Whutmeworry
NES Member
Heard a totally unsubstantiated rumor that some form of national reciprocity language passed in the FY19 Congressional Appropriations bill. Can anyone confirm or refute that this happened???
-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
National Reciprocity??
- Thread starter Whutmeworry
- Start date
Lol, not happening, never happening, frankly. It's just fodder the NRA keeps throwing out to make it look like they're doing something important.
I think the only way we'll ever see something like that or even resembling that in our lifetimes is if a bunch of non garbage states form a reciprocity compact; an enhanced (but clearly stand-alone) permit which meets the requirements of every member state; the only way natrep will ever be "sold" to the whole country is when you have a million people running around licensed to carry in like 40+ states and pretty much nothing
happens. Then it becomes a more compelling sell to wonkies in congress.
-Mike
crispnipz
NES Member
We don't need a law, SCOTUS w/ Kavanaugh will declare that 2A preempts state permit restriction schemes (like in MA and NJ), or better yet, the concept of a permit. The idea that "right to bear" extends beyond the home. No need for a law.
There's nothing to be "downer" about, it's being realistic. The odds of any member of NES winning the powerball are far greater than USSC ever issuing an expansive decision like that.
The supreme court doesn't often issue something that far reaching, most of the rulings are designed to be pin prick narrow. There isn't really a foreseeable scenario where they just get to invalidate that
wholesale. Even with Heller being a big deal, the "reasonable restrictions" BS was still left around like a dog's smelly tennis ball. They're not going to gut the states' power.
The only way this will ever happen is if there's a violent revolution in this country and force is used to strip the power away from the states or the feds for that matter.
-Mike
THE CONSTITUTION IS VANISHING RIGHT BEFORE OUR EYES . WITHOUT IT. WE WON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT NATREP. STOP ALL FEDERAL FUNDING TO ALL STATES THAT IGNORE THE CONSTITUTION, PROBLEM SOLVED. THAT WIL NEVER HAPPEN SO WE'RE F***ED
ChevyGuy91
NES Member
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2008
- Messages
- 22,916
- Likes
- 23,496
LOUD NOISES!!!!
crispnipz
NES Member
Ah, there's the rub. Before Heller, there was nothing. Then we got something. It might not be a single ruling. But with a conservative SCOTUS majority and the dichotomy between most states and the 5 or 6 restrictive ones, change is coming. Believe it.
Still, you have no clue about how the court works. A wholesale repeal of state permitting systems just isn't happening. They will suck for, and carry over the nostrum of "reasonable restrictions" in every decision.
I have no doubt that we will see more 2A cases in our lifetime, but none of them are going to be that dramatic. Heller succeeded because it was very, very specific. Even a relatively compact case like Abramski failed because it wasn't tight enough. Think about that.
-Mike
Chevy 2 65
NES Member
Caps lock is on.
![[rofl]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/013.gif "ROFL [rofl]")
crispnipz
NES Member
You're basically saying "something never happened before, therefore it will never happen."
I know better than a lot of people. Me suggesting something may happen that you don't agree with doesn't mean I don't know. That attitude is normally reserved for regressive progressives.
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,502
- Likes
- 33,500
SCOTUS simply denies cert when the outcome would contradict desired public policy.
GM-GUY
NES Member
FIFY
Nope- I'm saying it's so retarded that it's unfathomable, actually. Particularly on a politically charged issue like abortion or gun control.
No, its an attitude held by people that have seen how the court operates and does business. Have you read Abramski? I suggest you should- perhaps you'd learn something. It's a graphic illustration that the court will typically use every possibility to weasel out of making a decision that changes the status quo. In order to get things to go in our direction, that automatically precludes anything having a broad outcome. There's a "cuz guns- escape here" escape hatch and even the so called conservative justices love pulling that handle which results in a punt or dodging a real decision.
Let's just put it this way- If there was a place I can place bets on it I would. I'd bet against it for $1000 a year and it would be the easiest money I ever made. That's how certain I am that your assertion is bogus. It's that reliably bad. The probability is somewhere between pigs taking off from logan airport and maura healey suddenly becoming pro gun.
-Mike
Last edited:
Well yes, unless it's backed into a corner on some other issues/methods, but as we know, that's rare as hell. Alan Gura worked up a special welding flux to at least temporarily weld the "Cuz Guns" supreme court escape hatch shut during Heller, but doing that on a regular basis seems to be exceptionally difficult. It's too easy for the courts to punt or dodge.
-Mike
crispnipz
NES Member
Hey, if you wanna have a debate like a big boy, like without talking down to me, that would be great, otherwise I'm gonna be optimistic about the future and stop posting. I said "I know better than a lot of people" because you said that I didn't know how the courts work at all. No need for ad-hominem if you have a real point or argument.
I apologize if I sound condescending here but these crack pipe dreams around here get a little old after awhile, and distract people from doing things that are actually legally or politically viable. Let's go back on topic- What evidence do you have that shows that the court would ever issue a sweeping 2A decision? Please enlighten the class with this knowledge. I am genuinely curious.
-Mike
ChevyGuy91
NES Member
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2008
- Messages
- 22,916
- Likes
- 23,496
This. Those of us that have been around a while have seen these threads and posts over and over again.
Did you know Glocks are on the new MA roster!?!?!
![[rofl2]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/035.gif "ROFL2 [rofl2]")
Kavanaugh won't get in before the midterms, and after that the Dems will have majority. I think it'll be smaller SCOTUS until 2020, then it'll either be a Democrat president appointed justice, or maybe a moderate if Trump were to win (I don't see that happening).
Jason Flare
NES Member
Donald Trump will be elected president before we have national reciprocity.
crispnipz
NES Member
And I apologize if I came off as meaning there would suddenly be a magical ruling. My evidence is that, at least WRT more favorable 2A rulings, Gorsuch has replaced Scalia, and they are similar levels of friendly to 2A. Kavanaugh will replace Kennedy, and is much friendlier to 2A than Kennedy. It is a distinct possibility that we also get a 2A-friendly replacement for RBG before 2024.
The recent Caetano case makes me optimistic as well. Not a blanket or sweeping ruling, but important--precedence that a state's interpretation of 2A was wrong. Now of course MA turned around and wrote a law to regulate stun guns, but the freedom post did, in fact, budge, in our direction. What I'm most excited about, and why I'm so nervous about Kavanaugh, is the Gould appeal (or a similar case involving arbitrary restrictions) making its way to SCOTUS. We'll have to see.
Kavanaugh will absolutely get in before the midterms. Even with a week's delay, the Rs aren't going to have come this far to falter. And Trump is obviously going to win in 2020--I'm not sure why you think he won't.
Whutmeworry
NES Member
I second the motion that Kavanaugh WILL get in before the midterms. Aside from the fact Flake has already said that he'll vote to confirm, don't forget that there are 3 red-state dem senators - McCaskill, Heitkamp and Manchin - in extremely tight re-election battles that would be committing political suicide if they voted against confirmation in a full-senate vote. So even if all three of the other squishy RINOs (Collins, Murkowski and Corker) vote no, I think they're now off-set by the red state dems.
