VetteGirlMA
NES Member
-
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.
CBS 60 Minutes: Recognizing Concealed Carry Permits Across State Lines
- Thread starter AHM
- Start date
Varmint
NES Member
kingfisher
NES Member
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2009
- Messages
- 2,624
- Likes
- 2,458
I'm not watching, but if anybody who does could post a review here, I'd like to read it.
Lokdog
NES Member
I just love the spread of misinformation & no one asking the anti's the simplest of questions, so they think that a criminal intent on crime is going to waste time, money & effort to get a carry permit. Pretty stupid train of thought if that is what they think
Overall, it was a lot better than I thought it would be. They did try a couple times to come in with "police chiefs across the country oppose this" with no indication that they ever tried to find police chiefs who support it. No pro-2A people came off as crazy lunatics - the USCCA guy had good answers and the congressman they interviewed did as well. They showed parents with kids at the range, a waitress open-carrying as she delivered food to a table. The Giffords person made her points and I don't remember any effort by the segment to refute them point-for-point.
The "overtime" segment provides a little more discussion and was pretty good as well - Kroft talks guns and concealed carry reciprocity Half of it is another reporter or producer asking him questions like "do you think the story is fair", 25% is "Steve grew up around guns and spend several years reporting in a red states" and part of the rest is Kroft and the USCCA guy standing on a streetcorner in Manhattan. Kroft sums it up by saying "it depends on where people live, people in cities are opposed, people in the boonies are for it"
So, by the standards of mainstream press it was a reasonable 6 minute (or whatever) segment, but they could have spent a little more time drilling down into the answers on both sides. As Kroft said, the story isn't likely to change the mind of anyone who knows about it. They make the point that only "NRA supporters" and the Giffords people seem to know about the bill at this point so I guess the risk is it will fire up more of the anti-2A people if they see it.
The "overtime" segment provides a little more discussion and was pretty good as well - Kroft talks guns and concealed carry reciprocity Half of it is another reporter or producer asking him questions like "do you think the story is fair", 25% is "Steve grew up around guns and spend several years reporting in a red states" and part of the rest is Kroft and the USCCA guy standing on a streetcorner in Manhattan. Kroft sums it up by saying "it depends on where people live, people in cities are opposed, people in the boonies are for it"
So, by the standards of mainstream press it was a reasonable 6 minute (or whatever) segment, but they could have spent a little more time drilling down into the answers on both sides. As Kroft said, the story isn't likely to change the mind of anyone who knows about it. They make the point that only "NRA supporters" and the Giffords people seem to know about the bill at this point so I guess the risk is it will fire up more of the anti-2A people if they see it.
fshalor
NES Member
It's not a different issue if the reason why elected reprentitives of the people are failing in their duties and the reason why judges are being limp noodle on constitution because of feels are from the same disease .
We need to keep focused on the core. National reciprocity can help with that. If it passes, gets out for one year. Causes Maura to loose her mind and have MSP sart pulling over people driving up to Maine for vacation with TN and KY plates for weapons inspections: we .may see actual progress .
Or if some Sheriff in KY starts yanking NY drivers and impounding their cars for non licensed drivers.
These are good things .we want them .We want natural progression and we need something to wake people the eff up and see how absurd lawmakers are being. And how vapid justices have been ruling.
Unfortunately, I'm not sure if the current incarnation of the NRGuns bill is clean enough.
I would be happy to see it fail honestly. And then I would be happy to see state drivers licenses come under complete focus and national reciprocity of DLs fall apart along with the one ID system .
States like Utah can come to the rescue on the side of FOPA and start making reciprocal deals (state to state) for rights to road travel.
Fed funding for roads then falters .
People who care little about the whole "gun fiasco" suddenly get to experience life as we know it.
fshalor
NES Member
I am not okay with needing a license in every state I intend to travel in. However, in all seriousness, the impact such a push back would have to public opinion may be a necessary step in getting people interested in the sithshow that is modern politics.
Like the pain of setting a broken bone. This is watering the tree of liberty with blood level, for the percentage of the us pop who cross state lines with autos.
DispositionMatrix
NES Member
As mentioned in the other thread, the 60 Minutes piece was rather biased.
USCCA on 60 Minutes
USCCA on 60 Minutes
![[tinfoil]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/tinfoilhatsmile.gif "Tinfoil Hat [tinfoil]")
The vegas shooting stoped all the pro gun momentum.
GM-GUY
NES Member
Maybe the GOP is going to take a page out of the Dems playbook and wait till after the 2018 midterms in November, then ram it through at the end of the year.......
Of course that would take spine and that hasn't been seen since the Contract with America.
Of course that would take spine and that hasn't been seen since the Contract with America.
I was not suggesting this would happen, just providing an example of reciprocity (DL) in action. Frankly , the idea that if reciprocity doesn't happen there will be some kind of push back that will trigger action is a fantasy. No state is going to stand up and say "OK no more DL reciprocity".
Dennis in MA
NES Member
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2007
- Messages
- 38,257
- Likes
- 33,167
That's a nail-head point right there!
I used to be wishy-washy about 2A. Then I changed. Infringed is a pretty strong word. It means INFRINGED! Shall-not, well we all know what shall-not means. One would think after 80 or so years, someone in the USSC would realize that it's OK to completely reverse a previous decision if it is just plain wrong.
This whole "Oh, guns are only a 20th century thing."
Scott v Sandford 1857
US v. Cruikshank 1876
Presser v. Illinois 1886
US v. Beard 1895
Sorry - pissing me off royally. That's all.
There it is! Why would 60 Minutes do a piece on this?? So Chuck and Nancy and the like can get more phone calls trying to head this off at the pass.
Do I think NCC will ever pass?? Nope. Do I hope that the USSC takes it up and makes it law anyhow? Yep.
*******
Hmm, they didn't mention the carnage in Chicago, Baltimore caused by criminals with illegal guns and NO permits.
Lokdog
NES Member
My favorite part was the d@ckhead chief from Maryland I think stating how murder and gun related crimes and accidentally shooting or pretty much anything bad to do with guns basically, have all gone way up since restrictions were loosened(?) but cited no actual studies to back his claims. He was just really loud and pounding his fist on the table!
eboos
NES Member
The problem with these statements is that they are trying to pass off opinions of politicians as expert opinions of law enforcement professionals. When the media reports what a "police chief" or police commissioner says, they want you to believe that this is the opinion of the profession as a whole, taking into account their experience in the field and weighing best practices along with any associated risks. What they are not saying is that the police chief is an elected or politically appointed official and their opinions are more likely to serve their political purpose than to serve one of what is necessary for functioning law enforcement.
Varmint
NES Member
Gangbangers are no threat to tyranny.
******
Actually I think they are but the anti's know they don't vote and don't have permits. These are the criminals the anti's SHOULD be afraid of, not law abiding citizens but their politics blind them to reality.
eboos
NES Member
Both US Const. art. III Sec. 2, cl. 1. and N.H. Const. art. 72-a refer to the "judicial power" resting within certain courts. Judicial power is not otherwise defined anywhere in the Constitutions. Blacks Law Dictionary defines Judicial Power to be: the authority vested in courts and judges to hear and decide cases and to make binding judgments on them; the power to construe and apply the law when controversies arise over what has been done or not done under it.
If you put on your critical thinking hat, it doesn't take much to understand that this power is one that decides whether certain situations fall afoul of restrictions on government actions and establish certain rules to define the boundaries.
If you put on your critical thinking hat, it doesn't take much to understand that this power is one that decides whether certain situations fall afoul of restrictions on government actions and establish certain rules to define the boundaries.
Koolmoose
NES Member
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2011
- Messages
- 1,045
- Likes
- 509
Well, gangbangers are going to do gangbanger type stuff and the .gov and their media savants are highly effective at controlling the info about the amount of damage they confer on their neighborhoods.
A little digression: Does anyone remember the traffic death counts on long holiday weekends? Starting on Friday night and ending on Monday night, all media would state the “death count” from automobile accidents on the highway. On radio this was an hourly announcement. IIRC it was mostly around 500 - 600 deaths / weekend. This was seen as a public service in an attempt to reduce traffic fatalities.
Can you imagine if the media highlighted gang related gun deaths in Chicongo along with the impressively strict gun control laws, exhibiting the massive failure of policies? Of course it will never happen as it does not fit the narrative and is contained to urban areas.
I think the left is very afraid of us. We have most of the guns, are more or less prepped for at least short term emergencies, and are not contained in their urban plantations The chip, chip, chip of our rights is a deliberate strategy to slowly curtail and erode our rights without putting us over the edge.
KBCraig
NES Member
"the Fed" didn't change that. There is no federal law mandating that states recognize other states' driver licenses. If I'm wrong, please cite the federal law that says otherwise.
DLs are accepted by mutual interstate compacts --reciprocity agreements-- exactly the same way that handgun carry licenses are accepted today.
REAL ID Act - Wikipedia
While this insn't specific to states recognizing drivers lic's for interstate driving directly, it does set (Federal) standards on how DL's are handed out, so if you don't meet the Fed standard for a DL, guess what... no DL for you and no interstate/ intrastate driving.
So in a way, the Feds already have a say in it... in a roundabout way.
Last edited:
Not quite. States can still issue driver's licenses, and you can still drive. You just won't be allowed to fly or enter Federal facilities.
True...
"REAL ID allows jurisdictions to issue identification cards and driver’s licenses that are not in compliance with the requirements of the Act. Those licenses and identification cards, however, must clearly state on their face and in the machine readable zone that the card is not acceptable for official purposes."
But...
Once a state has become compliant, why would they issue a non compliant ID?
eg: Try applying for a DL or a non DL ID in NY (a compliant state) without meeting the Fed standard...you will get denied. I know this from personal experience.
I'll repeat...in a way, the Feds already have a say in it... in a roundabout way.
Last edited:
eboos
NES Member
Although we strayed from the topic in this thread and are really addressing one from another...
The judicial branch interprets laws that are passed by the legislature, and how the constitution may allow or forbid certain actions. If the judicial branch says: "evidence from an interrogation of a suspect who was unaware of their right against self-incrimination is not admissible since it is a violation of the 5th Amendment" the court did not just pass a new law. What they did do is show the boundaries of what is permissible and what is not.
Same with "Welfare Checks". The Constitution prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures, but it doesn't prohibit all other permissible reasons for a state actor (law enforcement in this case) to enter a dwelling. The court does not pass a law saying welfare checks are legal. What the court does say is that a welfare check is not an unreasonable search or seizure.
