Posted on 12/12/2016 3:41:57 AM PST by marktwain
The reciprocity movement is nothing more than an effort to drive states’ concealed-carry laws to the lowest common denominator. Consider Utah, for instance. To qualify for a Utah permit, which is available to nonresidents and is already accepted by 36 other states, one need only be 21 years old, not be deemed ineligible under federal laws (no felony conviction or history of drug and alcohol abuse, for instance) and complete a Utah-certified Weapons Familiarity course, which can be taken outside the state. In fact, Utah has certified 169 instructors in California alone. Utah’s limited restrictions have made the issuance of concealed-carry permits something of a cottage industry for the state. Two-thirds of Utah’s 632,276 permits as of the end of last year were in the hands of nonresidents.The editorial board is careful not to mention that Utah has a murder rate of 1.8 per 100,000 people, one of the lowest of any state. California has a murder rate of 4.8 per 100,000 people. They also fail to mention that people who may legally carry firearms are less likely to commit crimes than police officers are. They are far less likely to commit crimes than the general population.
By comparison, California — with 33 times Utah’s population — has only 79,834 active concealed-carry permits, according to the state attorney general’s office. Among other things, California has a more stringent training regimen and requires a person seeking a permit to show good-cause for needing to carry a concealed weapon.
Wow. The LA Times is pro-States Rights. Who knew?
Then it is bad for marriage.
I always figured if the WaPo, NY Times, LA times, etc. thought something was a bad idea, then it automatically had to be a good idea.
On one hand I’m all for state’s rights.
On the other hand, why do the states get to ignore “shall not be infringed”? I suppose the argument becomes that the various ammendments apply to the Federal Government?? But seeing as those amendments had to be voted on by a majority of the states, it would seem that the states would need to abide by those rules as well.
Although I got to admit, it’s pretty cool to own a weapon where it says on the box “This Firearm Not Legal In California.”
Of course in ten years that may just mean it isn’t a single-shot .22.
Heh heh - All Americans were created equal, but some were created more equal than others - here come the birds to s#!t all over anyone we disagree with.....
Agreed, national Constitutional carry it is!! :)
And driver’s licenses, and abortion, and, and, and.
Medical and recreational marijuana? Stay out of our state! State’s Rights! People have a right to marijuana!
National reciprocity? Stay out of our state! State’s Rights! People don’t have a right to defend themselves!
The Second Amendment was originally believed to apply to the States.
Then, about 1830, the Supreme Court ruled that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the States.
After the War Between the States, the 14th Amendment was passed, saying that all rights and privileges in of American Citizens belonged to all Citizens.
Then, a few years later, the Supreme Court ruled that they did not apply to the States.
Then, Starting after 1900, the Supreme Court stated “incorporating” various parts of the Bill of Rights under the 14th Amendment.
So it is a checkered history.
And as we all know, the Mexifornia Times has a 100% correct record on all things economic, social, and political.
The big one will prove interesting when it comes.
but forcing faggot marriage on all 50 states is GOOD... right???
Typical Democrat response. I will follow the Constitution only when it advances the policies that I want.
Otherwise, it is an old document that has to be reinterpreted whenever I do not like the results.
Mark Levin made the coherent case years ago that SCOTUS was a failed institution.
Because it is already in the constitution. On another note, I avoid non reciprocity states when I travel to spend my vacation dollars.
Show good-cause?!?!? How about...hmmm...Gang-bangers with guns far out number CA residents with CCW permits.
100%
I bet the LA Times is OK with inter-state agreements like the National Voting Compact, /S.
"The LA Times editorial board is bragging about how much they infringe on the Second Amendment rights of California citizens. They imply how much they enjoy doing it. They are pleading with President Donald Trump and those nasty Republicans not to take away their progressive power trip pleasure."
Worth repeating; and a phrase worth remembering.
Thank you for posting this.
Another historical example of the "nothing is ever settled Law" discussion...
The schizophrenic Supreme Court (over time ) has carte blanche to contradict itself on the whims of trivial and unjustified political winds...
The Bill of Rights not applying to the States comes as a shocker to me.
That 1830 Supreme Court decision should be an educational decision to read...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.