gunowners, we were whipped today

[adoniijahsooner]

carry law rejected

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/07/22/concealed.weapons/index.html

[Boomer Mooner]

Vote was 58 to 39 and they needed 60. We lost but I still find it encouraging we had almost 60% of the vote.

[Curly Bill]

Would have been nice, but I can already carry in every state that I travel to.

...and yup 58 votes in favor of gun rights out of this senate is encouraging.

[1890MilesToNorman]

Hypocrites all of em. When it comes to guns they want state rights to prevail (gun rights are guaranteed in the constitution) but when it come to health care they want everyone to comply with their program (heath care is not addressed in the constitution so it is supposed to be a state issue).

It's all ****ing bassackwards in America these days.

[AggieTool]

Now I can only feel tough in my state.:mad:

[adoniijahsooner]

Hammerson: You know, Hertz, people love guns because America is a land of opportunity where a poor man can become rich and a p***y can become a tough guy, if he's got a gun in his hand. Now, I'm hopin' you're not just a ***** with a gun in your hand.

Hertz: Oh no, sir, no I am not. No, I'm a tough guy with a p***y in my hand.

[C&CDean]

pfffft. Like I need some stupid law to carry my guns.

[LosAngelesSooner]

Don't let the spin fool you. It wasn't as close as the votes indicate.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/22/senate-dems-deal-nra-rare_n_242855.html



Senate Dems Deal NRA Rare Defeat (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/22/senate-dems-deal-nra-rare_n_242855.html)

Mark Pryor took a few quick steps onto the Senate floor Wednesday, flashed a thumbs down and walked back out. With him went any chance John Thune had of seeing his expansive concealed-gun amendment become law.

Pryor, a key Democrat from Arkansas, didn't head back to his office, however. There was still a wild card somewhere in the deck: Would Sen. Bob Byrd (D-W.Va.) show up? He surprised many in the Senate on Tuesday by wheeling in to vote for funding for the F-22 fighter jet, so anything was possible.

As the vote neared an end, the door swung open and in bounded Pryor. "Mr. President! Mr. President!" he shouted, getting the attention of the desk. Comfortable that Byrd wouldn't be making the trip, and with Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) voting no, Pryor switched his vote to a yes and the amendment failed by two, 58-39. Pryor could now say at home that he stuck with the National Rifle Association.

On Tuesday, the amendment to eliminate funding for the F-22 pulled the same number of votes and was described as a resounding victory. That's because the Senate had agreed, by unanimous consent, that it only needed 50 votes to pass. Thune's amendment, however, required 60, and so the exact same number of senators in favor added up to defeat.

The NRA isn't accustomed to losing, no matter how close the fight. They had won the last three Senate gun votes.

"Those who are keeping score understand this is the fourth major gun issue we've faced this year. We were losing those majors by ever-growing numbers on the three previous amendments, and that is the significance of the vote this afternoon," said Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) after the vote. "And it was extremely close, as you probably noted. But I do believe we have broken the momentum."

Democrats, in fact, had votes to spare this time around.

Toward the end of the tally, Colorado Democrats Michael Bennet and Mark Udall walked in together and headed straight for Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), the third ranking Democrat in the Senate. Schumer gave Bennet, a newly appointed freshman, a signal. Bennet looked back at Udall, who nodded.

With the dual green light, Bennet, a native of gun-hostile Washington, D.C., cast a yea vote for a radical weakening of gun laws. Udall followed him with another yes. The pair, secure that their yes votes wouldn't be enough to see the measure pass, walked together back up the aisle and sat side by side to take in the rest of the affair.
Schumer played down his role in a briefing with reporters following the vote. "There was no staring down at all. None," said Schumer. "Everyone was able to vote their conscience."

Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), however, declared himself impressed by Schumer's vote-winning abilities. "He was, I thought, mellow, very specific and not at all threatening or suggesting punishment, no. I learned something," said Lautenberg, who helped whip opposition to the amendment.

Virginia Democrats Mark Warner and Jim Webb didn't need to consult leadership. Warner walked in early and quickly voted yes. Webb popped in a few minutes later, voted yes, pivoted and left.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), facing re-election next fall, voted for the amendment, as he'd promised to do earlier. Montana Democrats Max Baucus and Jon Tester also broke party ranks -- with Baucus going so far as to make himself the lead Democratic cosponsor of the measure.

Democrats Ben Nelson (Neb.), Tim Johnson (S.D.), Blanche Lincoln (Ark.), Kay Hagan (N.C.) and Evan Bayh (Ind.) also voted with the NRA. Sen. Arlen Specter (D) played to the Pennsylvania primary crowd and voted down the amendment. His colleague Bob Casey, who's been a Democrat longer, played to the general electorate and voted with the NRA.

In Wisconsin, Democrat Russ Feingold voted with the NRA while fellow Dem Herb Kohl knocked it down.

Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) cast one of two no votes from the GOP. The vote was in character for Lugar, who is no enemy of gun-control advocates. The other no came from Sen. George Voinovich of Ohio, who was pressured earlier Wednesday (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/22/mayors-columbine-father-g_n_242725.html) by mayors across the country.

"Today, overheated rhetoric and fearmongering overcame common sense," groused Thune in a post-vote statement. He'll be back, he promised. "Despite today's defeat, this amendment had bipartisan support and I hope the Senate will reconsider this important issue in the future."

In consecutive days, the Senate has stared down both the military-industrial complex (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/21/senate-beats-back-militar_n_242135.html) and the gun-rights lobby, two of most powerful forces in Washington. Wall Street, of course, still has its way. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/21/under-wall-street-pressur_n_242273.html)

"We know the gun lobby is strong," said Schumer. "We know they'll be back. We know we have to be vigilant. But this shows that the Senate can rise to the occasion when the law just so overreaches that it puts police officers and sheriffs and citizens in dire difficulty."

Lautenberg, leaving the press gallery, turned to a staffer and observed that she looked as if she'd just let out a very deep breath. "It's the first one I've taken in the last week," she said.

And, personally, as an advocate of State's Rights, I think it's good that this one failed.

[Curly Bill]

I'm thinking this will have a much better shot in the next congress. ;)

[LosAngelesSooner]

Tell me this, Curly Bill. Why do you think this law SHOULD pass?

[Curly Bill]

Tell me this, Curly Bill. Why do you think this law SHOULD pass?

Because guns are cool. ;)

[Curly Bill]

...and oh yeah, that 2nd Amendment thing.

[LosAngelesSooner]

This wasn't a 2nd Amendment law. It had nothing to do with gun ownership or the right to bear arms. It was a concealed carry law that crossed over state lines.

So, why do you think it should have passed? (I'm sincerely curious...not just trying to cheet stir)

[Okla-homey]

Tell me this, Curly Bill. Why do you think this law SHOULD pass?

I'm not Curly Bill, but I'll answer. Your drivers license is recognized in all states because people travel across state lines. Therefore, your carry license should be too.

As others have stated however, this, for me anyway, is much ado about nothing because every state in which I'm likely to travel, already recognizes my Okie CCP by reciprocal agreement between Oklahoma and those states.

The biggies that do not are Illinois, Cali and NY, and I have no interest in visiting those dysfunctional, crime-ridden, festering ooze pits anyhoo.



States That Honor Your Oklahoma Permit
ALASKA* ALABAMA ARKANSAS ARIZONA COLORADO
DELAWARE FLORIDA GEORGIA IDAHO INDIANA
KANSAS KENTUCKY LOUISIANA MICHIGAN MINNESOTA
MISSOURI MONTANA MISSISSIPPI NORTH CAROLINA NORTH DAKOTA
NEW HAMPSHIRE NEW MEXICO OHIO PENNSYLVANIA SOUTH DAKOTA
TENNESSEE TEXAS UTAH VERMONT* VIRGINIA
WASHINGTON WYOMING

*Alaska and Vermont do not require permits or licenses. If you can legally own a firearm, you can carry it concealed

[Curly Bill]

So, why do you think it should have passed? (I'm sincerely curious...not just trying to cheet stir)

Because peeps should have the ability to defend themselves in whatever state they might happen to find themselves in.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

First step in Oblahma's/Rahm's plan

[LosAngelesSooner]

I'm not Curly Bill, but I'll answer. Your drivers license is recognized in all states because people travel across state lines. Therefore, your carry license should be too.

As other have stated however, this, for me anyway, is much ado about nothing because every state in which I'm likely to travel, already recognizes my Okie CCP by reciprocal agreement between Oklahoma and those states.
I'm sorry, but that's an apples to oranges argument. Guns do not equal cars.

That would be like saying "your Las Vegas sex worker license should be accepted in other states since Driver's Licenses are accepted in other states." Or your Alcohol License. Or your business license. Or your license to practice law in one particular state.

There are plenty of licenses that don't cross state lines. In fact, MOST don't cross state lines.

So why should this law have been passed?

[TheHumanAlphabet]

So why should this law have been passed?

Why shouldn't a person who has a valid conceal carry permit from one state be able to transport a concealed weapon to another with a concealed carry law?

[LosAngelesSooner]

Because peeps should have the ability to defend themselves in whatever state they might happen to find themselves in.But lethal force isn't universally recognized in all states. In fact, in many states the burden of proof of being in a "life threatening situation" lies with the shooter. So pulling out your gat and poppin' a cap in the would-be baddy's butt really is a last case option.

And you still CAN defend yourself...the original way. Marquis of Queensbury.


First step in Oblahma's/Rahm's plan:rolleyes:

Please leave the "crazy" out of this conversation.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

Please leave the "crazy" out of this conversation.

Glad you're back from vacation - have some good diving?

[LosAngelesSooner]

Why shouldn't a person who has a valid conceal carry permit from one state be able to transport a concealed weapon to another with a concealed carry law?State's rights. Each state has different standards for who can carry a concealed weapon and for what reasons. There are also laws in different states regarding insurance and training.

To force a state like California to accept a concealed carry permit from a state that hands them out when you open a checking account tramples on that state's rights.

And visa versa. It would be just as wrong if suddenly California's standard for concealed carry law was forced upon Alabama, etc...etc...

[Curly Bill]

But lethal force isn't universally recognized in all states. In fact, in many states the burden of proof of being in a "life threatening situation" lies with the shooter. So pulling out your gat and poppin' a cap in the would-be baddy's butt really is a last case option.

And you still CAN defend yourself...the original way. Marquis of Queensbury.
.

Yeah, when the bad guy has a knife or a gun of his own, I don't think so.

[LosAngelesSooner]

Glad you're back from vacation - have some good diving?Yeah, man. It was amazing...and cathartic. Thanks. :)

[Curly Bill]

State's rights. Each state has different standards for who can carry a concealed weapon and for what reasons. There are also laws in different states regarding insurance and training.

To force a state like California to accept a concealed carry permit from a state that hands them out when you open a checking account tramples on that state's rights.

And visa versa. It would be just as wrong if suddenly California's standard for concealed carry law was forced upon Alabama, etc...etc...

Which state(s) would this be?

[LosAngelesSooner]

Yeah, when the bad guy has a knife or a gun of his own, I don't think so.Okay, another honest question: When was the last time somebody tried to rob you at gunpoint? Or at knifepoint?

Mind you, I was a victim of a drive by shooting when I lived in Tulsa, so I'm in no way saying that it doesn't happen.

[LosAngelesSooner]

Which state(s) would this be?Dude...you got my point, right?

[yermom]

Why shouldn't a person who has a valid conceal carry permit from one state be able to transport a concealed weapon to another with a concealed carry law?

yeah, like marriage

[Curly Bill]

Okay, another honest question: When was the last time somebody tried to rob you at gunpoint? Or at knifepoint?

Mind you, I was a victim of a drive by shooting when I lived in Tulsa, so I'm in no way saying that it doesn't happen.

Never, but that doesn't mean it can't happen.

Hell, my house has never caught on fire, but I'm not in favor of disbanding the local fire department.

[Okla-homey]

I'm sorry, but that's an apples to oranges argument. Guns do not equal cars.

That would be like saying "your Las Vegas sex worker license should be accepted in other states since Driver's Licenses are accepted in other states." Or your Alcohol License. Or your business license. Or your license to practice law in one particular state.

There are plenty of licenses that don't cross state lines. In fact, MOST don't cross state lines.

So why should this law have been passed?

I do not accept your rationale. Brazillions more people get killed in car wrecks by people who shouldn't be driving than are killed by legally owned firearms. Thus, the fact Congress requires states to accept other states' licensing to operate a hurtling half-ton of steel, they should'nt have a problem with CCP's issued by other states.

[Curly Bill]

Dude...you got my point, right?

That you're prone to being overly dramatic...yeah, I got it. ;)

[Okla-homey]

But lethal force isn't universally recognized in all states. . Sorry. You're wrong. In every state, you can legally meet a legitimate threat of deadly force with deadly force. You are correct that the jury better agree the threat you faced was in fact life-threatening, but generally, I'd say you won't even be charged, let alone convicted, if you shoot an armed assailant, as long as you didn't start the fight.

[Okla-homey]

Which state(s) would this be?

CB,

I'll admit that all I had to do to get one in Alabama was apply at my county sherriff's office and pay a fee. Presumably, they ran some background check looking for felony convictions, but that was it.

Her in Oklahoma, it was more of a hassle.

[Curly Bill]

CB,

I'll admit that all I had to do to get one in Alabama was apply at my county sherriff's office and pay a fee. Presumably, they ran some background check looking for felony convictions, but that was it.

Her in Oklahoma, it was more of a hassle.

I'll be. Well, I always have heard good things about Alabama. :D

[adoniijahsooner]

But lethal force isn't universally recognized in all states. In fact, in many states the burden of proof of being in a "life threatening situation" lies with the shooter. So pulling out your gat and poppin' a cap in the would-be baddy's butt really is a last case option.

And you still CAN defend yourself...the original way. Marquis of Queensbury.

:rolleyes:

Please leave the "crazy" out of this conversation.

Duh. It sure couldnt lie with the reprobate who is lying dead in a pool of his own blood:D. If I had a choice between shooting someone, or trying to determine if I should wait for him to squeeze the trigger, just to be sure....well I'll take my chances in court. But like you said, we could always box the perp right?

[adoniijahsooner]

Never, but that doesn't mean it can't happen.

Hell, my house has never caught on fire, but I'm not in favor of disbanding the local fire department.

Or the Fire extinguisher;)

[Scott D]

Which state(s) would this be?

Missouri, dontcha know you can get a free AK with a car ;)

[JLEW1818]

Never, but that doesn't mean it can't happen.

Hell, my house has never caught on fire, but I'm not in favor of disbanding the local fire department.

aint that the ****ing truth!!!!

[Curly Bill]

Missouri, dontcha know you can get a free AK with a car ;)


tru dat

As much as I like that concept, I'm not going to buy a several thousand dollar car so I can get a free $500 AK though. ;)

Now, were I in the market, and all other things being equal.....

[Harry Beanbag]

I'm waiting on the fake Palin-McCain twitter conversation about this to form my opinion. :)

[WildBlueSooner]

Never, but that doesn't mean it can't happen.

Hell, my house has never caught on fire, but I'm not in favor of disbanding the local fire department.

I am in favor of disbanding the local fire department. And since I have never had to go to the hospital, who needs em?
:rolleyes:

Speaking of the Constitution, wouldnt it be sweet if the states started deciding when and where in their state you had the right to free speech? "I am sorry sir, to get free speech in California you have to get a permit." :pop:

[JLEW1818]

I am in favor of disbanding the local fire department. And since I have never had to go to the hospital, who needs em?
:rolleyes:

Speaking of the Constitution, wouldnt it be sweet if the states started deciding when and where in their state you had the right to free speech? "I am sorry sir, to get free speech in California you have to get a permit." :pop:

:D :D :D

[WildBlueSooner]

Oh and just because you have not been a victim of violent crime...

1,408,337 were in 2007 (According to the FBI)

I choose not to take my chances (well only in the states that give me a choice ;) )

[soonerloyal]

Put simply, in some states it is legal to conceal & carry, others it is illegal (they have not passed the law to make it legal). The measure that failed was to have allowed people to carry concealed weapons from state to state, if they had the permit to do so from states that allow it, even if it was illegal to do so in the state to which they were traveling. This would have violated the laws of the states who have chosen to make conceal & carry illegal.

It's not a matter of gun ownership rights, it's a matter of some states want it, some don't.

[WildBlueSooner]

Put simply, in some states it is legal to conceal & carry, others it is illegal (they have not passed the law to make it legal). The measure that failed was to have allowed people to carry concealed weapons from state to state, if they had the permit to do so in states that allow it. This would have violated the laws of the states who have chosen to make coNceal & carry illegal.

It's not a matter of gun ownership rights, it's a matter of some states want it, some don't.

I understand that, the problem is, does the state have the right to decide on everything? Can a state decide that they dont want freedom of religion? I am a states rights advocate for the most part, but I do not believe states have the power on all issues (namely those in the constitution).

[MR2-Sooner86]

It's not a matter of gun ownership rights, it's a matter of some states are very smart, and some have their head in their ***.

Fixed.

Here I'll take a look at that thing called the Constitution.

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms"

bear - to hold and take along; carry; transport

Where's the issue? I don't see it.

[SoonerBorn68]

I think somebody's having a bad day at the internets. :(

[WildBlueSooner]

Fixed.

Here I'll take a look at that thing called the Constitution.

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms"

bear - to hold and take along; carry; transport

Where's the issue? I don't see it.

:D word.

[GottaHavePride]

New York is a weird state. They allow concealed carry, and issue permits, but they don't recognize permits from any state other than New York. AND, New York City won't even recognize a State of New York CWP unless the NYC chief of police authorizes a special exception for you.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

I don't want bear arms, Wally.

I just want my plain ol' man arms.

[StoopTroup]

pfffft. Like I need some stupid law to carry my guns.

Or like Harry Potter needs a license to carry a wand. Both would be silly. Great point Dean. :D

[beer4me]

I don't want bear arms, Wally.

I just want my plain ol' man arms.

Ok that was not fair I just spewed a unnamed adult beverage outta my nose:D

[LosAngelesSooner]

Never, but that doesn't mean it can't happen.

Hell, my house has never caught on fire, but I'm not in favor of disbanding the local fire department.So somebody walks up to you with a gun and tells you to give them your wallet and you...what? Quick draw them, Wyatt?

I'm just saying, most people who carry concealed guns, shouldn't. They end up getting those people into MORE trouble instead of getting them out of it. And law enforcement in all 50 states agrees with me on this.

Mind you, I still am in favor of concealed carry permits. I happen to have a concealed carry permit that works in almost every state.

I'm just debating the legitimacy of THIS PARTICULAR bill.


I do not accept your rationale. Brazillions more people get killed in car wrecks by people who shouldn't be driving than are killed by legally owned firearms. Thus, the fact Congress requires states to accept other states' licensing to operate a hurtling half-ton of steel, they should'nt have a problem with CCP's issued by other states.Sorry, maybe I wasn't clear or you just missed the point. I wasn't talking about fatalities, I was talking about licenses. That's why I mentioned sex workers and alcohol licenses and licenses to practice law in the same post. Shoot, different states don't recognize MASSAGE THERAPY licenses.

Is that clear enough?


That you're prone to being overly dramatic...yeah, I got it. ;)Oh, shut it. ;) You know what I meant. I was using humor to illustrate a point. (and we all do remember the bank who was giving out shotguns with each new checking account opened, don't we?)


Sorry. You're wrong. In every state, you can legally meet a legitimate threat of deadly force with deadly force. You are correct that the jury better agree the threat you faced was in fact life-threatening, but generally, I'd say you won't even be charged, let alone convicted, if you shoot an armed assailant, as long as you didn't start the fight.Again, maybe I wasn't clear enough. I'm talking about what constitutes a life threatening situation. Each state has different language describing those situations. Not all of them are the same. Therefore, what you can get away with in one state as justification for homicide, won't fly in another.

Capiche?

[JLEW1818]

:gary:

[LosAngelesSooner]

I am in favor of disbanding the local fire department. And since I have never had to go to the hospital, who needs em?
:rolleyes:

Speaking of the Constitution, wouldnt it be sweet if the states started deciding when and where in their state you had the right to free speech? "I am sorry sir, to get free speech in California you have to get a permit." :pop:Wow. You REALLY missed the point.

Nobody is infringing on the right to OWN a gun...or to bear arms to defend our nation. But the ability to curtail who walks around with a glock hidden in their waistband...makes some sense. And at least SHOULD be up to each individual state concerning WHO can do it and under what circumstances and after what amount of training.

And states DO decide when and where in their state you have the right to free speech. Don't believe me? Walk into Dean's living room and go on a free speech tirade about how Obama is Jesus Christ and weed should be legalized and see what happens. ;)

[Curly Bill]

I'm just saying, most people who carry concealed guns, shouldn't. They end up getting those people into MORE trouble instead of getting them out of it. And law enforcement in all 50 states agrees with me on this.

I'd be interested in seeing the proof of that.

...and I'd argue that among the rank and file police this is not even close to true. Among the poltical leadership of the police...maybe.

[LosAngelesSooner]

Fixed.

Here I'll take a look at that thing called the Constitution.

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms"

bear - to hold and take along; carry; transport

Where's the issue? I don't see it.You conveniently left the word "Concealed" out of your Constitutional quote.

[Curly Bill]

So somebody walks up to you with a gun and tells you to give them your wallet and you...what? Quick draw them, Wyatt?


...or I could just bend over and let them do whatever they want to me, but see: I don't like the thought of that so much.

...and I have no use for Wyatt Earp -- see my user name. :D

[LosAngelesSooner]

I'd be interested in seeing the proof of that.

...and I'd argue that among the rank and file police this is not even close to true. Among the poltical leadership of the police...maybe.
Well, that would require me to actually spend the time lookin for it...and I'm still in the middle of moving, so I'll try, but it might be a couple of days. But I know every cop I've ever talked to wishes that there were no concealed carry permits for anyone. (except them, of course)

[StoopTroup]

Well, that would require me to actually spend the time lookin for it...and I'm still in the middle of moving, so I'll try, but it might be a couple of days. But I know every cop I've ever talked to wishes that there were no concealed carry permits for anyone. (except them, of course)

Well...duh....they can't confiscate it and then buy it for a nickel at the Police auction later.

[Curly Bill]

Well, that would require me to actually spend the time lookin for it...and I'm still in the middle of moving, so I'll try, but it might be a couple of days. But I know every cop I've ever talked to wishes that there were no concealed carry permits for anyone. (except them, of course)

You're talking to different cops than I know then. The ones I know recognize that peeps with concealed carry permits are not the ones they should be worried about.

[beer4me]

Well, that would require me to actually spend the time lookin for it...and I'm still in the middle of moving, so I'll try, but it might be a couple of days. But I know every cop I've ever talked to wishes that there were no concealed carry permits for anyone. (except them, of course)

Yea so did the Nazi's.

Figure of speech!

[Boomer Mooner]

I know several police officers and Oklahoma Highway Patrol. None of them are for gun control. Here are some quotes from the "Law Enforcement Alliance of America"...........http://www.leaa.org/Cops%20Versus%20Gun%20Control/copsversusguncon.html


Cops and Gun Control: The REAL Story

One of the driving forces behind LEAA’s founding was to dispel the false impression that America’s police favor more gun control.

We know, and research backs us up, an overwhelming majority of America’s rank-and-file cops support private ownership of firearms.

That’s because they know, better than most, that disarming honest citizens does nothing to reduce crime, but will deprive citizens of the means of defending themselves from violent predators.

Many cops are firearms and shooting sports enthusiasts. (If you doubt this, count the number of law enforcement types you see next time you go to the range or on a hunting trip!) These officers know first hand that the kind of gun control popular among liberal activists will do nothing to reduce real crime or deter real criminals. They also know that the kind of extreme gun control measures being pushed by liberals today places an inordinate burden on law abiding shooting enthusiasts and legitimate gun dealers.

And many veteran law enforcement officers can recount episodes where the intervention of an armed private citizen has saved lives * often the officer’s!

[MR2-Sooner86]

I'm just saying, most people who carry concealed guns, shouldn't. They end up getting those people into MORE trouble instead of getting them out of it. And law enforcement in all 50 states agrees with me on this.

Oh really?


In 1986, nine states had right-to-carry laws.

As of 1998, 31 states have right-to-carry laws, and about half the U.S. population lives in these states.

Florida adopted a right-to-carry law in 1987. At the time the law was passed, critics predicted increases in violence. The founder of the National Organization of Women, Betty Friedan stated:

"lethal violence, even in self defense, only engenders more violence."

When the law went into effect, the Dade County Police began a program to record all arrest and non arrest incidents involving concealed carry licensees. Between September of 1987 and August of 1992, Dade County recorded 4 crimes committed by licensees with firearms. None of these crimes resulted in an injury. The record keeping program was abandoned in 1992 because there were not enough incidents to justify tracking them.

221,443 concealed carry licenses were issued in Florida between October of 1987 and April of 1994. During that time, Florida recorded 18 crimes committed by licensees with firearms.

As of 1998, nationwide, there has been 1 recorded incident in which a permit holder shot someone following a traffic accident. The permit holder was not charged, as the grand jury ruled the shooting was in self defense.

As of 1998, no permit holder has ever shot a police officer. There have been several cases in which a permit holder has protected an officer's life.


Florida adopted a right-to-carry law in 1987. Between 1987 and 1996, these changes occurred:


Florida
United States

homicide rate
-36%
-0.4%

firearm homicide rate
-37%
+15%

handgun homicide rate
-41%
+24%

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

[Tulsa_Fireman]

Buuuuuuuuuuuuurn.

You got served, LAS.

[Okla-homey]

Besides, this country was built by gun-totin', square-dancers and where would we be without guns? ;)

[Curly Bill]

Besides, this country was built by gun-totin', square-dancers and where would we be without guns? ;)

What is: A British colony.

[StoopTroup]

And states DO decide when and where in their state you have the right to free speech. Don't believe me? Walk into Dean's living room and go on a free speech tirade about how Obama is Jesus Christ and weed should be legalized and see what happens. ;)

That would be the Youtube video of the day if you would do it.

[Harry Beanbag]

I happen to have a concealed carry permit that works in almost every state.



From California?

[GottaHavePride]

Florida's permits have the highest rate of recognition from other states. And non-Florida residents can get them by mail.

[Frozen Sooner]

Sooo many things to comment on:

1. Yes, LAS, states DO honor the licenses of other states in many cases. They are required to do so under the United States Constitution. The section dealing with this is commonly referred to as the "full faith and credit" clause.

2. People have mentioned a few times that the Constitution forbids states from curtailing several rights, most notably the right to free speech. In fact, the Constitution as originally written and passed did no such thing. The 14th Amendment has incorporated certain "fundamental" rights against the states, including most (but not all) of the Bill of Rights against the states. Most notably, the Supremes have failed to recognize the right to bear arms as fundamental as yet and as such states are free under the Constitution right now to limit the right to bear arms in whichever way they wish.

There is currently a conflict in the Circuits (9th is pro-incorporation & 2nd and 7th are anti-incorporation) that the Supremes will likely resolve post haste. With the current makeup of the court (and in fact, the current makeup of the country) it is likely that the 2nd will be incorporated as soon as a colorable case comes before them. Which I'm 100% behind. Heller would have been a decent case except that it was brought from D.C. so doesn't apply to states.

[JohnnyMack]

So gay marriage should be recognized across state lines as well. Right?

[Frozen Sooner]

So gay marriage should be recognized across state lines as well. Right?

Unfortunately, no.

The full faith and credit clause explicitly gives Congress the authority to decide how states should be required to give full faith and credit to the acts and licenses of other states. The Defense of Marriage Act allows individual states to decide to not honor marriages offensive to the public morals.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

Before the DoMA, wasn't that the concern though?

Full Faith and Credit granting marriage rights from state to state from the legislation of a single state?

[JohnnyMack]

Oh. I'm so thankful my government is doing important things like defending marriage. Does that mean people have to stop cheating and lying and being selfish scumbags to their partners?

[LosAngelesSooner]

You're talking to different cops than I know then. The ones I know recognize that peeps with concealed carry permits are not the ones they should be worried about.Really? You tellin' me you've never seen a completely grounded, rational, responsible person get a little liquor in them, or go through an emotionally traumatic experience and then act like a complete psycho who is a danger to themselves and everyone around them? Now imagine that same person...with a gun hidden on them, just walking down the street looking for a fight.

Again, I'm FOR concealed carry permits, I have one, but I can also see the rationale against it. Which is why I think it should be left up to the states.

[LosAngelesSooner]

Buuuuuuuuuuuuurn.

You got served, LAS.
Heh. *shrug* Not really. Like I said, I'm for it. I'm just playing Devil's advocate in this thread. :)

[LosAngelesSooner]

From California?I have the Nevada one and the California one. Got my Cali one through Kern County. It's nigh unto impossible to get a CC permit in LA County.

[olevetonahill]

Really? You tellin' me you've never seen a completely grounded, rational, responsible person get a little liquor in them, or go through an emotionally traumatic experience and then act like a complete psycho who is a danger to themselves and everyone around them? Now imagine that same person...with a gun hidden on them, just walking down the street looking for a fight.

Again, I'm FOR concealed carry permits, I have one, but I can also see the rationale against it. Which is why I think it should be left up to the states.

Dude Im as Crazy as they come , I like My Booze. But I aint never went after anyone with a Gun
Cept when i was In that one place :cool:

[Frozen Sooner]

Before the DoMA, wasn't that the concern though?

Full Faith and Credit granting marriage rights from state to state from the legislation of a single state?

I know it was certainly a talking point. The language of DoMA certainly recognizes the issue.

[LosAngelesSooner]

Unfortunately, no.

The full faith and credit clause explicitly gives Congress the authority to decide how states should be required to give full faith and credit to the acts and licenses of other states. The Defense of Marriage Act allows individual states to decide to not honor marriages offensive to the public morals.Cool. Really interesting stuff. Thanks for bringing it up. I was unaware of that.

So can you explain why Massage Therapists have to get new licenses in other states? And Lawyers? And why couldn't a sex worker in Nevada take her "Adult Service Industry License" and go set up shot in another state?

(sincere questions)

[LosAngelesSooner]

Dude Im as Crazy as they come , I like My Booze. But I aint never went after anyone with a Gun
Cept when i was In that one place :cool:
They're still lookin' fer ya, ain't they?

[Curly Bill]

Really? You tellin' me you've never seen a completely grounded, rational, responsible person get a little liquor in them, or go through an emotionally traumatic experience and then act like a complete psycho who is a danger to themselves and everyone around them? Now imagine that same person...with a gun hidden on them, just walking down the street looking for a fight.

Again, I'm FOR concealed carry permits, I have one, but I can also see the rationale against it. Which is why I think it should be left up to the states.

I heard much of the hysterical outcry about the "Wild West," and blood running in the streets as these concealed carry laws were being passed across the nation. Guess what? It hasn't happened.

...and guess what else: using your scenario of someone turning psycho -- how much is any kind of law going to matter to them?

[Frozen Sooner]

Cool. Really interesting stuff. Thanks for bringing it up. I was unaware of that.

So can you explain why Massage Therapists have to get new licenses in other states? And Lawyers? And why couldn't a sex worker in Nevada take her "Adult Service Industry License" and go set up shot in another state?

(sincere questions)

Sure.

States are free to make their own rules as to who can practice a particular profession in their state, particularly when the practice of that profession would contravene public policy (such as your Nevada example.)

[LosAngelesSooner]

Then what about medical marijuana? It's not a profession, and it's legal out here in Cali...what if I took my prescription and baggie (that I don't actually have since I don't toke up, but...for argument's sake) and drove on over to Phoenix, AZ?

[Frozen Sooner]

Writing a prescription doesn't constitute a judicial act.

[LosAngelesSooner]

So a state could, theoretically, make Viagra illegal?

[Frozen Sooner]

Without spending any time to look up any relevant case law, I can't think of any reason why they wouldn't be able to. Considering the age and sex makeup of most state legislatures, I find it somewhat unlikely that any state would.

[LosAngelesSooner]

Ha!

Interesting stuff. Thanks for chiming in.

Back on topic, I guess my whole point is that I can see how states like California and New York wouldn't want people with concealed weapons licenses from Alabama and Florida to be able to carry weapons in their states. And while I think that it's a good thing to be able to carry my Sig around, I also recognize that when a city/state has a very high population of economically depressed people and neighborhoods, it's probably a good thing not to introduce more guns to the equation.

I guess that I usually tend to err on the side of State's rights vs. Fed rights. That's why you guys didn't hear me cry with outrage when OK outlawed gay marriage, but I sure raised a fuss when Cali did.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

You and Homey can DEFINITELY answer it better than I, but doesn't existing state level legislation on these subjects trump Full Faith and Credit?

For example, Utah passes legislation permitting wanking in public with a license. For states with no administrative, statutory, or case law in place, Full Faith and Credit kicks in. For those WITH legislation dictating wanking in public, the intent of the states in their legislation contradict, therefore people within the state are subject to the laws of the state they're within.

At least that's how it was explained to me, but that was a dumb ol' fireman to a dumb ol' fireman. Is that how it essentially works?

[Frozen Sooner]

Hey now, don't be puttin' me on a level with Homey. I'm just learning to think about these things in a couple of weeks. He's already been done learned.

I know that state-level legislation is given a large amount of deference in FF&C matters-for example, a marriage between first cousins could be held to be invalid in a state that prohibits such marriage as a matter of public policy.

However, at this point I'm going to admit that I'm not any kind of an expert on FF&C and that I'm frankly too lazy to look it up right now. :D

[olevetonahill]

Then what about medical marijuana? It's not a profession, and it's legal out here in Cali...what if I took my prescription and baggie (that I don't actually have since I don't toke up, but...for argument's sake) and drove on over to Phoenix, AZ?

MaryJ is NOT Legal in any of the 50 states thats A Fed. Law

Those few states that allow the medical use Choose to Not enforce Fed. Law
But the Feds can nail yer *** if they want .:rolleyes:

[olevetonahill]

They're still lookin' fer ya, ain't they?

Why would they be looking fer Me ?
Them ****ers Know where I live :pop:

[Crucifax Autumn]

MaryJ is NOT Legal in any of the 50 states thats A Fed. Law

Those few states that allow the medical use Choose to Not enforce Fed. Law
But the Feds can nail yer *** if they want .:rolleyes:

And they can kiss my fat white ***!

[Frozen Sooner]

And they can kiss my fat white ***!

C'mon up. Possession of up to 4oz is legal under the state constitution, and good luck finding a fed who cares about that much.

[olevetonahill]

C'mon up. Possession of up to 4oz is legal under the state constitution, and good luck finding a fed who cares about that much.

This is True bro
But LAS was saying its legal In Cal . Its Not Legal anywhere
the Fed laws are just not enforced .
Right ?

[Frozen Sooner]

Depends on how you want to parse it and how persnickety you want to be. Since California and Alaska are both subject to Federal law by the Supremacy Clause, yes, marijuana is de jure illegal in both states. De facto, though, they're pretty legal. :D

Not that I advise anyone to go out and buy or grow a bunch of Thai stick.

[def_lazer_fc]

if they want to be a dick about it

[olevetonahill]

Thats all Im saying bro , IT is illegal .
Now will the local PoPos and courts enforce Fed Law
Naw

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Hypocrites all of em. When it comes to guns they want state rights to prevail (gun rights are guaranteed in the constitution) but when it come to health care they want everyone to comply with their program (heath care is not addressed in the constitution so it is supposed to be a state issue).

It's all ****ing bassackwards in America these days.Nuff said. Thread closed!

[Frozen Sooner]

Which is, in and of itself, somewhat of a problem. Not on the court level-the state criminal courts won't convict because they won't be charged in state court. If they charged someone on marijuana up here, it'd be in federal court and the judge would likely convict if the prosecutor proved his case.

I don't like police being caught in a situation where they have to decide which laws to enforce. Tends to erode respect for the law.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I am in favor of disbanding the local fire department. And since I have never had to go to the hospital, who needs em?
:rolleyes:

Speaking of the Constitution, wouldnt it be sweet if the states started deciding when and where in their state you had the right to free speech? "I am sorry sir, to get free speech in California you have to get a permit." :pop:Kudos, rookie!

[def_lazer_fc]

getting kudos from rlimc isnt a good thing

[Frozen Sooner]

Getting kudos from anyone is good. Those granola/chocolate chip bars are AWESOME.

[def_lazer_fc]

hehe

[beer4me]

Yea so did the Nazi's.

Figure of speech!

Well ok tried to be nice here but cause a poster negged me on this post let me be clear on this.

What I said here stands like it or not it is the truth and absolute historical fact like it or not, ignore it or not, it is the truth.

In fact Hitler used registered gun owners list to not only confiscate guns but to have many of the owners of those guns executed.

As someone who has hunted all his life and have a closet full of guns it makes me very nervous when my government starts anything on gun control period.

Instead of gun control why don't we make the act of any violence with guns a excutable offense and stand by it and not just fill up the jails. Harsh yes it needs to be harsh.

Read the history on gun and gun control. Also you might want read the history of what happen in GB and their gun control laws at the turn of the century, then what shape they were in when the Nazis came a calln.

http://www.xmission.com/~ranthon/hitler-and-guns.htm

[Harry Beanbag]

Got my Cali one through Kern County.

So what did you use for your "Good Cause"?

[jkjsooner]

CB,

I'll admit that all I had to do to get one in Alabama was apply at my county sherriff's office and pay a fee. Presumably, they ran some background check looking for felony convictions, but that was it.

Her in Oklahoma, it was more of a hassle.

Speaking of conceiled carry laws and Alabama.... I had a friend (a little crazy I have to say) who had a conceiled carry permit in Alabama. He also liked to go and film guys picking up illegals at the local quick store. He even had the owner's permission to do so. One time the cops harrassed him and noticed his firearm. They drew their weapons on him. He produced a permit but they still hauled him off to jail.

I'm not as big of a gun guy as many of you but if you have a permit and you're acting legally then they darn well better leave you alone.

[adoniijahsooner]

Speaking of conceiled carry laws and Alabama.... I had a friend (a little crazy I have to say) who had a conceiled carry permit in Alabama. He also liked to go and film guys picking up illegals at the local quick store. He even had the owner's permission to do so. One time the cops harrassed him and noticed his firearm. They drew their weapons on him. He produced a permit but they still hauled him off to jail.

I'm not as big of a gun guy as many of you but if you have a permit and you're acting legally then they darn well better leave you alone.

To be honest, cops can take you in whenever they choose. It the old "you may beat the rap, but you wont beat the ride" routine. Texas has this new travel law that was getting people arrested until they straightened it out. Before that, the cops would basically arrest you and make you plead your case to the judge. I love the Texas gun laws, and the more I think about it, maybe a national gun law would be a bad thing for us texans.

[Curly Bill]

Texas cops have pulled me over twice while I was carrying (speeding got me two warning tickets). Both times it was highway patrol, the first one I told him I was carrying and he simply asked me where the gun was, I told him, he asked me to step out of the car where he could retrieve it, and he kept it until he was done writing his warning ticket and then gave it back. The last time, only a few months ago, I told him I was carrying, he thanked me for letting him know, then left to write the warning ticket -- didn't ask where it was, didn't keep it until we were done, nothing.

[soonerscuba]

Well ok tried to be nice here but cause a poster negged me on this post let me be clear on this.

What I said here stands like it or not it is the truth and absolute historical fact like it or not, ignore it or not, it is the truth.

In fact Hitler used registered gun owners list to not only confiscate guns but to have many of the owners of those guns executed.

As someone who has hunted all his life and have a closet full of guns it makes me very nervous when my government starts anything on gun control period.

Instead of gun control why don't we make the act of any violence with guns a excutable offense and stand by it and not just fill up the jails. Harsh yes it needs to be harsh.

Read the history on gun and gun control. Also you might want read the history of what happen in GB and their gun control laws at the turn of the century, then what shape they were in when the Nazis came a calln.

http://www.xmission.com/~ranthon/hitler-and-guns.htm

While I am in complete support of the 2nd, this reference always annoys the bejesus out of me. The Nazis didn't implement the gun control laws in Germany, they carried them over from the Weimar Republic which were designed to disarm Nazis and Commies. The point remains, but I am of the opinion that the second Nazis are brought up, you automatically lose an argument.

[adoniijahsooner]

*Texas* cops have pulled me over twice while I was carrying (speeding got me two warning tickets). Both times it was highway patrol, the first one I told him I was carrying and he simply asked me where the gun was, I told him, he asked me to step out of the car where he could retrieve it, and he kept it until he was done writing his warning ticket and then gave it back. The last time, only a few months ago, I told him I was carrying, he thanked me for letting him know, then left to write the warning ticket -- didn't ask where it was, didn't keep it until we were done, nothing.

Im guessing your a middle aged white man, and not a 33 year old black guy. I may be wrong, but that's my guess.

[Curly Bill]

Im guessing your a middle aged white man, and not a 33 year old black guy. I may be wrong, but that's my guess.

Yes.

Serious question: In your opinion would it have been different for you? Or has it actually been different for you?

...and just FYI: the second Trooper was black.

[adoniijahsooner]

While I am in complete support of the 2nd, this reference always annoys the bejesus out of me. The Nazis didn't implement the gun control laws in Germany, they carried them over from the Weimar Republic which were designed to disarm Nazis and Commies. The point remains, but I am of the opinion that the second Nazis are brought up, you automatically lose an argument.

Agreed. Lately all we hear are the words Nazi, Communists, and Socialists on this side of soonerfans.com. People don't understand there may actually be people in congress that really dont like guns; and they are not out to take guns away in order for them to perform another holocaust. Obama is from chicago where gun violence claim the lives of many people every year, so from his perspective people may not need guns. He did sign a bill that favored carrying guns @national parks; but we seem to forget that little nugget.

[beer4me]

While I am in complete support of the 2nd, this reference always annoys the bejesus out of me. The Nazis didn't implement the gun control laws in Germany, they carried them over from the Weimar Republic which were designed to disarm Nazis and Commies. The point remains, but I am of the opinion that the second Nazis are brought up, you automatically lose an argument.

Thanks for this insightful input, too bad you missed the point completely. And there is no argument.

What I pointed out stands.

I never mentioned the Weimar republic, they passed their law in 1928.

That was not the point the Nazis gave a **** about ANY of the laws.

Hitler went on to enact further gun laws in 1938.

Thanks for playing

[adoniijahsooner]

Yes.

Serious question: In your opinion would it have been different for you? Or has it actually been different for you?

...and just FYI: the second Trooper was black.

I don't have one blemish on my record, I dont speak with ebonical dialect, and I dont dress ghetto. It only changes when I qoute the law to the police so they know I understand the law. Afterwards they let me go without a problem; but i have to dance a little first.

[MR2-Sooner86]

Obama is from chicago where gun violence claim the lives of many people every year, so from his perspective people may not need guns.

Chicago has a handgun ban which is a reason for their high crime maybe?


He did sign a bill that favored carrying guns @national parks; but we seem to forget that little nugget.

Yet he voted against SB2165 which says a citizen has a right to defend their home with a gun. Hmm another little nugget.

[soonerscuba]

Thanks for this insightful input, too bad you missed the point completely. And there is no argument.

What I pointed out stands.

I never mentioned the Weimar republic, they passed their law in 1928.

That was not the point the Nazis gave a **** about ANY of the laws.

Hitler went on to enact further gun laws in 1938.

Thanks for playingYour righteous idignation aside, you credited the Nazis with laws they didn't enact, and I simply pointed that out. Chances are, you and I are on the same side on this issue, and I even conceded that the law on the books was used by the Nazis to disarm, so I don't think that I missed your point, I just pointed out the you are mistaken about Nazis and gun control in terms of creation of law. Also, considering German culture, I would be hard pressed to say that they didn't care about the rule of law, those people are rule followers by design, anything but a willful populace couldn't deal with that gov't. Like I said, comparing 21st century US with 30s era Germany is an exercise in absurdity.

[adoniijahsooner]

Chicago has a handgun ban which is a reason for their high crime maybe?



Yet he voted against SB2165 which says a citizen has a right to defend their home with a gun. Hmm another little nugget.

maybe bears and coyotes are more dangerous than human beings?:D

[beer4me]

Your righteous idignation aside, you credited the Nazis with laws they didn't enact, and I simply pointed that out. Chances are, you and I are on the same side on this issue, and I even conceded that the law on the books was used by the Nazis to disarm, so I don't think that I missed your point, I just pointed out the you are mistaken about Nazis and gun control in terms of creation of law. Also, considering German culture, I would be hard pressed to say that they didn't care about the rule of law, those people are rule followers by design, anything but a willful populace couldn't deal with that gov't. Like I said, comparing 21st century US with 30s era Germany is an exercise in absurdity.

No it is not an "exercise in absurdity" Remembering History is one thing that can keep you from getting on that slippery slope to the pit.

Burying your head in the sand and forgetting about the past and failing to compare where you are at today in relation to the past will get you on that slope and you won't even realize it until you’re nearly completely down to the pit.

One way despot rulers/regimes come into power outside of outright revolt and military force is to lull you asleep.

Hitler did not wake up one day in power he eased himself into (at first until he started murdering his opponents) was taking advantage of circumstances then once in power slowly eased to complete power where he had all authority simply by pumping up the German people and finding a scape goat to blame all of Germany’s problems on.


To achieve this he started enacting laws they start out harmless enough but by the end he could order the extermination of 6 million Jews simply by his own word.

When my government starts passing laws that either take away or restrict my rights then I start wondering and start paying very close attention to what is going on.

Today the government takes away one of my rights, then tomorrow it gets easier to take another one away, the next day it gets easier to start taking bigger rights away. Pretty soon I look up at from the bottom of the pit and wonder how I got there.

Where does that chain stop? Today my rights to my guns, tomorrow your right to post your opinions on a message board? Where does it stop and who stops it?

You can roll your eyes and pass this off as "exercise in absurdity" all you want and throw around statements like “all we hear over hear on SF is Nazi’s, Communist, Socalist” (And No YOU did not say them I am not giving you credit for that statement) the point is you do agree with it however.

You hear those words bantered about because all those words have certain aspects about them that remind us of certain events that are transpiring today.

Each day a law is passed that takes away some of your rights. Each day the government does things that remind people of those things.

Did you ever think you would see your government in the auto, insurance, or banking business?

Did you ever think you would see your government taking the taxes you pay to bail out multi-million companies that had they been doing business the smart way wouldn’t got themselves into such a mess?

Laugh this off I don’t care but that is exactly how it happens. I am glad our founding fathers, had this outlook, it is what got us here.

And no I still did not mis-assign any laws to Nazi Germany go read some history they in fact did make laws restricting guns and confiscated guns period.

And yes you missed the point. But I cannot get any more clear than this writing.

And before you reply “NO I am not anti-government” “I am employed by the government” probably for more years than you have been alive.

I just chose not to stick my head in the sand and say nothing like that could ever happen here. There are a lot of good Germans that still shake their head today and wonder how that all happened.

I believe in the adage "Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it"

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

No it is not an "exercise in absurdity" Remembering History is one thing that can keep you from getting on that slippery slope to the pit.

Burying your head in the sand and forgetting about the past and failing to compare where you are at today in relation to the past will get you on that slope and you won't even realize it until you’re nearly completely down to the pit.

One way despot rulers/regimes come into power outside of outright revolt and military force is to lull you asleep.

Hitler did not wake up one day in power he eased himself into (at first until he started murdering his opponents) was taking advantage of circumstances then once in power slowly eased to complete power where he had all authority simply by pumping up the German people and finding a scape goat to blame all of Germany’s problems on.


To achieve this he started enacting laws they start out harmless enough but by the end he could order the extermination of 6 million Jews simply by his own word.

When my government starts passing laws that either take away or restrict my rights then I start wondering and start paying very close attention to what is going on.

Today the government takes away one of my rights, then tomorrow it gets easier to take another one away, the next day it gets easier to start taking bigger rights away. Pretty soon I look up at from the bottom of the pit and wonder how I got there.

Where does that chain stop? Today my rights to my guns, tomorrow your right to post your opinions on a message board? Where does it stop and who stops it?

You can roll your eyes and pass this off as "exercise in absurdity" all you want and throw around statements like “all we hear over hear on SF is Nazi’s, Communist, Socalist” (And No YOU did not say them I am not giving you credit for that statement) the point is you do agree with it however.

You hear those words bantered about because all those words have certain aspects about them that remind us of certain events that are transpiring today.

Each day a law is passed that takes away some of your rights. Each day the government does things that remind people of those things.

Did you ever think you would see your government in the auto, insurance, or banking business?

Did you ever think you would see your government taking the taxes you pay to bail out multi-million companies that had they been doing business the smart way wouldn’t got themselves into such a mess?

Laugh this off I don’t care but that is exactly how it happens. I am glad our founding fathers, had this outlook, it is what got us here.

And no I still did not mis-assign any laws to Nazi Germany go read some history they in fact did make laws restricting guns and confiscated guns period.

And yes you missed the point. But I cannot get any more clear than this writing.

And before you reply “NO I am not anti-government” “I am employed by the government” probably for more years than you have been alive.

I just chose not to stick my head in the sand and say nothing like that could ever happen here. There are a lot of good Germans that still shake their head today and wonder how that all happened.

I believe in the adage "Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it"Pretty good, esp. for a confessed govt. employee

[LosAngelesSooner]

Thats all Im saying bro , IT is illegal .
Now will the local PoPos and courts enforce Fed Law
NawOkay, then if it's illegal still (which I thought, for some reason that we had decriminalized it, at least) then how did Oakland just pass a law to start taxing Marijuana sales?

[olevetonahill]

Okay, then if it's illegal still (which I thought, for some reason that we had decriminalized it, at least) then how did Oakland just pass a law to start taxing Marijuana sales?

Pay tention Dumas
Its illegal per the FEDs.
Local PoPos may choose to NOT enforce Fed law.

[Scott D]

I choose not to enforce federal, state, or municipal laws

[TUSooner]

I'm not Curly Bill, but I'll answer. Your drivers license is recognized in all states because people travel across state lines. Therefore, your carry license should be too.

As others have stated however, this, for me anyway, is much ado about nothing because every state in which I'm likely to travel, already recognizes my Okie CCP by reciprocal agreement between Oklahoma and those states.

The biggies that do not are Illinois, Cali and NY, and I have no interest in visiting those dysfunctional, crime-ridden, festering ooze pits anyhoo.

Just to carry the Driver'sl License analogy to a silly extreme, suppose...
You could get a Driver's License in Luziana at age 12 just by signing your name. Should it be good everywhere?


I'm generally pro gun, btw, and glad the USSCT has rightly recognized an individual 2nd Am. right. But I just don't think this p'ticklar law was all THAT significant so as to get one's skivvies in a wad, for the reasons in your 2nd paragraph. Plus, I just want to be annoying. :D

[LosAngelesSooner]

Pay tention Dumas
Its illegal per the FEDs.
Local PoPos may choose to NOT enforce Fed law.Pay tention, Dumas. I'm talking State's rights vs. Fed rights. :D

[beer4me]

Pay tention, Dumas. I'm talking State's rights vs. Fed rights. :D

You must be atalkn bout Gist:)

[olevetonahill]

Pay tention, Dumas. I'm talking State's rights vs. Fed rights. :D

No Dumas You Pay tention
You said Pot was "Legal"
I pointed out how wrong you are again :P :D

[Curly Bill]

LAS is always wrong -- you should be used to it by now. ;)

[LosAngelesSooner]

Alwaaaaaaaays wrong. Abooot everything.

Alwaaaaaaays...

By the way, Bill. You're a handsome and intelligent man.

:D