1 What Longitude Zero said.

[chrish]

I don't know that I really take his 'standardized' statements (there are only 2 places he uses that terminology) to mean a national standard on carry permits or how they are issued. It seems more referring to 'recognizing' permits from state to state (i.e. reciprocity.

Considering that, I would stay 'standarized' permits, but 'standardized' recognition of the 2A and that each state is doing enough to issue CCW permits to law abiding citizens. And we ALREADY have the Feds involved in the background check process to even buy a gun. That's all I think is necessary. Pass a background check, you are not a criminal or ex-criminal, you are not insane, you get a permit issued from your state. Your permit is recognized across the country. That's what I take from the term 'standardized'.

LZ, I know you disagree w/ the DL comparison, but I agree w/ that...in the confines of the fact that we probably aren't going to easily get rid of a CCW permit in all 50 states and move to a national 'standard' of anybody can carry, anywhere, anytime. So that leaves you at the point of needing every state to recognize another states permits (which is what the author is stating w/ the DL comparison IMO). Do I want to have to prove need, prove competency, compared to a CA or NY, no freakin' way. But do I want my permit recognized elsewhere, you betcha. I understand CA and NY might not trust me given my states CCW requirements, but the same DL argument can be made. My state might gloss over alot, laws are not necessarily the same, etc...but I can still drive in all 50 states. Other states ASSUME that my state does enough to keep me safe on the road. But, if my state changes a law, etc...I don't think anyone would say I'm in danger of not being able to drive cross country.

There is a case in the 4th circuit right now, for Maryland, regarding the whole 'shall issue' vs 'may issue' and whether the gov't can require you to prove a need, show a need, reason, whatever. If that goes thru, my state bubbles up to that court as well, and we are currently 'shall issue'. I guess my point is that states are slowly loosing ground in some areas, have been for over 100-150 years. That being the case, it may be best to fight this battle on the national level and make the 2A adhered to consistently across the entire country. Your 1A rights are treated the same everywhere, w/ the exception of a few local ordinances, which we all know we don't want w/ carry laws. Same goes for the rest of the BoR.

As for the Loughner, I agree complete. Crazy YES, do I want to be deemed crazy w/o a trial and have a mental health 'professional', sheriff, police, etc make that call...no way. The author doesn't seem to dileneate that, so I'm erring on the side of calling crap on that one as well.

[yqtszhj]

I have thought about this recently and their order:

1st amendment -Freedom of Speech, Press, Religion and Petition (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/)

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievance

2nd Amendment - Right to keep and bear arms
A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Now being just a dumb hillbilly and only understanding simple things it looks to me like the 1st amendment grants us our freedoms, and the 2nd amendment makes sure we get to keep them (being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.)

There must have been some reason that the subject of what was in the 2nd came right after what was given in the 1st .... :rolleyes:

[chrish]

Congress shall make no law...


...shall not be infringed.

Don't feel bad :) you aren't the only dumb hillbilly that thinks crazy like that...and there of plenty of us dumb suburban city/town folk types that believe BOTH statements above as well. My problem is now that both of those statements have been flushed down the toilet and given what we are left to work with, until a total reset occurs, we may be best served working at the problem as a whole rather than here and there around the country. I guess I'm just hoping for this to arrive at the SCOTUS and ultimately it be upheld that common weapons, such as those that were common at the time the 2A was written, cannot be infringed, regulated, etc...and that carry, concealed, open, is universal.

[OldLincoln]

I have strong feelings about this but normally refrain for voicing it. But here it goes:

Have you noticed the right to free speech is the same in each state you visit as is the right to assemble and the right to attend your church of choice or not. Basically, the rights protected by the constitution are Federal rights and cannot be regulated differently state by state.

Yet the Second Amendment IS regulated state by state and I'm disappointed the Supreme Court ruling for the Chicago thing didn't correct that. If there ever was a right that should be protected equally nationally it's the Second Amendment.

So the petty bills passed each year state by state and end up going through the judicial process for years just to be ruled by the Supreme Court are nothing but the environment wearing down the foundations of our constitutional rights.

Maybe where Romney comes in he will make a presidential ruling that all states have to comply with full freedoms of the right to own and bear arms.

I know the realities don't align with what I believe so we have to work with what we can get but it is not right that a lizard or butterfly or minnow should be afforded rights superseding those of human citizens. If the NRA were to have the strength of the leftist environmental and minority rights organization we could fix it. Problem is the conservative organizations are too meek to stand up for whet they believe as a united front. The Tea Party came close for a few months but it didn't hold a candle to the widely promoted leftist takeover groups that followed. If the NRA wants my money they will have to stand up and fight for it.

[chrish]

+1, i may have to change my moniker to NewLincoln, depending on how old OldLinclon is. We seem to think alike alot.