President Trump backs new bill to give nationwide right to conceal carry

[M14 Shooter]

I did. States are not automatically forced to accept all other licenses why should they for guns

Yes. Professional licenses. Apples and oranges. Thus, you have not provided a meaningful response.

Professional licenses are not based on the basic rights associated with citizenship, while the right to keep and bear arms, free speech, etc, are. Thus, the difference.

The constitution states people of a given state the have same rights, privileges and immunities enjoyed by the person of they state they are in - if CA allows the people of CA to carry guns, then it must also allow people from OH to carry guns while in CA.
Let me know when you can meaningfully address this

 

[HappyJoy]

I did. States are not automatically forced to accept all other licenses why should they for guns

Yes. Professional licenses. Apples and oranges. Thus, you have not provided a meaningful response.

Apples and oranges in that one is for guns and the other for professional certification. But article IV doesn't differentiate that the two should be treated separately. So, I'm asking, why are you?

Professional licenses are not based on the basic rights associated with citizenship, while the right to keep and bear arms, free speech, etc, are. Thus, the difference.

Article IV doesn't state that this is limited to 'basic rights associated with citizenship'. Actually, it makes no mention of it at all. For example if a state must recognize a marriage license from another state, that's not a constitutional edict either. States have the right to create gun laws as long as they do not infringe on the right to bear arms. So, these are state laws, not federal which means you aren't making a point if you are saying that article IV does not apply to state laws. This is your argument.

The constitution states people of a given state the have same rights, privileges and immunities enjoyed by the person of they state they are in - if CA allows the people of CA to carry guns, then it must also allow people from OH to carry guns while in CA.
Let me know when you can meaningfully address this

I know, you keep saying that but where are the lawsuits and how did they go?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Apples and oranges in that one is for guns and the other for professional certification. But article IV doesn't differentiate that the two should be treated separately. So, I'm asking, why are you?

No. Rights attached to citizenry of the Unites states and each individual state. Being lawyer does not qualify.
You can argue with the jurisprudence of you want, it just make you wrong.
Educate yourself:
https://constitutioncenter.org/inte...use-by-akhil-amar-and-john-harrison/clause/55

And thus, I await your meaningful response.

 

[HappyJoy]

Apples and oranges in that one is for guns and the other for professional certification. But article IV doesn't differentiate that the two should be treated separately. So, I'm asking, why are you?

No. Rights attached to citizenry of the Unites states and each individual state. Being lawyer does not qualify.
You can argue with the jurisprudence of you want, it just make you wrong.
Educate yourself:
The 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution

And thus, I await your meaningful response.

But CCW laws are state not federal laws, do you not understand this?

And no, you can't just walk into a courthouse and practice law if you are not sanctioned to do so by the state.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Apples and oranges in that one is for guns and the other for professional certification. But article IV doesn't differentiate that the two should be treated separately. So, I'm asking, why are you?

No. Rights attached to citizenry of the Unites states and each individual state. Being lawyer does not qualify.
You can argue with the jurisprudence of you want, it just make you wrong.
Educate yourself:
The 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution
And thus, I await your meaningful response.

But CCW laws are state not federal laws, do you not understand this?

Irrelevant - they are a privilege and/or immunity attached to a right of citizenship enjoyed by the people of California; as such, they cannot be denied to the people of Ohio who enjoys the same privilege and immunity.
This is the entire purpose of the P&I clause.

And thus, I await your meaningful response

 

[HappyJoy]

Apples and oranges in that one is for guns and the other for professional certification. But article IV doesn't differentiate that the two should be treated separately. So, I'm asking, why are you?

No. Rights attached to citizenry of the Unites states and each individual state. Being lawyer does not qualify.
You can argue with the jurisprudence of you want, it just make you wrong.
Educate yourself:
The 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution
And thus, I await your meaningful response.

But CCW laws are state not federal laws, do you not understand this?

Irrelevant - they are a privilege and/or immunity attached to a right of citizenship enjoyed by the people of California; as such, they cannot be denied to the people of Ohio who enjoys the same privilege and immunity.
This is the entire purpose of the P&I clause.

And thus, I await your meaningful response

Once again, state laws not federal which was your point. And why can't I drive my RZR on California streets?

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

& what about state's rights? even in the wild wild west, if it was decided you had to check yer guns b4 entering a town's boundaries, then that is what you had to do.

2nd amendment is federal law supersedes state law

Hey, ODIOUS...that horseshit was spiked by McConnell last year. You cited a GOP FAIL from last year. Looks like you need someone with better reading skills than the inbred White Supremacist "guiding" you now!

My my my,we got one TRIGGERED snowflake here. McConnell won't be around forever bitch boy. His RINO ass is old and we WILL get this passed sooner than later. Better watch out! BOO!

States can’t make weaker laws the Feds but they can make stronger laws.

Think minimum wage . You can’t go below the Fed min wage laws. Most states are higher .

Min Wage is not enshrined in the constitution gun rights are.

So is the well-regulated part....

 

[Pilot1]

So... you have no sound response to my question.
Thank you

society isn't affected by marriage except in positive ways. that's my sound answer. you disagree but can't challenge it either.

You forget: Concealed carry is legal is all 50 states - and so, your complaint is moot.

A Californian with a CCW permit can carry a concealed firearm in CA and OH - what augment is there that CA should/can not be forced to recognize a CCW permit issued by the state of Ohio when the people of California has the same ability?

Different requirements among the states to attain a CCW.

Different requirements among the states to attain a drivers license, yet they are all recognized in every state.

And I believe every state if they wanted to could refuse to accept another states license. But considering the side affects of that why would they not?

Different requirements among the states to attain a CCW.

How does this override the privileges and immunities clause of the 14th Amendment?-

How does it not?

Ah. You cannot answer my question. Thank you.
The P+I clause of 14th amendment was designed to prevent sates from doing exactly what we see here - denying the people of another state the same rights, privileges and immunities enjoyed by the person of said state - If CA did not allow concealed carry, there'd be an argument for not recognizing an OH permit, but CA does, and so there isn't.

That doesn't make a lot of sense. If a person jumps through hurdles to get a CCW permit in California what right does someone from Arizona have to just waltz right on in having done almost nothing to get theirs? Last I checked this is how it works and I don't think it's been declared unconstitutional. You should give it a try and see what happens.

The permits are currently issued on a statewide basis and not by the federal government so your article IV argument doesn't have any traction.

Have you read the FF&C clause?
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
How does the FF&C clause not hold water?

How does it? If I'm a lawyer registered to practice law in one state doesn't mean I can walk into the courtroom of another state and practice. Same for a dentist, doctor and teacher.

& what about state's rights? even in the wild wild west, if it was decided you had to check yer guns b4 entering a town's boundaries, then that is what you had to do.

2nd amendment is federal law supersedes state law

Hey, ODIOUS...that horseshit was spiked by McConnell last year. You cited a GOP FAIL from last year. Looks like you need someone with better reading skills than the inbred White Supremacist "guiding" you now!

My my my,we got one TRIGGERED snowflake here. McConnell won't be around forever bitch boy. His RINO ass is old and we WILL get this passed sooner than later. Better watch out! BOO!

States can’t make weaker laws the Feds but they can make stronger laws.

Think minimum wage . You can’t go below the Fed min wage laws. Most states are higher .

Min Wage is not enshrined in the constitution gun rights are.

So is the well-regulated part....

Well regulated means well equipped and practiced. In order for The People to do that they must posses their own arms.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Once again, state laws not federal....

At this point, it's clear you refuse to understand the issue and argument presented to you.
I shall allow you to do so,

When you can soundly explain how California can deny a person from Ohio the same privileges and/or immunities attached to a right of citizenship enjoyed by the people of California, you let me know.

 

[M14 Shooter]

So is the well-regulated part....

"Well regulated" modifies "militia"
What does that have to do with "The right of the people to keep and bear arms"?

 

[AntonToo]

Trump backs controversial new bill that would give nationwide right to carry concealed gun
Awesome! I hope it passes.

How the fuck do you think this will ever pass with Democrat controlled House while it never even go any traction with full Republican majorities?

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

& what about state's rights? even in the wild wild west, if it was decided you had to check yer guns b4 entering a town's boundaries, then that is what you had to do.

The Constitution of the United States is the ultimate law of the land and supersedes state laws Shall not be infringed is pretty fucking specific.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

& what about state's rights? even in the wild wild west, if it was decided you had to check yer guns b4 entering a town's boundaries, then that is what you had to do.

The Constitution of the United States is the ultimate law of the land and supersedes

Sure . As long as the states meet the toughest states standard.

You mean those tough standards that don't do shit ?

 

[Brain357]

You claimed they are so lawful. I proved they kill a lot of people. You lose.

Lawful means they are within the law. Killing somebody who is breaking into your home is lawful. Accidental deaths are not against the law, they are accidental. Suicides are not illegal because of the obvious reasons. In other words, your link is fudged data with nothing to back it up.

Here, try some honest data for a change.

Report: Concealed Carry Permit Holders Are The Most Law-Abiding People In The Country

John Lott? Haha. That guy is a complete joke and his name is on 99% of pro gun studies. Some real study info.

In his book, More Guns, Less Crime, as well as in other published articles, John Lott claims that RTC laws save lives and reduce violent crime. Lott argues that when more law-abiding citizens carry guns, more crimes will be deterred or successfully interrupted. Importantly, he contends that those who can legally own guns have such low rates of criminal offending, that the net effect of RTC laws and more legal gun carrying is to significantly lower rates of violent crime.
Lott’s research to support these claims, however, has been found to be flawed in many important ways.6,7,8,9 When those flaws are corrected, no crime-reducing effects of RTC laws are evident.
The most comprehensive, and arguably most rigorous, study on the effects of RTC laws was recently published by economists John Donohue
(Stanford), Abhay Aneja (University of California, Berkeley), and Kyle Weber (Columbia). Donohue and colleagues found that violent crime rates increased with each additional year a RTC law was in place, presumably as more people were carrying guns on their person and in their vehicles.b,10 By years 7 through 10 following the adoption of a RTC law, violent crime rates were 11% to 14% higher than predicted had such laws not been in place. After controlling for changes in incarceration rates and the number of police per capita, RTC laws were associated with a 10% higher murder rate 10 years following the adoption of RTC laws.11 This is consistent with findings from a prior study showing that violent crime increased with each year an RTC law was in place 12 and a recent study that found RTC laws are associated with a 10.6% increase in homicides committed with handguns. 13

https://www.jhsph.edu/research/cent.../publications/concealed-carry-of-firearms.pdf

Just what you posted shows that the article is biased and even fake. That is unless you believe their report is more accurate than FBI statistics.

View attachment 248220

Funny you should post that. The Brady bill was passed at the end of 1993. The graph clearly shows how effective it was. Thanks.

What the graph shows is that it was at it's height and going down before 1993. Furthermore all studies have shown it had no positive effect. The gun ban expired in 2004, and violent crime continued to decline until the Ferguson Effect kicked in at 2014 when police quit being proactive in their duties.

If the gun ban had any impact, violent crime would have reversed itself within a year or two. So why the continued decline? Because more states adopted CCW laws and laws that favored the shooter during that same period.

Yes background checks lowered crime. We need to make them stronger. The last few years crime has increased with CCW.

 

[Brain357]

You claimed they are so lawful. I proved they kill a lot of people. You lose.

Lawful means they are within the law. Killing somebody who is breaking into your home is lawful. Accidental deaths are not against the law, they are accidental. Suicides are not illegal because of the obvious reasons. In other words, your link is fudged data with nothing to back it up.

Here, try some honest data for a change.

Report: Concealed Carry Permit Holders Are The Most Law-Abiding People In The Country

John Lott? Haha. That guy is a complete joke and his name is on 99% of pro gun studies. Some real study info.

In his book, More Guns, Less Crime, as well as in other published articles, John Lott claims that RTC laws save lives and reduce violent crime. Lott argues that when more law-abiding citizens carry guns, more crimes will be deterred or successfully interrupted. Importantly, he contends that those who can legally own guns have such low rates of criminal offending, that the net effect of RTC laws and more legal gun carrying is to significantly lower rates of violent crime.
Lott’s research to support these claims, however, has been found to be flawed in many important ways.6,7,8,9 When those flaws are corrected, no crime-reducing effects of RTC laws are evident.
The most comprehensive, and arguably most rigorous, study on the effects of RTC laws was recently published by economists John Donohue
(Stanford), Abhay Aneja (University of California, Berkeley), and Kyle Weber (Columbia). Donohue and colleagues found that violent crime rates increased with each additional year a RTC law was in place, presumably as more people were carrying guns on their person and in their vehicles.b,10 By years 7 through 10 following the adoption of a RTC law, violent crime rates were 11% to 14% higher than predicted had such laws not been in place. After controlling for changes in incarceration rates and the number of police per capita, RTC laws were associated with a 10% higher murder rate 10 years following the adoption of RTC laws.11 This is consistent with findings from a prior study showing that violent crime increased with each year an RTC law was in place 12 and a recent study that found RTC laws are associated with a 10.6% increase in homicides committed with handguns. 13

https://www.jhsph.edu/research/cent.../publications/concealed-carry-of-firearms.pdf

Just what you posted shows that the article is biased and even fake. That is unless you believe their report is more accurate than FBI statistics.

View attachment 248220

Wisconsin is fairly new to concealed carry. Lets check how they are doing. They got carry at the end of 2011. Violent crime rates:
2011: 249.9
2012: 283.9
2013: 280.7
2014: 291.1
2015: 304.3
2016: 305.9
Ouch. Quite the gain since ccw.

Wisconsin Crime Rates 1960 - 2016

Which is also proportional to the demographics change in the state as well.

There has been no demographics change. Nice try.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Yes background checks lowered crime.

This is a lie.

The last few years crime has increased with CCW.

This is also a lie.

 

[Brain357]

Yes background checks lowered crime.

This is a lie.

The last few years crime has increased with CCW.

This is also a lie.

Background checks passed in 93.

Yeah looks pretty clear it lowered violent crime.

And how is crime more recently with ccw at all time highs?
FBI: Violent crime up in 2016 for second year in a row

 

[M14 Shooter]

Yes background checks lowered crime.

This is a lie.

The last few years crime has increased with CCW.

This is also a lie.

Background checks passed in 93.

Yeah looks pretty clear it lowered violent crime.

And how is crime more recently with ccw at all time highs?
FBI: Violent crime up in 2016 for second year in a row

Google:
Post hoc ergo propter hoc

 

[Brain357]

Yes background checks lowered crime.

This is a lie.

The last few years crime has increased with CCW.

This is also a lie.

Background checks passed in 93.

Yeah looks pretty clear it lowered violent crime.

And how is crime more recently with ccw at all time highs?
FBI: Violent crime up in 2016 for second year in a row

Google:
Post hoc ergo propter hoc

Your denial of reality is noted.

 

[whitehall]

"Backs a Bill" posts are inane and trolling.