On Mon, 5 Oct 2015 01:11:12 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/5/2015 12:25 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 14:46:52 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

So, we are saying the same thing. When it comes to guns, federal law
should apply, not 50 different state laws.



There is a little problem with the feds having the constitutional
authority. We have been pushing the envelope on the 14th amendment
until it is ready to pop.
Someday someone is going to say, going to federal prison is not a
"right", it is over reach by an imperial federal government.

At that point lots of federal laws concerning things that should be a
state issue, like the drug war, will go away.

The fact is that before the LBJ and Nixon administrations, they were
not using the 14th amendment as an excuse to violate the 9th and 10th.
That amendment protects RIGHTS across state lines. It is not carte
blanche for the feds to pass any law they like, beyond their
constitutional powers.

(Prohibition required a constitutional amendment. Early drug and gun
laws were "taxes")



Thing is, when it comes to gun control laws, the Federal laws are far
more lenient and favor gun owners than many of the state laws.


===

Perhaps but at least you have the option to stay out of states with
onerous laws, or more likely, keep your gun out. That doesn't solve
the interstate travel problem but if you're not taking public
transportation, that's relatively low risk with reasonable
precautions.

On 10/5/2015 1:27 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 5 Oct 2015 01:11:12 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/5/2015 12:25 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 14:46:52 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

So, we are saying the same thing. When it comes to guns, federal law
should apply, not 50 different state laws.



There is a little problem with the feds having the constitutional
authority. We have been pushing the envelope on the 14th amendment
until it is ready to pop.
Someday someone is going to say, going to federal prison is not a
"right", it is over reach by an imperial federal government.

At that point lots of federal laws concerning things that should be a
state issue, like the drug war, will go away.

The fact is that before the LBJ and Nixon administrations, they were
not using the 14th amendment as an excuse to violate the 9th and 10th.
That amendment protects RIGHTS across state lines. It is not carte
blanche for the feds to pass any law they like, beyond their
constitutional powers.

(Prohibition required a constitutional amendment. Early drug and gun
laws were "taxes")



Thing is, when it comes to gun control laws, the Federal laws are far
more lenient and favor gun owners than many of the state laws.


===

Perhaps but at least you have the option to stay out of states with
onerous laws, or more likely, keep your gun out. That doesn't solve
the interstate travel problem but if you're not taking public
transportation, that's relatively low risk with reasonable
precautions.


Why not *fix* it so law abiding gun owners are not technically breaking
the law when traveling?

On Mon, 5 Oct 2015 01:11:12 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/5/2015 12:25 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 14:46:52 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

So, we are saying the same thing. When it comes to guns, federal law
should apply, not 50 different state laws.



There is a little problem with the feds having the constitutional
authority. We have been pushing the envelope on the 14th amendment
until it is ready to pop.
Someday someone is going to say, going to federal prison is not a
"right", it is over reach by an imperial federal government.

At that point lots of federal laws concerning things that should be a
state issue, like the drug war, will go away.

The fact is that before the LBJ and Nixon administrations, they were
not using the 14th amendment as an excuse to violate the 9th and 10th.
That amendment protects RIGHTS across state lines. It is not carte
blanche for the feds to pass any law they like, beyond their
constitutional powers.

(Prohibition required a constitutional amendment. Early drug and gun
laws were "taxes")



Thing is, when it comes to gun control laws, the Federal laws are far
more lenient and favor gun owners than many of the state laws.


That is still more than zero and I imagine there might be some states
with laws that are less than things like the AWB or maybe even Brady.

I know there is a guy in Idaho manufacturing AR receivers without a
FFL and he says they are not intended for interstate shipment, no
state law prevents it and basically why is the fed even interested?.

I am not sure how that is working out for him.

On Mon, 5 Oct 2015 04:33:59 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/5/2015 1:27 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 5 Oct 2015 01:11:12 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/5/2015 12:25 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 14:46:52 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

So, we are saying the same thing. When it comes to guns, federal law
should apply, not 50 different state laws.



There is a little problem with the feds having the constitutional
authority. We have been pushing the envelope on the 14th amendment
until it is ready to pop.
Someday someone is going to say, going to federal prison is not a
"right", it is over reach by an imperial federal government.

At that point lots of federal laws concerning things that should be a
state issue, like the drug war, will go away.

The fact is that before the LBJ and Nixon administrations, they were
not using the 14th amendment as an excuse to violate the 9th and 10th.
That amendment protects RIGHTS across state lines. It is not carte
blanche for the feds to pass any law they like, beyond their
constitutional powers.

(Prohibition required a constitutional amendment. Early drug and gun
laws were "taxes")



Thing is, when it comes to gun control laws, the Federal laws are far
more lenient and favor gun owners than many of the state laws.


===

Perhaps but at least you have the option to stay out of states with
onerous laws, or more likely, keep your gun out. That doesn't solve
the interstate travel problem but if you're not taking public
transportation, that's relatively low risk with reasonable
precautions.


Why not *fix* it so law abiding gun owners are not technically breaking
the law when traveling?


That has been law since 1986, some Northeastern states are just not
honoring it.

See 18 USC § 926A



Notwithstanding any other provision of any law or any rule or
regulation of a State or any political subdivision thereof, any person
who is not otherwise prohibited by this chapter from transporting,
shipping, or receiving a firearm shall be entitled to transport a
firearm for any lawful purpose from any place where he may lawfully
possess and carry such firearm to any other place where he may
lawfully possess and carry such firearm if, during such transportation
the firearm is unloaded, and neither the firearm nor any ammunition
being transported is readily accessible or is directly accessible from
the passenger compartment of such transporting vehicle:
Provided
, That in the case of a vehicle without a compartment separate from
the driver’s compartment the firearm or ammunition shall be contained
in a locked container other than the glove compartment or console.

(Added Pub. L. 99–360, §?1(a), July 8, 1986, 100 Stat. 766

On Mon, 5 Oct 2015 01:20:22 +0100, RGrew176 wrote:


Califbill;1045991 Wrote:
True North wrote:-
Luddite says.

".OMG. Tell you what Bill. Â*Don't worry about it. Â*In your state you
are
*not* required to be licensed to purchase or own a gun."


All this tells me that nothing will improve down there until the
Federal
Gov't makes and enforces all gun regulations. Too many cowboy states
doing too little.

-

Look at the gun regulation in Canada. Any mass shootings? As Greg
says,
until we teach people to fight back, they will be lambs to slaughter.

Well, it does, unfortunately, happen there. Not to the degree as here in
the USA but it does happen north of our border.

http://tinyurl.com/nvf8lv8

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concor...rsity_massacre

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dawson_College_shooting

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89...nique_massacre

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Edmonton_killings

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denis_Lortie

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Moncton_shootings

http://tinyurl.com/pukjwcv

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_Lake_murders

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Pi...chool_shooting

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sydney...ld%27s_murders

They are not immune to such tragedies.

That post must be a real eye-opener to our Canadian friend who talks about 'down
there'.
--

Ban idiots, not guns!

On Mon, 5 Oct 2015 04:33:59 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 10/5/2015 1:27 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 5 Oct 2015 01:11:12 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/5/2015 12:25 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 14:46:52 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

So, we are saying the same thing. When it comes to guns, federal law
should apply, not 50 different state laws.



There is a little problem with the feds having the constitutional
authority. We have been pushing the envelope on the 14th amendment
until it is ready to pop.
Someday someone is going to say, going to federal prison is not a
"right", it is over reach by an imperial federal government.

At that point lots of federal laws concerning things that should be a
state issue, like the drug war, will go away.

The fact is that before the LBJ and Nixon administrations, they were
not using the 14th amendment as an excuse to violate the 9th and 10th.
That amendment protects RIGHTS across state lines. It is not carte
blanche for the feds to pass any law they like, beyond their
constitutional powers.

(Prohibition required a constitutional amendment. Early drug and gun
laws were "taxes")



Thing is, when it comes to gun control laws, the Federal laws are far
more lenient and favor gun owners than many of the state laws.


===

Perhaps but at least you have the option to stay out of states with
onerous laws, or more likely, keep your gun out. That doesn't solve
the interstate travel problem but if you're not taking public
transportation, that's relatively low risk with reasonable
precautions.


Why not *fix* it so law abiding gun owners are not technically breaking
the law when traveling?


Federally, it's fixed. State-wise it's not being enforced.
--

Ban idiots, not guns!

RGrew176

Califbill;1045991 Wrote:
True North wrote:-
Luddite says.

".OMG. Tell you what Bill. Â*Don't worry about it. Â*In your state you
are
*not* required to be licensed to purchase or own a gun."


All this tells me that nothing will improve down there until the
Federal
Gov't makes and enforces all gun regulations. Too many cowboy states
doing too little.

-

Look at the gun regulation in Canada. *Any mass shootings? *As Greg
says,
until we teach people to fight back, they will be lambs to slaughter.

"Well, it does, unfortunately, happen there. Not to the degree as here in
the USA but it does happen north of our border.

http://tinyurl.com/nvf8lv8

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concor...rsity_massacre

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dawson_College_shooting

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89...nique_massacre

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Edmonton_killings

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denis_Lortie

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Moncton_shootings

http://tinyurl.com/pukjwcv

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_Lake_murders

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Pi...chool_shooting

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sydney...ld%27s_murders

They are not immune to such tragedies.

--
RGrew176



Just goes to show how 'merican culture is creeping into Canada...so we do have a vested interest in having the US join civilized nations and controlling this cancer.

On Mon, 05 Oct 2015 08:10:03 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Mon, 5 Oct 2015 04:33:59 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 10/5/2015 1:27 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 5 Oct 2015 01:11:12 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/5/2015 12:25 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 14:46:52 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

So, we are saying the same thing. When it comes to guns, federal law
should apply, not 50 different state laws.



There is a little problem with the feds having the constitutional
authority. We have been pushing the envelope on the 14th amendment
until it is ready to pop.
Someday someone is going to say, going to federal prison is not a
"right", it is over reach by an imperial federal government.

At that point lots of federal laws concerning things that should be a
state issue, like the drug war, will go away.

The fact is that before the LBJ and Nixon administrations, they were
not using the 14th amendment as an excuse to violate the 9th and 10th.
That amendment protects RIGHTS across state lines. It is not carte
blanche for the feds to pass any law they like, beyond their
constitutional powers.

(Prohibition required a constitutional amendment. Early drug and gun
laws were "taxes")



Thing is, when it comes to gun control laws, the Federal laws are far
more lenient and favor gun owners than many of the state laws.


===

Perhaps but at least you have the option to stay out of states with
onerous laws, or more likely, keep your gun out. That doesn't solve
the interstate travel problem but if you're not taking public
transportation, that's relatively low risk with reasonable
precautions.


Why not *fix* it so law abiding gun owners are not technically breaking
the law when traveling?


Federally, it's fixed. State-wise it's not being enforced.

It does beg the question why the DoJ did not enjoin the state from
prosecuting that guy who got stranded in Newark with a checked pistol.

Oh wait, it was a democratically controlled DoJ. Following the law is
optional if they do not agree with the politics.

On Mon, 5 Oct 2015 06:02:07 -0700 (PDT), True North
wrote:

"Well, it does, unfortunately, happen there. Not to the degree as here in
the USA but it does happen north of our border.

Considering that Canada has about 80% of the population of California
and a far less diverse population, it is not surprising.

On Monday, October 5, 2015 at 9:02:11 AM UTC-4, True North wrote:
RGrew176

Califbill;1045991 Wrote:
True North wrote:-
Luddite says.

".OMG. Tell you what Bill. Â*Don't worry about it. Â*In your state you
are
*not* required to be licensed to purchase or own a gun."


All this tells me that nothing will improve down there until the
Federal
Gov't makes and enforces all gun regulations. Too many cowboy states
doing too little.

-

Look at the gun regulation in Canada. *Any mass shootings? *As Greg
says,
until we teach people to fight back, they will be lambs to slaughter.

"Well, it does, unfortunately, happen there. Not to the degree as here in
the USA but it does happen north of our border.

http://tinyurl.com/nvf8lv8

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concor...rsity_massacre

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dawson_College_shooting

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89...nique_massacre

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Edmonton_killings

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denis_Lortie

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Moncton_shootings

http://tinyurl.com/pukjwcv

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_Lake_murders

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Pi...chool_shooting

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sydney...ld%27s_murders

They are not immune to such tragedies.

--
RGrew176



Just goes to show how 'merican culture is creeping into Canada...so we do have a vested interest in having the US join civilized nations and controlling this cancer.

Without some culture creep, you'd still be using outhouses dumping into the bay. Oh wait, you probably are.