Is Carry Reciprocity as dead as a doornail?

[rotorhead]

Even with a passage of a national reciprocity law, some states would simply pile on their own restrictions no matter what, not giving two shits about what's in the law.

 

[Charlie R]

We doen't need the federal government stepping in and "graciously allowing" reciprocity. That plants the idea in their heads that they have the authority to grant (and thus deny) the "privilege" of doing so, when in fact they do not.

Agreed. "Beware the naked man that offers you the shirt off of his back".

How can the Federal Government grant to us what has already been granted constitutionally? You cannot "give" what is not yours to give in the first place, other than by assuming that it is yours to give, and therefore by extension, yours to take away as well.

If state governments are infringing on that same right, then that is for the Judicial Branch to deal with, not the Legislative Branch. Then you have enforcement of the Constitution as opposed to assumption of legislative authority where none currently exists constitutionally.

 

[noway2]

Well, if you would, as stated then I’m with the ‘off the rails’ contingent. Agreed, it’s a hypothetical situation

So then, what are people supposed to do? Assuming one believes that restrictions like MD put in place are dead wrong for a myriad of reasons what are people supposed to do? Are they supposed to be willing to allow the "government" to destroy their lives if they chose to arm themselves for protection? That's what would happen. Oh you can say take it to court, blah blah blah, but you know what that means; it's still this side of a death sentence for anyone with a job, a home, and a family. Assuming you believe the state's are wrong, what about the agents paid to use violence to uphold these wrongful doctrines?

 

[SPM]

Agreed. "Beware the naked man that offers you the shirt off of his back".

How can the Federal Government grant to us what has already been granted constitutionally? You cannot "give" what is not yours to give in the first place, other than by assuming that it is yours to give, and therefore by extension, yours to take away as well.

If state governments are infringing on that same right, then that is for the Judicial Branch to deal with, not the Legislative Branch. Then you have enforcement of the Constitution as opposed to assumption of legislative authority where none currently exists constitutionally.

Except our Rights do not come from the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.

Those documents merely affirm Rights that are ours by virtue of our being born, inalienable from our humanity and beyond the moral and just authority of government to infringe upon.

They aren't Constitutional Rights. They are Natural Rights with constitutional protection.

That's a huge difference.

 

[Charlie R]

They aren't Constitutional Rights. They are Natural Rights with constitutional protection.

That's a huge difference.

What you say is true, however without written "affirmation", protection of our natural rights becomes problematic, as you note. Our protection then becomes subject to the whims and memory of those empowered with that responsibility or anarchy as each pursues his own definition of his natural rights even if his natural rights are at conflict with mine. Interpretation is already wrapped around the axel enough having it in writing, I shudder to think what would have become of my natural right without having it codified in writing.

That being the situation, I don't see how having reciprocity passed into law by Congress does anything but weaken that argument for it being a natural right.

 

[SPST]

Yes. I would. The state has no business prohibiting a weapon in the first place. Furthermore, I would refuse to be imprisoned over the issue. If you want to go around threatening people with violence if they don't submit to your rule, don't be surprised if sometimes the response is a refusal to submit.

Before you join @SPST in going off the rails here, please keep in mind that we are discussing a hypothetical situation that was raised by @wsfiredude where he said that some people will choose to carry regardless of permission from the crown and in doing so are making the choice to assert their liberty. I said that this idea has weighed upon me as I am faced with a set of bad options regarding work travel to one of the people's republic states. I did not say whether or not I would take a gun with me, and I doubt I will. It simply isn't worth the risk of it costing everything.

So you are just going to bow to the Crown. Just what I figured.

 

[noway2]

So you are just going to bow to the Crown. Just what I figured.

If believing that gets your rocks off, more power to you.

 

[SPM]

If believing that gets your rocks off, more power to you.

There's always those who revere their fetters as long as they're painted gold, and argue vehemently against those who argue that shackles of gold are no less galling.