8 dead in Texas high school shooting

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

If the state regulations on guns are constitutional then this fact you mention is of no relevance to the reciprocity question.

I understand. Then you have no problem with states exercising the same type reciprocity restrictions on drivers licenses.

How do you get to that conclusion???

There are fewer differences between states on laws on marriage than there are on laws on guns. Also the fact of being married is recognized as more central to who a person is than the fact that that person has a gun.

Not according to the constitution.

The Constitution is not the sole source for all information. It is only the source for what is Constitutional and what is not. Since I was not making a statement that involved constitutionality, this observation of yours is beside the point.

A person can always sell his gun, or transport it through the state in a manner consistent with that state’s laws.

Why should he/she have to sell something constitutionally protected?

I prefaced my remarks by stipulating that the gun regulations in the state in question are first of all constitutional. If they are constitutional for the residents of that state then they are constitutional for travelers passing through.

It is much more intrusive to tell a couple who is married in one state that they cannot be married in another state. That is why we have reciprocity in marriage laws and not in gun laws.

The states have no obligation to have marriage laws at all. In fact, I don’t think they should, but that’s besides to point.
The point is the argument for marriage and driver’s license reciprocity is, essentially, convenience. There’s no reason not to provide the same level of convenience on CCL.

Yes, there is, based on considerations of convenience. It is more inconvenient to have to get a separate state drivers license or marriage license than it is to abide by the gun regulations of the state you are passing through. Keep in mind, the state laws in question almost always allow the transportation of guns if properly stowed in an inoperable and unloaded form, so it is not even that much of an inconvenience to abide by the laws of the states you pass through. Those laws apply mostly to the carrying of loaded guns.

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

Reciprocity is not removing regulation.

Of course it is, at least in this case. If New York, for example, has fairly stringent regulations for concealed carrying permits, and Vermont, say, has none whatsoever, effectively New York’s regulations are removed for everyone from Vermont.

Not having a particular regulation is the state exercising it power.

 

[Inisfallen]

Not having a particular regulation is the state exercising it power.

So the State of Vermont should be able to exercise its power over the State of New York, despite the vastly different circumstances and conditions? The South Bronx ain’t exactly Weston, Vermont.

 

[JonNC]

How do you get to that conclusion???

You are not opposed to a state exercising its power to withhold reciprocity.

The Constitution is not the sole source for all information. It is only the source for what is Constitutional and what is not. Since I was not making a statement that involved constitutionality, this observation of yours is beside the point.

The rights protected by the constitution are not an subject to state restrictions. Essentially, if we are speaking of rights, the constitution is part of the conversation.

I don’t disagree, but if the general government statutorily sets reciprocity, I see no problem with it.

Yes, there is, based on considerations of convenience. It is more inconvenient to have to get a separate state drivers license or marriage license than it is to abide by the gun regulations of the state you are passing through.

For the gun owner, it is equally inconvenient. Some states don’t even have “shall issue” for their own citizens, much less those from out of state.

Keep in mind, the state laws in question almost always allow the transportation of guns if properly stowed in an inoperable and unloaded form, so it is not even that much of an inconvenience to abide by the laws of the states you pass through.

Why? Why should a legally owned firearm, protected by the second have these restrictions just because one is from out of state?

 

[JonNC]

So the State of Vermont should be able to exercise its power over the State of New York, despite the vastly different circumstances and conditions? The South Bronx ain’t exactly Weston, Vermont.

Now you’re making the argument that states not wanting gay marriage made. Why is it reasonable in this instance and not that? Again, the right to keep and bear arms is a constitutionally protected right, while marriage is not.

 

[Inisfallen]

Now you’re making the argument that states not wanting gay marriage made. Why is it reasonable in this instance and not that? Again, the right to keep and bear arms is a constitutionally protected right, while marriage is not.

I’m not. I see no reason why marriage and guns should be treated in exactly the same way.

 

[JonNC]

I’m not. I see no reason why marriage and guns should be treated in exactly the same way.

I agree. Guns are a right that should not be infringed. And when it comes to CCL holders, they simply do not present a threat. Andnsince they do not present a threat, there is no reason to refuse reciprocity

 

[Inisfallen]

And when it comes to CCL holders, they simply do not present a threat.

That is (mostly, but not entirely) true. That doesn’t mean that New York must abide by the regulations of states that permit anyone (otherwise qualified to own a firearm) to to carry a concealed weapon without a license, or states that have a much lower bar to the permit than New York.

 

[JonNC]

That is (mostly, but not entirely) true. That doesn’t mean that New York must abide by the regulations of states that permit anyone (otherwise qualified to own a firearm) to to carry a concealed weapon without a license, or states that have a much lower bar to the permit than New York.

And that is essentially the argument made by some states about gay marriage. All I’m saying is if we are going to claim 10th amendment here, let’s not cry foul regarding other forms of reciprocity

 

[FirstFiveEighth]

I could be wrong, but I am pretty sure you have to be a resident of Vermont to have a CCL from the State of Vermont. I understand what you are saying but I really do not think the Bronx is going to suddenly be overflowing with residents of Weston, Vermont, or impersonators thereof, concealed carrying. And as with, say, a driver’s license, there is nothing stopping New York from requiring new residents to cease their registration with Vermont and do whatever New York requires. I seriously don’t see this affecting anything but people passing through. I also don’t think there is much need for it, just as I don’t get to purchase a hunting license in South Carolina and hunt in Texas. States have perfectly legitimate reasons for having different firearms and CCL regulations.

 

[Inisfallen]

I could be wrong, but I am pretty sure you have to be a resident of Vermont to have a CCL from the State of Vermont. I understand what you are saying but I really do not think the Bronx is going to suddenly be overflowing with residents of Weston, Vermont, or impersonators thereof, concealed carrying. And as with, say, a driver’s license, there is nothing stopping New York from requiring new residents to cease their registration with Vermont and do whatever New York requires. I seriously don’t see this affecting anything but people passing through. I also don’t think there is much need for it, just as I don’t get to purchase a hunting license in South Carolina and hunt in Texas. States have perfectly legitimate reasons for having different firearms and CCL regulations.

It allows people from Vermont, or Wyoming, or any number of other states with less stringent permit requirements than New York, to carry concealed weapons in New York, including New York City.

We don’t need that. We don’t want that here.

 

[FirstFiveEighth]

What, all 6 of them? Who the heck from Wyoming even wants to come to New York, let alone visit just for the sake of concealed carrying? Wyatt Earp is going to be cruising Wall Street? I don’t think this is the dangerous loophole you think it is.

As I said, I don’t think there is any need for a nation reciprocity program. Several states already have agreements between themselves, and it can stay on that level. But this would not turn New York into the Wild West all the sudden.

 

[Inisfallen]

What, all 6 of them? Who the heck from Wyoming even wants to come to New York, let alone visit just for the sake of concealed carrying? Wyatt Earp is going to be cruising Wall Street? I don’t think this is the dangerous loophole you think it is.

I think it’s mildly dangerous, but not a huge threat. Still, I’ve seen tourists here panic over stuff that’s unremarkable to New Yorkers. There is potential for trouble.

That said, I’m very happy with New York’s (especially New York City’s) restrictions on carrying concealed weapons, and I don’t want to see any loopholes.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

How do you get to that conclusion???

You are not opposed to a state exercising its power to withhold reciprocity.

On guns, not on drivers’ licenses, and I already explained why I see a difference.

The Constitution is not the sole source for all information. It is only the source for what is Constitutional and what is not. Since I was not making a statement that involved constitutionality, this observation of yours is beside the point.

The rights protected by the constitution are not an subject to state restrictions. Essentially, if we are speaking of rights, the constitution is part of the conversation.

I was not speaking of rights when you said “not according to the Constitution.” I was speaking about a difference in how central being married is to a person’s identity. That has nothing to do with whether the Constitution recognizes a right to marry.

Yes, there is, based on considerations of convenience. It is more inconvenient to have to get a separate state drivers license or marriage license than it is to abide by the gun regulations of the state you are passing through.

For the gun owner, it is equally inconvenient. Some states don’t even have “shall issue” for their own citizens, much less those from out of state.

I don’t know what “shall issue” is, but the fact that you recognize that whatever inconvenience there is is already being born by residents of the state shows that this really isn’t a reciprocity issue. You just don’t like that the people in that state (whatever state it is) have chosen to regulate guns in a Constitutional manner. That is their right.

Keep in mind, the state laws in question almost always allow the transportation of guns if properly stowed in an inoperable and unloaded form, so it is not even that much of an inconvenience to abide by the laws of the states you pass through.

Why? Why should a legally owned firearm, protected by the second have these restrictions just because one is from out of state?

OK, if you are talking about registration or licensing, where the laws are pretty much the same in two states, but they both have their own registries and licensing (or both don’t have any registries or licensing), then I agree with you. It makes more sense for these two states to have a reciprocity where they each recognize the registration and licensing of the other state. However, this should be decided by mutual agreement between the states involved to ensure that no state is being forced to adopt lower standards for visitors than they apply to their own citizens.

 

[Theo520]

I do not advocate a total ban. I don’t know anyone who advocates a total ban. I don’t think I’ve seen anyone here advocate for such a ban

I’ve seen quite a few here advocate the equivalent of a total civilian ban (not Govt ban)
I find saying it’s not an objective of many on the left is disingenuous.

 

[JonNC]

On guns, not on drivers’ licenses, and I already explained why I see a difference.

The only difference is keeping and bearing arms is an enumerated, constitutionally protected right.

I was not speaking of rights when you said “not according to the Constitution.” I was speaking about a difference in how central being married is to a person’s identity. That has nothing to do with whether the Constitution recognizes a right to marry.

But you are talking about rights. Those who insisted on gay “marriage “ claimed that state must issue marriage licenses to same gender couples.
As for arms, which is a protected right, it seems to me that a reasonable cause ought to be presented for not providing reciprocity.

I don’t know what “shall issue” is, but the fact that you recognize that whatever inconvenience there is is already being born by residents of the state shows that this really isn’t a reciprocity issue. You just don’t like that the people in that state (whatever state it is) have chosen to regulate guns in a Constitutional manner. That is their right.

Shall issue takes away the law enforcement agency’s option of not issue a CCL if the applicant meets all the specifications. Some states have “may issue”.
All those in favor of reciprocity want is drivers have, and now what same gender couples have.
As it stands, States can exercise their power to restrict CCL’s.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

On guns, not on drivers’ licenses, and I already explained why I see a difference.

The only difference is keeping and bearing arms is an enumerated, constitutionally protected right.

You mean the only Constitutional difference. As I said, the Constitution does not provide the answer to every conceivable question.

I was not speaking of rights when you said “not according to the Constitution.” I was speaking about a difference in how central being married is to a person’s identity. That has nothing to do with whether the Constitution recognizes a right to marry.

But you are talking about rights. Those who insisted on gay “marriage “ claimed that state must issue marriage licenses to same gender couples.

That is not my argument.

As for arms, which is a protected right, it seems to me that a reasonable cause ought to be presented for not providing reciprocity.

Again, that right is already protected if the state law is found to be Constitutional. We are not talking about unconstitutional state laws. I am only talking about overriding constitutional state gun regulations, unless you think that all state gun regulations are unconstitutional, but that would be a whole other argument - one that you would literally be the only one making.

I don’t know what “shall issue” is, but the fact that you recognize that whatever inconvenience there is is already being born by residents of the state shows that this really isn’t a reciprocity issue. You just don’t like that the people in that state (whatever state it is) have chosen to regulate guns in a Constitutional manner. That is their right.

Shall issue takes away the law enforcement agency’s option of not issue a CCL if the applicant meets all the specifications. Some states have “may issue”.

OK, I can support “shall issue” provided the applicant really does meet all the specifications in the state law.

All those in favor of reciprocity want is drivers have, and now what same gender couples have.
As it stands, States can exercise their power to restrict CCL’s.

Well, I don’t support what same gender couples want, and I think drivers have a stronger case for reciprocity.

 

[JonNC]

You mean the only Constitutional difference. As I said, the Constitution does not provide the answer to every conceivable question.

But it does protect rights. I know many progressives are not impressed with that distinguishing factor (not you necessarily), and that some wish to isolate the 2nd as if it were a lesser right that can be marginalized, but enumerated rights are enumerated rights.
If you’re going to be okay with states exercising reciprocity restrictions in enumerated rights, it seems only fitting you would be with Mom-enumerated rights

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

You mean the only Constitutional difference. As I said, the Constitution does not provide the answer to every conceivable question.

But it does protect rights. I know many progressives are not impressed with that distinguishing factor (not you necessarily), and that some wish to isolate the 2nd as if it were a lesser right that can be marginalized, but enumerated rights are enumerated rights.
If you’re going to be okay with states exercising reciprocity restrictions in enumerated rights, it seems only fitting you would be with Mom-enumerated rights

Are you making the case that the state with the stricter gun regulations is already violating the constitution toward its own people? If so, just come out and say so and admit it. Or if not, then stop talking about the Constitution because it is already satisfied and enumerated rights are not being violated.

I am not making the case for states restricting constitutionally enumerated rights. But as for other rights, I see the states just exercising their prerogative, and not all such rights need to be treated the same.

 

[Imdaman]

Texas attorney general says “thoughts and prayers of all Texans” are with Santa Fe

And what in your estimate will prevent more of these atrocities in the future?