Skip to comments.New York AG Takes On "Reciprocity" Gun Bill
Posted on 12/07/2012 1:20:25 PM PST by neverdem
click here to read article
We were talking the other day about reciprocity....My beef is with driver’s licenses. One license obtained where you live. When it’s time to renew, if you have moved, you renew it there. Of course the “tax scam” is plates and registering the vehicle every two years (in my State).
Only two of them were surprising.
Eric Schneiderman is a first class d***head. As New Yorkers, we deal with this anti-Constitution AG on a daily basis.
I’m sorry the rest of you have to be subjected to his unparalleled stupidity on a matter such as this.
Can't allow the plebs a taste of freedom. That would spoil everything. BTT.
Don’t know why the NY AG is making such a big stink. There’s a snowball’s chance in Heck Obama would ever sign such a thing.
So we should pass a law here in Colorado that doesn’t recognize New York drivers licenses.
I believe that this list of gun-concerned Attorneys General also constitutes a list of the states with most felony gun violence. Also the most left laying. (they leaned so far they fell over)
by allowing out-of-state visitors to carry concealed firearms based on their home state’s less safe laws, rather than those of the state they are entering.”
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
For starters, I would really like to see states like VA tell NY, MD, etc “Why do you expect US to honor your same sex marriages when you will not honor our right to carry.
Even got a slogan (everything needs a slogan or rhyme these days)
“YOU RECOGNIZE OUR RIGHT TO CARRY,
WE WILL RECOGNIZE YOUR RIGHT TO MARRY”.
So will these same AGs allow "states rights" restrictions on women voting, slavery, cruel and unusual punishment, self-incrimination, or things not even in the Constitution like gay marriage or abortion?
Of course not, there's the catch-all "equal protection" argument!
It's only your 2nd Amendement Right that's... not really a "right" but... more like guidelines... (says Capn' Barbosa)
For years when people frist started to get drivers lic. They were only good in one state.
Full reciprocity took years to come about same with vehicle registration.
Most people are not aware of that fact because it was some time ago.
Truthfully I am apprehensive about forced reciprocity, because I fear it opening up a can of worms.
There are a very large number of reciprocity agreements between the states over all sorts of things—with no federal hand in any of it. But this is not to say that the federals would not love to horn in to these agreements if they could.
Right now they do horn in if there is great disagreements, such as over water in the western states. And once the feds decide something, good or bad, the states are stuck with it.
I can almost guarantee that if federal gun reciprocity is passed, the very next efforts will be to make “homosexual marriage”, “abortion rights”, “hate crimes laws”, and other such things as binding federal reciprocity agreements.
And lord knows what all else. So, at least for the time being, it is less harmful to just know that you cannot transport guns through some parts of the US, where the constitution means little compared to the corruption of government.
“You know the BS is getting thick when the left invokes states’ rights.”
Hmmmm. One of them isn't even an AG yet.
“Only 10 AGs signed that letter. Only two of them were surprising.”
I assume you are talking about Nevada and Oregon. Their respective AGs are very liberal women, so their inclusion is actually not at all surprising.
PA is a state with many firearm owners, who often find themselves in trouble in NY and NJ.
Shocked and pleased that Chiesa did not sign.
My thoughts exactly.
What a metric load of horse hockey.
Why then can't each state place its own restrictions on the 1st Amendment? The 4th? The 6th? 7th? 8th?
The truth is, the Constitution is just a convenient fiction. It is no longer operative. The Left has control, and is just deciding its moment to fully seize power, and how many deaths they are willing to entertain to get it.
State’s rights to repress rights. They’re consistent.
Now, that would be a problem, wouldn't it.
Imagine if our Founders had been so foolish as to provide a common expectation like, for example, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". That would really be a problem.
The anti-gunners' heads are going to explode unless Obama is able to change the present make-up of the Supreme Court.
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.