# House: Carry Reciprocity Moving toward a Vote



## RedLion

Mark up and a floor vote looks real in the near future.

National Gun-Carry Reciprocity Bill Moves to Mark Up in the House


----------



## Chipper

Didn't say if was the SHARE act that had suppressors attached to it or not?? Either way it's great and I hope it passes.


----------



## Urinal Cake

Winning!


----------



## Denton

OK. Think as a devil’s advocate. What could be the downsides.


----------



## Denton

OK. Think as a devil’s advocate. What could be the downsides.


----------



## Smitty901

Think about this . It says if the State allows CC then your's would be good . Say state xxx gets pissed the feds are forcing them to allow BBB to carry in their state. Simple they just repeal CC law and good luck ever getting it back. Now 5 or 6 states are pissed, they go to a liberal anit gun congress and say ok if we have to honor other states then we need one National CC standard. Do you really want NY,CA and others having a say in your states CC laws.
Be careful what you wish for , you might get it. National CC will be the end of CC rights.


----------



## RedLion

One downside that I can think of is increased cost for the permit and potentially tougher stipulations being placed on some folks in states that have more liberal carry laws. For instance, in MN we can carry everywhere except on federal property, in court rooms, in prisons/jails and inside schools. We can carry on school property and everywhere else including private businesses that post no gun allowed.


----------



## Smitty901

RedLion said:


> One downside that I can think of is increased cost for the permit and potentially tougher stipulations being placed on some folks in states that have more liberal carry laws. For instance, in MN we can carry everywhere except on federal property, in court rooms, in prisons/jails and inside schools. We can carry on school property and everywhere else including private businesses that post no gun allowed.


 So what is to stop CA and others from making it $1000 a year cross the board, Putting so many limits on you that you can't carry it. Can't happen? We are already forced to have CA requirements met on car emission and other things.
Just as a couple states are holding up the budget, a couple can add rules to the CC laws.


----------



## RedLion

I do not see states being able to make their citizens pay an extravagant fee if the bill passes. I would envision it being a nation wide "standard" cost similar to how an NFA tax stamp for a suppressor is $200.


----------



## rstanek

I could pass, but it could be watered down so that it would extremely limit its true meaning, I hope it does pass with no limits.....


----------



## rstanek

I mean IT could pass


----------



## rstanek

Can’t edit post


----------



## 6811

It may pass, but the States or cities can still put more BS against it. Just like in PA, open carry is allowed everywhere in PA except the city of philtydelphia. I'm sure they can do something similar to the CC laws.


----------



## Jammer Six

I don't want the federal government to make any more law about guns. None.

What do you think California and New York will do if this passes? Do you think you will like what they do? Or do you think you will suddenly be able to carry in places you can't now, like downtown Los Angeles, or New York City?


----------



## stowlin

Being originally from San Fran Sicko I say this would be great and royally piss the libtards off. Why would any one in a free state fear whatever silly restrictions they'd try to impose? Such restrictions will only impact the city / states that impose them and not the remainder of you. I do not see the negative ramifications of a national reciprocity and can only seeing it as a positive to those behind enemy lines in unduly restricted territory like SF.


----------



## Jammer Six

First and foremost, it is a power grab by the federal government. That is repugnant to some of us. That, alone, is sufficient reason to be against it. The next biggest reason is local backlash. Those two score 998 and 997 out of a thousand, respectively.

The next reason is that we must _never_ allow a law to be made about what we _can_ do, because we can do anything that is not specifically prohibited. That is the way law is written in a free society. When the first law is written saying what we can do instead of what we can't do, the first argument in a criminal court about how there is no law saying that we can do that isn't far behind. We must never allow that to happen.

The rest of the reasons score in the low hundreds.

The government, _particularly_ the federal government, who does not live here (or there, wherever "there" is) should stick to it's knitting, and should not _ever_ be allowed to expand beyond it's current role. The government should keep the water and power on, the potholes filled, the criminals locked up and then go away and leave us alone.


----------



## NotTooProudToHide

The Military Arms Channel actually did a live stream about this proposed bill last night.






It sounds like its a good deal if you are pro conceal carry. As of now there are no additional riders on the bill and there aren't expected to be any. The bill doesn't give any additional power to the feds over conceal carry, it just makes it similar to how driver's licenses work. The state sets its on criteria on who gets issued a permit in their state and where carry is unlawful. What will happen is places like CA, NY and all the other defacto no issue states will see their citizens get out of state permits from states like Florida or Virginia.


----------



## Jammer Six

When you compare a right to a privilege, you've already lost.

Those predictions about what will happen are incredibly naive. They border on fantasy.

I'll write both my congressman and my senators against this bill.


----------



## ekim

I agree with Jammer Six Keep the federal out of gun laws period. The Constitution already gives the US citizen the RIGHT to keep and bear arms. That all we need!!!!! IF congress wants to be for the American gun rights repeal the 1934 NFA laws!


----------



## RedLion

Lets slow down. The purpose of this bill is to allow people to travel to other states with their firearm for self-defense without getting arrested. As I always say....."yes we should be able to own and bear arms anywhere and at any time by the 2nd amendment," but that is totally unrealistic at the present time, but nationwide reciprocity is a "very large step" toward nation wide Constitutional carry.
This could also compel communist states like NY and CA to switch to shall issue as they would be forced to recognize out of state permits.


----------



## Smitty901

Intent of the bill and what it ends up doing is easily two different worlds. Any bill involving 50 states will in end have input from all 50. You will end up givimg up rights in your own state by time it is done. IF the feds can force a nation wide reciprocity , then they can enforce any gun regulation they want on any state. Watch what liberal courts do with this one. I do not want CA or MY having anything to say about our CC laws in Wisconsin. It will not compel NY to do anything it will compel the rest of us to met their demands.


----------



## rstanek

I think this will come with government mandates, yet to be determined, example , comply or lose federal funding for other mandated programs....


----------



## Kauboy

I laugh every time I read a comment about the downsides of this, and how it could lead to the end of concealed carry.

Folks, some of you need to relearn what a RIGHT is. No state government, no federal government, no law, no judge, NOBODY can take away a right.
A right can ONLY be given up. Either you choose to stop exercising it, or you choose to violate the rights of another, and in doing so, lose your own.

We aren't talking about some political football that can be tossed around and used against us.
We're talking about our God-given right to self-preservation here. It is worth whatever risk we can foresee.
Putting our local, state, and federal governments on notice that they *MUST* defend our rights, gun carry included, should not be something we cower from.

If I had my way, this bill would not only demand that all states recognize the carry rights of citizens from other states, it would also go so far as to enforce and protect the right of ALL citizens in all states by rescinding and voiding all state carry bans of handguns by non-criminals.
I'd make the federal government do it's damn job again, enshrining the rights of the people above all else against the encroachments of unchecked state legislatures.

But I'm weird that way...


----------



## budgetprepp-n

Man,, I have mixed emotions about this. The government has a way of turning a law around so it points the wrong way.

I have grown weary.


----------



## Stockton

@Kauboy for saying what I wanted to say. I have read negative
comments about this and just scratch my head. Here is a chance
to stick in in the face of anti gun zealots. I am reading comments
like seeing their heads explode over such a law. Then I go to 
forums like this and read so much doubt and fear. Don't go there.
It is a shot back in the right direction. It is a statement to the left
that we the people aren't taking it any more. Support this. Push
for it. Make it happen.


----------



## RedLion

More info....It appears that this legislation would greatly benefit those in commie states.....



> Should this bill become a law, states will not be able to impose their individual requirements for a concealed carry license on those who have a license to conceal in a different state. The left is already terrified.
> 
> Republicans rejected Democratic amendments that would ban violent offenders from qualifying under the law (because violent offenders cannot obtain a concealed carry permit anyway), as well as a change that would have prevented forum shopping; which means a New York resident barred from obtaining a concealed carry permit could instead send away for one from somewhere else. The bill, which has more than 200 co-sponsors, almost all Republicans, will now head to the floor of the 435-member House. A similar bill, with 38 Republican co-sponsors, is pending before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
> 
> All this bill does is extend the right to carry a concealed firearm IF one is licensed to do so in all 50 states, regardless of the state that issued the license. There isn't really a reason for liberals to freak out, yet they are.
> 
> A qualified individual must: (1) be eligible to possess, transport, or receive a firearm under federal law; (2) carry a valid photo identification document; and (3) carry a valid concealed carry permit issued by, or be eligible to carry a concealed firearm in, his or her state of residence. - H.R. 38
> 
> "This would end abuses in anti-gun states like New York and New Jersey and allow law-abiding concealed carriers to exercise their rights nationwide with peace of mind," the NRA website states. "[The bill] would not, as some critics claim, affect how states issue their own concealed carry permits."


Liberals Freak Out As House Approves Nationwide Concealed Carry Reciprocity


----------



## RedLion

> This just in - House to vote next week on national conceal carry legislation




__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/936649944999628800


----------



## Camel923

Personally I am tired of liberal ideas becoming national laws and stealing my freedom. While one should be able to carry in this great nation without hassle, It will take an act of Congress to pull in the renegade libtard states.


----------



## Jammer Six

Supporting this means that the next time we think your state is wrong about anything, you're counting on the rest of us to tell you how it's going to be.


----------



## Smitty901

Kauboy said:


> I laugh every time I read a comment about the downsides of this, and how it could lead to the end of concealed carry.
> 
> Folks, some of you need to relearn what a RIGHT is. No state government, no federal government, no law, no judge, NOBODY can take away a right.
> A right can ONLY be given up. Either you choose to stop exercising it, or you choose to violate the rights of another, and in doing so, lose your own.
> 
> We aren't talking about some political football that can be tossed around and used against us.
> We're talking about our God-given right to self-preservation here. It is worth whatever risk we can foresee.
> Putting our local, state, and federal governments on notice that they *MUST* defend our rights, gun carry included, should not be something we cower from.
> 
> If I had my way, this bill would not only demand that all states recognize the carry rights of citizens from other states, it would also go so far as to enforce and protect the right of ALL citizens in all states by rescinding and voiding all state carry bans of handguns by non-criminals.
> I'd make the federal government do it's damn job again, enshrining the rights of the people above all else against the encroachments of unchecked state legislatures.
> 
> But I'm weird that way...


 Really. CC LAWS granted CC privilege. They were passed State by state not granted by a constitution. I know most of us feel they should but they are not . If The Feds can weld this power what is to stop them from saying Wisconsin must come in line with CA view on CC. 
The only rights you have are the ones 5 or 9 tell you have at any give time. That is the real world. And right now they are turning against gun owners rights. They sending the signals.


----------



## Jammer Six

Smitty901 said:


> CC LAWS granted CC privilege.


I'm beginning to understand.


----------



## Kauboy

Smitty901 said:


> Really. CC LAWS granted CC privilege. They were passed State by state not granted by a constitution. I know most of us feel they should but they are not . If The Feds can weld this power what is to stop them from saying Wisconsin must come in line with CA view on CC.
> The only rights you have are the ones 5 or 9 tell you have at any give time. That is the real world. And right now they are turning against gun owners rights. They sending the signals.


I need no law, nor "privilege" to exercise a RIGHT.
*THAT* is the real world.
Keep begging them to let you be a self-sufficient human being.
They love handing out permission to servants.

A law, ANY LAW, does NOT need to be declared unconstitutional before it is considered so. If it violates the constitution, by definition, it is null and void the moment it is signed.
The right to "KEEP *AND BEAR*" is no exception.

Send them a signal. Stop grovelling.


----------



## RedLion

I like that it is coming closer to a vote, but I do not like or trust adding any NICs related amendments to it.



> Stock prices up ahead of House vote on concealed carry reciprocity


Stock prices up ahead of House vote on concealed carry reciprocity


----------



## RedLion

I do agree that it would be huge step in the right direction. It would provide extra leverage for those in "May issue" states to change to "Shall issue" with out of staters coming in and carrying with no consequences and would be a boost to pro-gun/self defense statistics.



> Hawkins: National Reciprocity Would Be Greatest Gun Rights Boost Since Ratification of 2nd Amendment


Hawkins: National Reciprocity Would Be Greatest Gun Rights Boost Since Ratification of 2nd Amendment - Breitbart


----------



## Stockton

A couple of points. I know many libertarians think they have the
right to do what they want and this does not matter. I know there
are more people in free states that see this as some form of 
grant or even infringement. Being from a sincerely restricted 
state I can only pray this occurs. 

The most sincere point I could make - this moves the pendulum
in the right direction. Since when does that ever happen in our
favor?


----------



## Smitty901

Stockton said:


> A couple of points. I know many libertarians think they have the
> right to do what they want and this does not matter. I know there
> are more people in free states that see this as some form of
> grant or even infringement. Being from a sincerely restricted
> state I can only pray this occurs.
> 
> The most sincere point I could make - this moves the pendulum
> in the right direction. Since when does that ever happen in our
> favor?


 We did not make gains in restoring some of our gun rights at the federal level it was at the State level. In Wisconsin we forgot hard for many years. We had a Democrat That forgot us every step or the way . Democrat DA's work against us in every way.
I was involved in it for 20 years and know others were even longer. You must fight at the State level and change things there first. That does not mean to ignore what is going on at every level.


----------



## Kauboy

Smitty901 said:


> We did not make gains in restoring some of our gun rights at the federal level it was at the State level. In Wisconsin we forgot hard for many years. We had a Democrat That forgot us every step or the way . Democrat DA's work against us in every way.
> I was involved in it for 20 years and know others were even longer. You must fight at the State level and change things there first. That does not mean to ignore what is going on at every level.


That's just it, this doesn't negate state level initiatives. If any state, in particular, still has restrictive carry limitations, that must continue to be fought against by the people of that state. What this does, and it does nothing more, is to inform the states that already have CC that they must respect the CC license of any other state.
It doesn't change the requirements of any state's CC laws. It doesn't tell states that they must comply with some other state's CC laws. It just enforces the right to carry if a person already has a CC license from another state, and the state they're entering also allows legal CC.


----------



## MountainGirl

Kauboy said:


> That's just it, this doesn't negate state level initiatives. If any state, in particular, still has restrictive carry limitations, that must continue to be fought against by the people of that state. What this does, and it does nothing more, is to inform the states that already have CC that they must respect the CC license of any other state.
> It doesn't change the requirements of any state's CC laws. It doesn't tell states that they must comply with some other state's CC laws. It just enforces the right to carry if a person already has a CC license from another state, and the state they're entering also allows legal CC.


...then, the net result of all this is just so a person's CC license is recognized by all states that allow CC licenses? That's it?? 
Hell, I thought we were really getting something.


----------



## Kauboy

MountainGirl said:


> ...then, the net result of all this is just so a person's CC license is recognized by all states that allow CC licenses? That's it??
> Hell, I thought we were really getting something.


You nailed it. That's exactly it.
No more worry about each state having their own special reciprocity agreements, and getting to stomp on a citizen's right to carry if they already exercise that right legally in their home state.
I call that something!


----------



## MountainGirl

Kauboy said:


> You nailed it. That's exactly it.
> No more worry about each state having their own special reciprocity agreements, and getting to stomp on a citizen's right to carry if they already exercise that right legally in their home state.
> I call that something!


If that is what is occurring (and I have no knowledge about this either way), then yes, it is indeed something - and I hope it passes for the reasons you've given.

FWIW, I think it SUCKS that there are _any_ State enacted laws regarding this Constitutional right...and the Feds should keep their hands off of it, too.

Thanks for your replies, Kauboy; most appreciated.


----------



## Smitty901

By having CC permits as a non resident is some states many of us get around some of the problems. One thing this bill will do is get rid of the cost of doing so. If passed. I will not waver in my concern of the long term effect it may have on CC rights. What we need is the Supreme Court to rule that in all 50 states the 2 amendment applies . And as long as your have not forfeit your right to a firearm you can carry any time any where. But that is not going to happen. Supreme court is already signaling a roll back in gun ownership rights coming. I hope Trumps gets to pick a couple more and that he picks wisely.
This map is a big help in understanding where we are. By clicking the state or states you have a CC in or non resident in you know if you are ok as it is now.
Of course even though we accept TX permits they reject ours.

https://www.usacarry.com/concealed_carry_permit_reciprocity_maps.html


----------



## Stockton

MountainGirl said:


> ...then, the net result of all this is just so a person's CC license is recognized by all states that allow CC licenses? That's it??
> Hell, I thought we were really getting something.


Not exactly. This law would enable me to obtain a permit
in a free site like Utah. I can then carry in California. I live
in an area of CA that issues permits, but my city won't. I
can get one through the county. It takes 6 months minimum
and will cost $600. That includes required applications, a 
class, a range time. I include ammo cost. Mind you I don't
even have a carry type firearm. I don't think I'd carry the
1911 I bought.

Under this law I could get a permit from Utah for under a 
$100. And I could carry in CA and the local government can't
stop me.


----------



## Smitty901

By having CC permits as a non resident is some states many of us get around some of the problems. One thing this bill will do is get rid of the cost of doing so. If passed. I will not waver in my concern of the long term effect it may have on CC rights. What we need is the Supreme Court to rule that in all 50 states the 2 amendment applies . And as long as your have not forfeit your right to a firearm you can carry any time any where. But that is not going to happen. Supreme court is already signaling a roll back in gun ownership rights coming. I hope Trumps gets to pick a couple more and that he picks wisely.
This map is a big help in understanding where we are. By clicking the state or states you have a CC in or non resident in you know if you are ok as it is now.
Of course even though we accept TX permits they reject ours.

https://www.usacarry.com/concealed_carry_permit_reciprocity_maps.html


----------



## Smitty901

Stockton said:


> Not exactly. This law would enable me to obtain a permit
> in a free site like Utah. I can then carry in California. I live
> in an area of CA that issues permits, but my city won't. I
> can get one through the county. It takes 6 months minimum
> and will cost $600. That includes required applications, a
> class, a range time. I include ammo cost. Mind you I don't
> even have a carry type firearm. I don't think I'd carry the
> 1911 I bought.
> 
> Under this law I could get a permit from Utah for under a
> $100. And I could carry in CA and the local government can't
> stop me.


 Maybe not because you live in CA . CA could still require you to have a CA issued one. They could in theory not require me a WI resident to but they own you as a resident.


----------



## Kauboy

Smitty901 said:


> Of course even though we accept TX permits they reject ours.


Chaps your ass, don't it? And rightly so. Fair is fair, and yours should be accepted in my state. This bill will do that.


----------



## Kauboy

Stockton said:


> Not exactly. This law would enable me to obtain a permit
> in a free site like Utah. I can then carry in California. I live
> in an area of CA that issues permits, but my city won't. I
> can get one through the county. It takes 6 months minimum
> and will cost $600. That includes required applications, a
> class, a range time. I include ammo cost. Mind you I don't
> even have a carry type firearm. I don't think I'd carry the
> 1911 I bought.
> 
> Under this law I could get a permit from Utah for under a
> $100. And I could carry in CA and the local government can't
> stop me.


I have to agree with @Smitty901 here.
Due to this clause:


> "does not prohibit the carrying of concealed
> firearms by residents of the State for lawful purposes."


I think you could still be denied the legal ability to carry since the permit which you were issued is not from the state in which you reside.
I don't think there will be a loophole way to allow CC for residents of a state where CC is heavily restricted. That must still be fought in the state legislature.


----------



## Sasquatch

Stockton said:


> Not exactly. This law would enable me to obtain a permit
> in a free site like Utah. I can then carry in California. I live
> in an area of CA that issues permits, but my city won't. I
> can get one through the county. It takes 6 months minimum
> and will cost $600. That includes required applications, a
> class, a range time. I include ammo cost. Mind you I don't
> even have a carry type firearm. I don't think I'd carry the
> 1911 I bought.
> 
> Under this law I could get a permit from Utah for under a
> $100. And I could carry in CA and the local government can't
> stop me.


As I understand it the sheriff of the county decides if the "may" or "shall" issue. Orange County became a shall issue and I took full advantage. My CC is good state wide so even in I come into your city that does not issue there's not a thing your city can do about it. My price or fee or whatever you want to call it was about what you indicated 500-600 bucks. Took about 6 months as well.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


----------



## Smitty901

Kauboy said:


> Chaps your ass, don't it? And rightly so. Fair is fair, and yours should be accepted in my state. This bill will do that.


 Always has. We had considered when working on the bill this happening. The question was do we make it part of the bill you don't except ours we will not except yours. We stay clear of that. There are a few case where Wisconsin does not except another states but that get into politics a bit. Wisconsin may surprise those that look at the big picture, we have a pretty go law. Also with back round check we have no wait on hand guns either.


----------



## Kauboy

Sasquatch said:


> My price or fee or whatever you want to call it was about what you indicated 500-600 bucks. Took about 6 months as well.


Honestly, that's outrageous.
Not to brag, or start some competition, but ours was just reduced this year to $40 and takes about 3 months for all checks. We're basically covering the cost of processing the paperwork.
You still have to take a class, which can range in price, since they're offered by private businesses. Even then, you're looking at maybe $75 for an 8 hour class, range time, and gun rental with ammo. Renewals are only 4 hours, no range requal, and they reuse most of your paperwork, which you can now just submit online.


----------



## Gator Monroe

Mine was 300.00 (140.00 For initial class) ( 160.00 for Sheriff fee) here in Shasta County ( Sheriff Tom Bosenko) and it took 3 weeks til rice paper was in my mailbox ( Renewal class is 40.00 and sheriff fee is 60.00 $ every 2 years


----------



## Stockton

Sasquatch said:


> As I understand it the sheriff of the county decides if the "may" or "shall" issue. Orange County became a shall issue and I took full advantage. My CC is good state wide so even in I come into your city that does not issue there's not a thing your city can do about it. My price or fee or whatever you want to call it was about what you indicated 500-600 bucks. Took about 6 months as well.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


Bummer on that clause. I was hoping for a cheaper license
from Utah or another state. Our sheriff is shall issue it just
cost so much and its only good for 2 years. 2 years and 
another $500 as the renewal class is less then new. Stockton
is pretty much a non issue. Unless of course you donate 
to the city council's campaign.


----------



## Hatchee

Remember, don't shoot the messenger....from everything I have heard and read, this bill does not have that much support in the Senate. It will probably go there to die like most of the other 420 bills that have passed the House and are currently awaiting Senate action.


----------



## RedLion

Good to see the House pass the legislation and one to the Senate. I hope to see the Senate approve some version of the legislation if for nothing else as it is a solid win for the GOP, but getting some democrats to support not looking good eventhough 13 did support in 2013.


----------



## Deebo

I haven't read this post yet, but gotta throw in something I heard last week.
In NM, if your open carrying, and your shirt accidentaly covers your firearm, becoming concieled, its a misdemeanor, and no big deal. Also, if your CC and get "caught CC in a "posted" no CC zone, its a big no no and you can loose your gun rights all together. If your NOT CC certified, its an misdemeanor?


----------



## RedLion

Deebo said:


> I haven't read this post yet, but gotta throw in something I heard last week.
> In NM, if your open carrying, and your shirt accidentaly covers your firearm, becoming concieled, its a misdemeanor, and no big deal. Also, if your CC and get "caught CC in a "posted" no CC zone, its a big no no and you can loose your gun rights all together. If your NOT CC certified, its an misdemeanor?


Laws are different from one state to the next.


----------



## Deebo

WELL, after six pages of reading, DEEBO will carry his firearm wherever, whenever he wants.
Cavalier? Stupid? I don't know, but I have rights. Not purchased, not "down on my knees, paying registration fees", and begging for something that IS MINE.
And, the good part is, I will PROBABLY never drive to New York, or California, so screw them, and their "open target" on citizens.
Now, back to the law....The senate will "add something", to get what they want, you know, an extra fee, a yearly renewal, a mental health evalauation, something, to get them "one step closer to GOVT CONTROL".
Yall line up, and beg them, I WONT.


----------



## Smitty901

The day it goes into effect I may run of to MN with a CC . They stop people from Wisconsin carrying in their state. But we allow them to CC here.


----------



## MountainGirl

Deebo said:


> WELL, after six pages of reading, DEEBO will carry his firearm wherever, whenever he wants.
> Cavalier? Stupid? I don't know, but I have rights. Not purchased, not "down on my knees, paying registration fees", and begging for something that IS MINE.
> And, the good part is, I will PROBABLY never drive to New York, or California, so screw them, and their "open target" on citizens.
> Now, back to the law....The senate will "add something", to get what they want, you know, an extra fee, a yearly renewal, a mental health evalauation, something, to get them "one step closer to GOVT CONTROL".
> Yall line up, and beg them, I WONT.


Me either. I don't recognize any man-made entity's authority over me; I view all laws as 'suggestions'. Some of the suggestions make good sense, so I follow a lot of them - but the ultimate choice (and responsibility for the outcome of that choice) of what I do, wherever and whenever, is mine.


----------



## RedLion

MountainGirl said:


> Me either. I don't recognize any man-made entity's authority over me; I view all laws as 'suggestions'. Some of the suggestions make good sense, so I follow a lot of them - but the ultimate choice (and responsibility for the outcome of that choice) of what I do, wherever and whenever, is mine.


You and I both, you and I both. I do believe that a day and time will come prior to my death in which we will be faced with choosing to either follow the govt's law or do the morally right thing.


----------



## MountainGirl

RedLion said:


> You and I both, you and I both. I do believe that a day and time will come prior to my death in which we will be faced with choosing to either follow the govt's law or do the morally right thing.


I do that now. My morals line up pretty much with govt's laws... but not always. And lately, less so.


----------



## RedLion

MountainGirl said:


> I do that now. My morals line up pretty much with govt's laws... but not always. And lately, less so.


I should have been more specific and qualified "the govt's law" as being over the top illegal and UnConstitutional.


----------



## Smitty901

Here is the problem. What are the chances we get 8 Democrats.

"Several Democrats who voted for the 2013 measure, including Senators Martin Heinrich of New Mexico, Mark Warner of Virginia and Tom Udall of New Mexico, said this week they would not do so this time around. Even Democrats perceived to be the most in favor of gun rights, including Senators Joe Manchin III of West Virginia and Jon Tester of Montana, were cautious about staking out a position before they needed to."

"Republicans in the Senate would need to pick up at least eight Democrats to pass the measure. "

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/06/us/politics/house-concealed-carry-guns-nra-reciprocity.html


----------



## Jammer Six

I've never met a genuine sovereign citizen. Is that what you are, MountainGirl?


----------



## Denton

Jammer Six said:


> I've never met a genuine sovereign citizen. Is that what you are, MountainGirl?


I've met many. First time I ran into someone who would be called that, today, was in 1983.


----------



## Denton

MountainGirl said:


> Me either. I don't recognize any man-made entity's authority over me; I view all laws as 'suggestions'. Some of the suggestions make good sense, so I follow a lot of them - but the ultimate choice (and responsibility for the outcome of that choice) of what I do, wherever and whenever, is mine.


That's easy to say, but how do you remove yourself from man-made jurisdiction?


----------



## A Watchman

MountainGirl said:


> Me either. I don't recognize any man-made entity's authority over me; I view all laws as 'suggestions'. Some of the suggestions make good sense, so I follow a lot of them - but the ultimate choice (and responsibility for the outcome of that choice) of what I do, wherever and whenever, is mine.





Denton said:


> That's easy to say, but how do you remove yourself from man-made jurisdiction?


MountainGirl, I suggest this is easy to say from a off the cuff perspective. However, a deeper look would show that by default and at least subconsciously you are indeed obedient to the rule of man's authority without your complete consent and agreeance:

Income tax
Fuel taxes
Property taxes
Utility rates
Laws of the roads and highways
Voting laws
Liquor laws
Health Insurance rates
Medical treatment laws and policies
Home and auto insurance laws and rates
Education policies for you and any children
Internet policies

Of course, in reality there are even more .....


----------



## MountainGirl

Jammer Six said:


> I've never met a genuine sovereign citizen. Is that what you are, MountainGirl?


From my perspective, yes. 
Others may not agree, that is their prerogative.


----------



## MountainGirl

Denton said:


> That's easy to say, but how do you remove yourself from man-made jurisdiction?


By choosing to do only what I agree with and to, and taking responsibility for my choices.


----------



## Denton

MountainGirl said:


> By choosing to do only what I agree with and to, and taking responsibility for my choices.


Again, that won't hold up in court.

For example, you have the God given right to travel, right? Many years ago, the USSC ruled that the automobile has replaced the horse as a means of conveyance. Do you hold a state drivers license? Are your automobiles plated with your state's tag?


----------



## MountainGirl

A Watchman said:


> MountainGirl, I suggest this is easy to say from a off the cuff perspective. However, a deeper look would show that by default and at least subconsciously you are indeed obedient to the rule of man's authority without your complete consent and agreeance:
> 
> Income tax
> Fuel taxes
> Property taxes
> Utility rates
> Laws of the roads and highways
> Voting laws
> Liquor laws
> Health Insurance rates
> Medical treatment laws and policies
> Home and auto insurance laws and rates
> Education policies for you and any children
> Internet policies
> 
> Of course, in reality there are even more .....


_Income tax_ - Not enough income to require filing
_Fuel taxes_ - I dont mind these, my contribution to road repair, etc
_Property taxes_ - I accept paying these, and receive indirect benefit from doing so
_Utility rates_ - We have no utilities
_Laws of the roads and highways _- Viewed as suggestions, most good, but always my choice to comply
_Voting laws_ - N/A
_Liquor laws_ - I enjoy a shot of Scotch a few times a year, so whatever lol
_Health Insurance rates_ - Dont have health insurance
_Medical treatment laws and policies_ - Dont doctor
_Home and auto insurance laws and rates_ - I choose to have minimal coverage on some things, not all
_Education policies for you and any children_ - N/A
_Internet policies_ - I enjoy using the internet, but if it goes away oh well. Lived a long time without it. 

I understand your point, Mr. Watchman sir. Mine is that I live in the manner that is right for me, with full acceptance of what may come as a result of my choices. There's an old corny saying: _I'd rather live under my own terms and fail, or even die, than live under someone else's and succeed. 
_
For me, it's like that.


----------



## MountainGirl

Denton said:


> Again, that won't hold up in court. *<-I know.*
> 
> For example, you have the God given right to travel, right? Many years ago, the USSC ruled that the automobile has replaced the horse as a means of conveyance. Do you hold a state drivers license? Are your automobiles plated with your state's tag?


There is a difference between not recognizing authority and choosing to do something. God didn't give me a 'right to travel', lol, but He did give me the ability to be mobile and make choices.


----------



## Denton

MountainGirl said:


> There is a difference between not recognizing authority and choosing to do something. God didn't give me a 'right to travel', lol, but He did give me the ability to be mobile and make choices.


As a matter of fact, He did, and that is recognized in this land where the laws of nature and nature's God were at the root of our liberties and, at one time, our justice system.
"...ability to be mobile...;" you repackaged what I said.

Be a good sport and play along for not just you but the rest of the class. I'm going somewhere with the drivers license and car registration thing.


----------



## Denton

Also, about recognizing authority... I recognize the Cuban government has authority. That doesn't mean it has authority or jurisdiction over me.


----------



## MountainGirl

Denton said:


> As a matter of fact, He did, and that is recognized in this land where the laws of nature and nature's God were at the root of our liberties and, at one time, our justice system.
> "...ability to be mobile...;" you repackaged what I said.
> 
> Be a good sport and play along for not just you but the rest of the class. I'm going somewhere with the drivers license and car registration thing.


Sure I'll play along!
Take the next step and I'll follow your lead. 
_(If it matters to where you're headed, I dont exactly agree with your first paragraph)_


----------



## MountainGirl

Hey Denton, wanna start a dif thread on this? See? I'm choosing to follow PF's suggestions about hijacking a thread.


----------



## Denton

MountainGirl said:


> Sure I'll play along!
> Take the next step and I'll follow your lead.
> _(If it matters to where you're headed, I dont exactly agree with your first paragraph)_


Doesn't matter. What matters is that my opinion is based off the founder's opinions and where they got their opinions.

It is recognized in this country that you have the right to travel. It is recognized by the USSC that the automobile has replaced the horse as the primary means of transportation.

It should be also understood that there is a difference between constitutional laws and statutes, codes and regulations that are separate from constitutional laws.

You suggested you are a sovereign citizen. Do you hold a state issued drivers license and are your vehicles tagged?


----------



## Denton

MountainGirl said:


> Hey Denton, wanna start a dif thread on this? See? I'm choosing to follow PF's suggestions about hijacking a thread.


Nope. I'll tie this all together, with a neat little bow on top of it.


----------



## Sasquatch

Kauboy said:


> Honestly, that's outrageous.
> Not to brag, or start some competition, but ours was just reduced this year to $40 and takes about 3 months for all checks. We're basically covering the cost of processing the paperwork.
> You still have to take a class, which can range in price, since they're offered by private businesses. Even then, you're looking at maybe $75 for an 8 hour class, range time, and gun rental with ammo. Renewals are only 4 hours, no range requal, and they reuse most of your paperwork, which you can now just submit online.


Trust me brother I am jealous. I agree mine is outrageous.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


----------



## MountainGirl

Denton said:


> Doesn't matter. What matters is that my opinion is based off the founder's opinions and where they got their opinions.
> 
> It is recognized in this country that you have the right to travel. It is recognized by the USSC that the automobile has replaced the horse as the primary means of transportation.
> 
> It should be also understood that there is a difference between constitutional laws and statutes, codes and regulations that are separate from constitutional laws.
> 
> You suggested you are a sovereign citizen. Do you hold a state issued drivers license and are your vehicles tagged?


Nope re DL, the vehicle we drive to town is tagged - to avoid any hassle. Just like if you went to Cuba, you'd make choices to avoid trouble, if possible...but that doesn't mean you're a citizen of Cuba. When in Rome, right? For us, most of 'Rome' is avoided whenever possible. When not possible, choices are made.



Denton said:


> Nope. I'll tie this all together, with a neat little bow on top of it.


Sounds good!


----------



## Denton

OK, going to go forward...

You are governed by jurisdiction. Under what jurisdiction do you fall? 

Let's go back several decades when horses were the primary means of conveyance. A citizen saddled up the horse and struck a trot to wherever they wanted to go. There were no demands for permits or tags, not that a horse would have stood still while a tag was screwed to his rear end, anyway, but you get the point. Today, you travel by means of the automobile, but you are told you have to have a "drivers license" and your automobile must be registered at the court house and proof of registration must be affixed to the automobile and paper proof in your possession in order to travel.
Are such demands placed on you by the constitution, or are they from some other jurisdiction?


----------



## Denton

MountainGirl said:


> Nope re DL, the vehicle we drive to town is tagged - to avoid any hassle. Just like if you went to Cuba, you'd make choices to avoid trouble, if possible...but that doesn't mean you're a citizen of Cuba. When in Rome, right? For us, most of 'Rome' is avoided whenever possible. When not possible, choices are made.
> 
> Sounds good!


OK, you just ran afoul as a sovereign citizen, assuming you are the one who operates the motor vehicle.

Notice I am no longer using the terms "traveling" and "automobile?" There's a reason.

In order to operate a motor vehicle, one must obtain a drivers license. Why? Because the motor vehicle is regulated under the Uniform Commercial Code, and only a properly licensed operator may operate a motor vehicle.

You stepped off your constitutional flagstone and into jurisdiction you weren't meant to be as a sovereign citizen.

"When in Rome, right?" Why did you put yourself under Rome's jurisdiction? Jurisdiction doesn't necessarily define itself by geographical boundaries.


----------



## MountainGirl

Denton said:


> OK, going to go forward...
> 
> You are governed by jurisdiction. Under what jurisdiction do you fall? *<-The State of Insanity, like all the others. *
> 
> Let's go back several decades when horses were the primary means of conveyance. A citizen saddled up the horse and struck a trot to wherever they wanted to go. There were no demands for permits or tags, not that a horse would have stood still while a tag was screwed to his rear end, anyway, but you get the point. * If we had grazing room up here, it would be horses & a wagon/sled.* Today, you travel by means of the automobile, but you are told you have to have a "drivers license" and your automobile must be registered at the court house and proof of registration must be affixed to the automobile and paper proof in your possession in order to travel.
> Are such demands placed on you by the constitution, or are they from some other jurisdiction?


Ah, I see where you are headed. Grand as they were, I doubt the founding fathers could have foreseen everything, and they might have allowed for that, or did that come later? It seems somewhere there is a phrase: _And the authority to enact any reasonable regulation to enforce..._ or something like that. I yield to you and others as experts on what is said where.

Your turn.


----------



## Denton

MountainGirl said:


> Ah, I see where you are headed. Grand as they were, I doubt the founding fathers could have foreseen everything, and they might have allowed for that, or did that come later? It seems somewhere there is a phrase: _And the authority to enact any reasonable regulation to enforce..._ or something like that. I yield to you and others as experts on what is said where.
> 
> Your turn.


The regulation of commercial activity is constitutional. That is why the UCC is, in fact, not against the constitution. Commercial activity falls under the jurisdiction of the UCC.

Now, let's say you are a _man on the land_ or a _sovereign citizen_ (choose a label if it is necessary) traveling to visit a friend or family member. You do not possess a drivers license, and your automobile is not registered. That is to say you are constitutionally traveling. How do you fall under the jurisdiction of the UCC?


----------



## MountainGirl

Denton said:


> OK, you just ran afoul as a sovereign citizen, assuming you are the one who operates the motor vehicle. *I am.*
> 
> Notice I am no longer using the terms "traveling" and "automobile?" There's a reason. *I know.*
> 
> In order to operate a motor vehicle, one must obtain a drivers license. * No. In order to operate a motor vehicle, one must know how to operate a motor vehicle. *
> 
> Why? Because the motor vehicle is regulated under the Uniform Commercial Code, and only a properly licensed operator may operate a motor vehicle. *Yeah, I've heard that, lol*
> 
> You stepped off your constitutional flagstone and into jurisdiction you weren't meant to be as a sovereign citizen.
> 
> "When in Rome, right?" Why did you put yourself under Rome's jurisdiction? Jurisdiction doesn't necessarily define itself by geographical boundaries.


There is an old phrase "When in Rome, do as the Romans do." Our mountain is smack dab in the middle of (the metaphorical) "Rome" and when we venture out it is as lightly as possible. I consider myself to be a sovereign citizen of Peaceful Mountain; nothing more and _nothing less_. 

Next?


----------



## Denton

MountainGirl said:


> There is an old phrase "When in Rome, do as the Romans do." Our mountain is smack dab in the middle of (the metaphorical) "Rome" and when we venture out it is as lightly as possible. I consider myself to be a sovereign citizen of Peaceful Mountain; nothing more and _nothing less_.
> 
> Next?


I know the phrase, but it doesn't apply. I'll wait until you catch up to my last post.


----------



## Kauboy

@Denton... Charlie Sprinkle, is that you?

:vs_laugh:

(Google him)


----------



## Denton

Kauboy said:


> @Denton... Charlie Sprinkle, is that you?
> 
> :vs_laugh:
> 
> (Google him)


Don't have to Google him... :vs_smirk:


----------



## MountainGirl

Denton said:


> The regulation of commercial activity is constitutional. That is why the UCC is, in fact, not against the constitution. Commercial activity falls under the jurisdiction of the UCC.
> 
> Now, let's say you are a _man on the land_ or a _sovereign citizen_ (choose a label if it is necessary) traveling to visit a friend or family member. You do not possess a drivers license, and your automobile is not registered. That is to say you are constitutionally traveling. How do you fall under the jurisdiction of the UCC?


By taking along venison to sell to them? LOL I don't know, Denton; still playing the Uke here.

There are many 'jurisdictions' everyone (including me) travel through in life. I recognize and realize that choices I make may or may not put my ass in violation of anything at anytime. The more society, and its obsessive codifications addiction, tries to regulate everything and everyone - the more I don't give a shit about what it says and does. If that means I pay a penalty, or go to jail, at some point because I chose to live as free from that crap as possible? So be it.

My way isn't for everyone, but it is mine.


----------



## Kauboy

Denton said:


> Don't have to Google him... :vs_smirk:


That was more for "the rest of the class".
I had a sneaking suspicion you were already familiar. :tango_face_wink:


----------



## RedLion

> National Reciprocity Hinges on Mitch McConnell After Conservatives Overcome Paul Ryan's Months of Stonewalling





> a nation wherein "73 percent" of Americans support national reciprocity.





> So Trump supports reciprocity and the House passed reciprocity. This leaves only one more hurdle-the U.S. Senate, where Republicans have a majority and red state Democrats like Sens. Jon Tester (D-Mont.) and Joe Manchin (D-WV) cannot risk an anti-gun vote if they want to win re-election in November 2018. In short, everything is properly aligned to recover our Second Amendment freedoms at this moment in time. All eyes are now on Majority Leader McConnell.


National Reciprocity Hinges on Mitch McConnell After Conservatives Overcome Paul Ryan's Months of Stonewalling


----------



## MountainGirl

Kauboy said:


> @*Denton* ... Charlie Sprinkle, is that you?
> 
> :vs_laugh:
> 
> (Google him)


Thanks! That might come in handy someday. :tango_face_wink:


----------



## Denton

MountainGirl said:


> By taking along venison to sell to them? LOL I don't know, Denton; still playing the Uke here.
> 
> There are many 'jurisdictions' everyone (including me) travel through in life. I recognize and realize that choices I make may or may not put my ass in violation of anything at anytime. The more society, and its obsessive codifications addiction, tries to regulate everything and everyone - the more I don't give a shit about what it says and does. If that means I pay a penalty, or go to jail, at some point because I chose to live as free from that crap as possible? So be it.
> 
> My way isn't for everyone, but it is mine.


Your way isn't your way when you pay a fine or go to jail out of ignorance. That is _their_ way. They prefer you pay a fine, but will imprison you to scare the rest of the citizenry.

Out of ignorance, we allow ourselves to be placed into jurisdictions in which we do not belong. If you allow yourself to be placed into such jurisdictions and you are in no way sovereign in any place but your mind, and not even there when the "authorities" snatch even that illusion.

Not only do we perish for lack of knowledge, but we also lose financial resources and liberty.

How does this tie in with the UCC? Simple.

Our rights do not come from any level of government. The only thing a government can do is afford us _privileges_, which is not the same thing as a right. We have a God given right to keep and bear arms. That authority was understood by the framers of our constitution to be higher than that of any government. Governments, being of lower authority than God, do not possess the authority to restrict or infringe upon those rights.

So, what is my gripe with the reciprocity act, other than to possibly prompt states to further restrict our right to bear arms? It reinforces the notion that lower authority has the right to infringe upon our right to keep and bear arms.

We find ourselves in the mess we are in due to ignorance and apathy, and both have been building for decades.


----------



## Kauboy

Denton said:


> So, what is my gripe with the reciprocity act, other than to possibly prompt states to further restrict our right to bear arms? It reinforces the notion that lower authority has the right to infringe upon our right to keep and bear arms.
> 
> We find ourselves in the mess we are in due to ignorance and apathy, and both have been building for decades.


Given that continuing growth of the two, and seeing a choice laid before us, which action would seem more prudent to positively affect our situations?
1. Continue to hope and strive to overcome ignorance and apathy while competing against a much larger entity that seeks to ensure its continuance?
2. Utilize that larger entity against itself, while the reigns have been successfully fought for, to enact new policy that would yield a stronger reinforcement of rights?

I hope I've not let on, throughout this entire discussion, that I *prefer* for any government to have control over our right to carry arms. That is not at all true.
However, being the realist that I've grown to be, and seeing the playing field for what it is, I take great pride in being able to wrestle control of the beast away from those I disagree with, and using its strength to institute new protections of our freedoms. We've seen just how difficult it is for laws of the past to be wholly repealed, so getting something *good* passed should engrave it into our future as well. That is not to say we should not be vigilant, or give up on correcting the apathy and ignorance of our countrymen. That should be an eternal struggle. But I would rather fight the good fight *with* the force of law on my side than in opposition to it, if it is just and possible.
Hence, my support of the reciprocity bill.


----------



## MountainGirl

Denton said:


> Your way isn't your way when you pay a fine or go to jail out of ignorance. *No. It is not ignorance if it is my informed choice to accept outcomes of my decisions. *
> 
> That is _their_ way. They prefer you pay a fine, but will imprison you to scare the rest of the citizenry. *Yes. There are lots of Ways through life, they have theirs, you have yours, I have mine.*
> 
> Out of ignorance, we allow ourselves to be placed into jurisdictions in which we do not belong. If you allow yourself to be placed into such jurisdictions and you are in no way sovereign in any place but your mind, and not even there when the "authorities" snatch even that illusion. *They can't snatch from me my natural right to make choices, including choosing fine/jail, rather than complying.*
> 
> Not only do we perish for lack of knowledge, but we also lose financial resources and liberty. *That would be the perspective of your way, yes.*
> 
> How does this tie in with the UCC? Simple.
> 
> Our rights do not come from any level of government. The only thing a government can do is afford us _privileges_, which is not the same thing as a right. We have a God given right to keep and bear arms. That authority was understood by the framers of our constitution to be higher than that of any government. Governments, being of lower authority than God, do not possess the authority to restrict or infringe upon those rights.
> 
> So, what is my gripe with the reciprocity act, other than to possibly prompt states to further restrict our right to bear arms? It reinforces the notion that lower authority has the right to infringe upon our right to keep and bear arms.
> 
> We find ourselves in the mess we are in due to ignorance and apathy, and both have been building for decades.


I'm in hopes that your ending comment about ignorance and apathy was not indirectly pointed at me - just because I think differently than you.

If your 'rights vs privileges' point was the 'bow' on this instructional session - point made and well done. 

Now, if you'll excuse me for a few hours, teach, I've got chores to do. Thanks for the exchange!


----------



## Denton

Kauboy said:


> Given that continuing growth of the two, and seeing a choice laid before us, which action would seem more prudent to positively affect our situations?
> 1. Continue to hope and strive to overcome ignorance and apathy while competing against a much larger entity that seeks to ensure its continuance?
> 2. Utilize that larger entity against itself, while the reigns have been successfully fought for, to enact new policy that would yield a stronger reinforcement of rights?
> 
> I hope I've not let on, throughout this entire discussion, that I *prefer* for any government to have control over our right to carry arms. That is not at all true.
> However, being the realist that I've grown to be, and seeing the playing field for what it is, I take great pride in being able to wrestle control of the beast away from those I disagree with, and using its strength to institute new protections of our freedoms. We've seen just how difficult it is for laws of the past to be wholly repealed, so getting something *good* passed should engrave it into our future as well. That is not to say we should not be vigilant, or give up on correcting the apathy and ignorance of our countrymen. That should be an eternal struggle. But I would rather fight the good fight *with* the force of law on my side than in opposition to it, if it is just and possible.
> Hence, my support of the reciprocity bill.


I have no reason to believe you desire any government restricts placed against the rights of man. *For those of you who are weak in English, "man" is gender neutral when used in this context* I've been reading your posts for years, now, and I know better. :vs_clap:

I see the great possibility for unexpected consequences. Unexpected to those who are for this bill; I don't know if they are unexpected to all the politicians who will votes for it, though.

If congress wanted to remove the infringements on our right to keep and bear arms, why not go about it the right way? As I said before, the bill simply reinforces the notion that a lower level of government has the right to infringe upon our right that was clearly protected by the 2nd amendment.


----------



## Denton

MountainGirl said:


> I'm in hopes that your ending comment about ignorance and apathy was not indirectly pointed at me - just because I think differently than you.
> 
> If your 'rights vs privileges' point was the 'bow' on this instructional session - point made and well done.
> 
> Now, if you'll excuse me for a few hours, teach, I've got chores to do. Thanks for the exchange!


My comment was directed at all of us - including you. Thinking _differently_ doesn't absolve you of it. If you are asking if there is malice in my words, then the answer is a resounding _no_. I mean no malice. You need to understand that you are not sovereign when you allow yourself, for whatever reason and with the defense of old adages that that do not apply, to be placed under jurisdictions that are beyond the scope of sovereignty as a citizen.

Disclaimer - I am not sovereign. I have been a part of either the military/industrial complex or transportation since I was 18 years old. That being the case, I'm not a man on the land.


----------



## Kauboy

Denton said:


> As I said before, the bill simply reinforces the notion that a lower level of government has the right to infringe upon our right that was clearly protected by the 2nd amendment.


Indeed, it can be seen that way, but this would relate us back to your discussion with MountainGirl.
If we know that the 2nd is our concealed carry permit, as Uncle Ted likes to say, then I would have to assume you would favor carrying even if the jurisdiction you are in has made it illegal.
Now, whether you consider the law making it illegal to be right or wrong is irrelevant when the actor of the jurisdiction imposes it against you upon first contact. So, you have to make the same decision as MG. Do it anyways and take the consequences, or don't do it. I like the third option... force the local jurisdiction to comply via a power higher than them (that they recognize). That recognition part is the kicker. Until they can be made to recognize you and I as the pinnacle of political power in this land, we must utilize the roles they do recognize to achieve our goals.

I do recognize the risk of unforeseen consequences. However, I defer to and agree with the logic of our 3rd president, "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it."


----------



## Denton

Kauboy said:


> Indeed, it can be seen that way, but this would relate us back to your discussion with MountainGirl.
> If we know that the 2nd is our concealed carry permit, as Uncle Ted likes to say, then I would have to assume you would favor carrying even if the jurisdiction you are in has made it illegal.
> Now, whether you consider the law making it illegal to be right or wrong is irrelevant when the actor of the jurisdiction imposes it against you upon first contact. So, you have to make the same decision as MG. Do it anyways and take the consequences, or don't do it. I like the third option... force the local jurisdiction to comply via a power higher than them (that they recognize). That recognition part is the kicker. Until they can be made to recognize you and I as the pinnacle of political power in this land, we must utilize the roles they do recognize to achieve our goals.
> 
> I do recognize the risk of unforeseen consequences. However, I defer to and agree with the logic of our 3rd president, "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it."


IF you are of the (right) mind that the 2nd is our "permit" (wrong word - I know), you can do that, now. Assuming the USSC has not gone rogue, and assuming you do not make procedural mistakes, you will be found in the right.

Thomas Jefferson's statement doesn't fit, in this case, for reasons I have already asserted. This bill simply rearranges the chairs of the infringement.


----------



## Kauboy

Denton said:


> IF you are of the (right) mind that the 2nd is our "permit" (wrong word - I know), you can do that, now. Assuming the USSC has not gone rogue, and assuming you do not make procedural mistakes, you will be found in the right.
> 
> Thomas Jefferson's statement doesn't fit, in this case, for reasons I have already asserted. This bill simply rearranges the chairs of the infringement.


I guess we have to disagree.
If this bill passes, I will certainly have a greater degree of liberty than I previously had when visiting the many states of this great nation.
If it takes the force of government to ensure that, for now, I will accept that inconvenience.


----------



## Denton

Kauboy said:


> I guess we have to disagree.
> If this bill passes, I will certainly have a greater degree of liberty than I previously had when visiting the many states of this great nation.
> If it takes the force of government to ensure that, for now, I will accept that inconvenience.


Yup. We will have to agree to disagree that the potential "inconvenience" is even stricter conceal carry laws in what I consider tyrannical states. As far as me, it won't have a thing to do with me. The only places to which I travel are to Florida and Texas. I don't expect Florida to change things, and I can't even begin to imagine the Republic of Texas to further restrict rights.

As far as places like New Jersey, New Yor, etc., please mount a rescue operation to get me because if there is reason to believe I am in such a place. I've been kidnapped if it happens!


----------



## Gator Monroe

If I have relitives or Friends who happen to venture to my state I want their CHL/CWP/CCW permits honored , just as if I visit My Daughter & Grandsons in New Jersey mine will be honored (Especially if I go to the City for a day of sightseeing again)


----------



## MountainGirl

Jammer Six said:


> I've never met a genuine sovereign citizen. Is that what you are, MountainGirl?





MountainGirl said:


> From my perspective, yes.
> Others may not agree, that is their prerogative.


Just so we're _crystal_ clear, Jammer, when I talk about sovereignty - I'm NOT talking about this:

https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/n...stic-terrorism-the-sovereign-citizen-movement


----------



## Gator Monroe

Senate vote on this is unlikely .


----------



## Smitty901

MountainGirl said:


> Just so we're _crystal_ clear, Jammer, when I talk about sovereignty - I'm NOT talking about this:
> 
> https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/n...stic-terrorism-the-sovereign-citizen-movement


 I am glad you cleared that up . Another place and time I ran across a few of them.


----------



## Gator Monroe

Smitty901 said:


> I am glad you cleared that up . Another place and time I ran across a few of them.


You are far more likely to run across a buncha Anarchists or Antifa than a Sovereign identifier ...


----------



## RedLion

Gator Monroe said:


> Senate vote on this is unlikely .


A vote on Carry Reciprocity, minus the gun control is guaranteed to occur as it is a piece of Trump's platform to push for pro-2nd legislation. With that said, I put it at about a 50-50 possibility of passing.


----------



## Gator Monroe

Kate's Law was in his platform too , I give the Senate vote on Reciprocity a 50 % chance of happening prior to Spring ...


----------



## Jammer Six

Denton said:


> _It reinforces the notion that lower authority has the right to infringe upon our right to keep and bear arms._


I wanted to make it appear the way I think it should. Why doesn't this annoy _all_ of you?


----------



## Jammer Six

MountainGirl said:


> Just so we're _crystal_ clear, Jammer, when I talk about sovereignty - I'm NOT talking about this:


Then I don't understand what you're talking about, unless you're merely explaining an illusion you tell yourself to justify a driver's license, insurance, license plates and breaking the speed limit or driving drunk when you think it's okay.


----------



## Slippy

@Denton, @Kauboy, @MountainGirl

Slippy Approved!
@Jammer Six

Try not being a douchebag!

Thanks for listening!

Slippy! :vs_wave:


----------



## RedLion

> The Senate Math for CCW in 2017





> It's not looking probable; we would need a miracle. Here's the breakdown
> 
> Starting with the 2013 vote (57 Ayes to invoke cloture), I did up a spreadsheet of the likely vote results in 2017, based on current occupancy, the 2013 vote, and the Senators political stances on the issue.
> 
> I came out with maximum of 59 Aye votes (assuming Luther Strange gets to vote Aye or his replacement votes Aye).





> And, if anyone flips to be the 60th, I wouldn't put it past some of the presumptive Ayes to flip to Nay to prevent it. Fix NICS is already being pulled out as a cover for voting Nay (and was used for that purpose in the House).


The Senate Math for CCW in 2017 | Shall Not Be Questioned


----------



## MountainGirl

Jammer Six said:


> *It reinforces the notion that lower authority has the right to infringe upon our right to keep and bear arms.*
> 
> 
> 
> I wanted to make it appear the way I think it should. Why doesn't this annoy _all_ of you?
Click to expand...




Jammer Six said:


> Then I don't understand what you're talking about, unless you're merely explaining an illusion you tell yourself to justify a driver's license, insurance, license plates and breaking the speed limit or driving drunk when you think it's okay.


Maybe answering your first question will clarify it for your second question.

That notion doesn't annoy me - because *I* decide what I do, regardless of what the laws say, or what authorities at any level pass into regulation.

This might be a difficult concept for someone to understand - especially those who rely on others (groupthink, laws, regulations, etc) to tell them what to think or do, what choices and behaviors are appropriate and what is not.

It's called taking personal responsibility. I don't drive drunk, NOT because there are laws against it, but because I'm fully aware of the possible outcomes of my doing so (harming myself or others). I chose to fill out the administratively required form to get a well drilled here on the mountain. What I choose to do isn't determined by, or limited by, whether something is legal or not; there is no 'act of defiance' here - rather it's a peaceful and joyous way of life, making the choices I am willing to take responsibility for.

I have no need to 'justify' my choices (to anyone or myself) - but if you need to feel my way is an illusion, that's fine lol. For you - my way would definitely be an illusion, well out of your reach.

Hope that helps!


----------



## Jammer Six

Ah, I see.

No one is going to have a problem with your free choices as long as you choose to obey laws. It can also be argued that choices to obey the law are not choices. A lot of it is semantics, but the choices to obey the laws are usually wise choices.

In contrast, I only need to justify myself to myself, and don't understand a choice not to do so.

Another point of view is that one of the reasons I obey laws I don't agree with is so I can join others in insisting that you do so, too.

Being free is fine. Feeling free is better. Failing to obey laws risks both.


----------



## MountainGirl

Jammer Six said:


> Ah, I see.
> Another point of view is that one of the reasons I obey laws I don't agree with is so I can join others in insisting that you do so, too.


The need to control others is abhorrent to me. 
Thanks for the conversation, Jammer.
Peace out!


----------



## Kauboy

Jammer Six said:


> Another point of view is that one of the reasons I obey laws I don't agree with is so I can join others in insisting that you do so, too.
> 
> Being free is fine. Feeling free is better. Failing to obey laws risks both.


Yet you're "proud to live in a sanctuary city"...
So much for obeying laws you don't agree with...
I guess *that* one is ok to break... along with any others you choose... just like MG.

Pfft...hypocrite.


----------



## Denton

Jammer Six said:


> Ah, I see.
> 
> No one is going to have a problem with your free choices as long as you choose to obey laws. It can also be argued that choices to obey the law are not choices. A lot of it is semantics, but the choices to obey the laws are usually wise choices.
> 
> In contrast, I only need to justify myself to myself, and don't understand a choice not to do so.
> 
> Another point of view is that one of the reasons I obey laws I don't agree with is so I can join others in insisting that you do so, too.
> 
> Being free is fine. Feeling free is better. Failing to obey laws risks both.


For clarification, there is a difference between a law (constitutional), and statutes, codes and regulations.

Statutes that shouldn't be called laws because they are not in accordance with the constitution shouldn't be followed or enforced.

Codes and regulations should be followed if they apply to you, but as most should not be imposed against a private citizen but still are....

Now, if you do not follow a statute, code or regulation and declare you'll pay the fine if you are caught, you are not sovereign. You are a gambler. A truly sovereign man would not abide by that which infringes on his rights, and he'd be able to defend himself, legally. He'd have to do so, as no esquire would do it for him. At best, the esquire would take his money and make procedural violations that would get the sovereign man imprisoned.


----------



## Jammer Six

Kauboy said:


> Yet you're "proud to live in a sanctuary city"...
> So much for obeying laws you don't agree with...
> I guess *that* one is ok to break... along with any others you choose... just like MG.
> 
> Pfft...hypocrite.


Good catch. Yup, I guess I do agree with Mountaingirl after all.

I don't follow laws I don't agree with.

There's a matter of scale there, I think. I obey speed limits, but I work hard, donate money, time and skill to make sure undocumented immigrants feel welcome here.


----------



## Denton

Jammer Six said:


> Good catch. Yup, I guess I do agree with Mountaingirl after all.
> 
> I don't follow laws I don't agree with.
> 
> There's a matter of scale there, I think. I obey speed limits, but I work hard, donate money, time and skill to make sure undocumented immigrants feel welcome here.


I hope you make a lot of money, because you'll be wanting to donate money to the American citizens who will feel the pain of the financial drain on the country as well as lost jobs.

A nation that is in debt to the tune of trillions and social security and medicare that is soon to be beyond paying out really doesn't need to allow millions of unskilled, illegal immigrants to create more drain.

Glad to hear you work hard and do the speed limit. I am the same way. I do, however, believe a nation has the right to secure its borders and control immigration. As a matter of fact, it is an obligation.

If you live in a sanctuary city, I'll bet it has communities of American citizens who live in poverty and are not functioning properly in society. Want to strengthen this nation and have the time and money to do so, work with the inner city kids.


----------



## Jammer Six

Oh, Denton, I don't work for mere _money_. I retired when I was 48. That was twelve years ago. I was a general contractor. I don't need to work for money anymore. Now I can move on to stuff that _really_ matters. (And I got to come in out of the rain. I swore I'd never pour another yard of concrete. Turned out I was wrong about that, but I haven't poured any concrete for money since I retired.)

As it happens, there are two classes of kids I work with and for. None of it pays a dime, but the pay is the highest I've ever received. After I retired, I went back to school and graduated as a paralegal. I got to wear a gown and a flat hat with a tassle and everything. (For the first time.) I chose that area specifically because I think that lawyers can make have a much greater impact than just about anyone else when it comes to certain issues, and I wasn't interested in law school, so I went with paralegal. I do grunt work for certain attorneys free of charge, provided the case lines up with what I want to achieve.

One class of children I work for is exactly who you pointed out, children who, for any number of reasons, don't stand a chance. Some of them are as young as eight, and our system has already buried them. Children need more than money. They need parents, adults, teachers, safety and frequently they need legal protection. If they lose their parents and lose their address, our lovely, caring system will eat them alive without an adult advocating for them. If they don't speak English, they don't stand a chance.

The other class of children I work for is a lot more fun-- teaching girls basic principles in summer STEM camp programs. There are two facets we concentrate on. One is simple, basic STEM knowledge, the other is embedding strategies for forcing their way into an equal standing in our society. I've taught them how to finish concrete, build trebuchets, use levers and pulleys to lift pickups, how to sail and how to force their way into trade unions that believe it's not a place for women. I got involved in it so I could breathe again after dealing with the first class of children. My advice to anyone who works with children is to make certain you're working with at least one group of children who are going to succeed, or you will find yourself sinking into darkness. I have no idea how people who deal with something like dying children do it. I couldn't.

The third area I donate time to is immigration. I donate my time to fighting stupid immigration laws as a paralegal, for instance, at the airport when President Trump made an impotent attempt at racist entrance restrictions. He frequently acts from fear, but that makes a lot of what he does easy to deal with. Paralegals frequently do tasks that are comparable to emptying bedpans, but each form I filled out was one form a licensed attorney didn't have to deal with.

To finish up, I'm not merely proud to live in a sanctuary city, I intend to keep it that way. I give my time, skill and knowledge, along with a small amount of money to the causes I believe in.

It's not me frightened people need to worry about. I'm not a threat. My day is over, or at least ending. It's the children I teach that are going to accomplish real progress.

I don't teach them to live in our world. I teach them to deal effectively with the people that live in our world.


----------



## A Watchman

My Rep. Louie Gohmert says no ....

https://www.facebook.com/RepLouieGohmert/videos/10155843799556904/


----------



## Gator Monroe

Jammer Six said:


> Oh, Denton, I don't work for mere _money_. I retired when I was 48. That was twelve years ago. I was a general contractor. I don't need to work for money anymore. Now I can move on to stuff that _really_ matters. (And I got to come in out of the rain. I swore I'd never pour another yard of concrete. Turned out I was wrong about that, but I haven't poured any concrete for money since I retired.)
> 
> As it happens, there are two classes of kids I work with and for. None of it pays a dime, but the pay is the highest I've ever received. After I retired, I went back to school and graduated as a paralegal. I got to wear a gown and a flat hat with a tassle and everything. (For the first time.) I chose that area specifically because I think that lawyers can make have a much greater impact than just about anyone else when it comes to certain issues, and I wasn't interested in law school, so I went with paralegal. I do grunt work for certain attorneys free of charge, provided the case lines up with what I want to achieve.
> 
> One class of children I work for is exactly who you pointed out, children who, for any number of reasons, don't stand a chance. Some of them are as young as eight, and our system has already buried them. Children need more than money. They need parents, adults, teachers, safety and frequently they need legal protection. If they lose their parents and lose their address, our lovely, caring system will eat them alive without an adult advocating for them. If they don't speak English, they don't stand a chance.
> 
> The other class of children I work for is a lot more fun-- teaching girls basic principles in summer STEM camp programs. There are two facets we concentrate on. One is simple, basic STEM knowledge, the other is embedding strategies for forcing their way into an equal standing in our society. I've taught them how to finish concrete, build trebuchets, use levers and pulleys to lift pickups, how to sail and how to force their way into trade unions that believe it's not a place for women. I got involved in it so I could breathe again after dealing with the first class of children. My advice to anyone who works with children is to make certain you're working with at least one group of children who are going to succeed, or you will find yourself sinking into darkness. I have no idea how people who deal with something like dying children do it. I couldn't.
> 
> The third area I donate time to is immigration. I donate my time to fighting stupid immigration laws as a paralegal, for instance, at the airport when President Trump made an impotent attempt at racist entrance restrictions. He frequently acts from fear, but that makes a lot of what he does easy to deal with. Paralegals frequently do tasks that are comparable to emptying bedpans, but each form I filled out was one form a licensed attorney didn't have to deal with.
> 
> To finish up, I'm not merely proud to live in a sanctuary city, I intend to keep it that way. I give my time, skill and knowledge, along with a small amount of money to the causes I believe in.
> 
> It's not me frightened people need to worry about. I'm not a threat. My day is over, or at least ending. It's the children I teach that are going to accomplish real progress.
> 
> I don't teach them to live in our world. I teach them to deal effectively with the people that live in our world.


I retired at 38 (Now 58) and have not had to reload Money Guns yet , but still I have not gone Pro Minority / Open Borders Like You ... Having a deep seated beef with America like you do always winds up with the word "Reparations" coming into the conversation ...


----------



## Prepared One

Jammer Six said:


> Oh, Denton, I don't work for mere _money_. I retired when I was 48. That was twelve years ago. I was a general contractor. I don't need to work for money anymore. Now I can move on to stuff that _really_ matters. (And I got to come in out of the rain. I swore I'd never pour another yard of concrete. Turned out I was wrong about that, but I haven't poured any concrete for money since I retired.)
> 
> As it happens, there are two classes of kids I work with and for. None of it pays a dime, but the pay is the highest I've ever received. After I retired, I went back to school and graduated as a paralegal. I got to wear a gown and a flat hat with a tassle and everything. (For the first time.) I chose that area specifically because I think that lawyers can make have a much greater impact than just about anyone else when it comes to certain issues, and I wasn't interested in law school, so I went with paralegal. I do grunt work for certain attorneys free of charge, provided the case lines up with what I want to achieve.
> 
> One class of children I work for is exactly who you pointed out, children who, for any number of reasons, don't stand a chance. Some of them are as young as eight, and our system has already buried them. Children need more than money. They need parents, adults, teachers, safety and frequently they need legal protection. If they lose their parents and lose their address, our lovely, caring system will eat them alive without an adult advocating for them. If they don't speak English, they don't stand a chance.
> 
> The other class of children I work for is a lot more fun-- teaching girls basic principles in summer STEM camp programs. There are two facets we concentrate on. One is simple, basic STEM knowledge, the other is embedding strategies for forcing their way into an equal standing in our society. I've taught them how to finish concrete, build trebuchets, use levers and pulleys to lift pickups, how to sail and how to force their way into trade unions that believe it's not a place for women. I got involved in it so I could breathe again after dealing with the first class of children. My advice to anyone who works with children is to make certain you're working with at least one group of children who are going to succeed, or you will find yourself sinking into darkness. I have no idea how people who deal with something like dying children do it. I couldn't.
> 
> The third area I donate time to is immigration. I donate my time to fighting stupid immigration laws as a paralegal, for instance, at the airport when President Trump made an impotent attempt at racist entrance restrictions. He frequently acts from fear, but that makes a lot of what he does easy to deal with. Paralegals frequently do tasks that are comparable to emptying bedpans, but each form I filled out was one form a licensed attorney didn't have to deal with.
> 
> To finish up, I'm not merely proud to live in a sanctuary city, I intend to keep it that way. I give my time, skill and knowledge, along with a small amount of money to the causes I believe in.
> 
> It's not me frightened people need to worry about. I'm not a threat. My day is over, or at least ending. It's the children I teach that are going to accomplish real progress.
> 
> I don't teach them to live in our world. I teach them to deal effectively with the people that live in our world.


Soooo, out of all this self aggrandizing PCBS nonsense, what I get is, assuming some of these kids buy into your " wisdom and knowledge ", is that we will wind up with a few more pompous, condescending, socialist, PC asses, to deal with. I give you credit for following Lenin. Go after the children as they are weak and impressionable. Yes, yes, who will change the world?


----------



## RedLion

Rinos are traitors that need to be held accountable.



> National Reciprocity is Dead.





> According to the people in the know, there is simply not enough time or political capital left to get it passed this year.
> 
> But make no mistake, this is not a triumph for the Opposition but a defeat for us because it was people on our side of the fight that did whatever they could to kill National Reciprocity.
> 
> The Legislative Nazis apparently did not like that the bill was not 99.44% pure (or what they thought purity meant) and sabotaged us every step of the way. Combine that with the sea of Chest-Thumping Morons that never read a bill and much less could comprehend it but have no problem gorging on what the Legislative Nazis scream a top of their lungs and we have a poison pill manufacturing facility of our own making.
> 
> Our challenge for early next year is to start culling these groups from the process and basically have them ignored by the legislators. Let me make this very clear: Courts are not the way we want to keep securing the Second Amendment, we need to take control again of the State Legislatures and Congress.


National Reciprocity is Dead.


----------



## MountainGirl

RedLion said:


> Rinos are traitors that need to be held accountable.
> 
> National Reciprocity is Dead.


Or...that ^^^ might be a piece of pipe-dream bullshit Fake News, created for its own rallying purposes.


----------



## Gator Monroe

Or Folks in Texas & Wyoming & Nebraska & Idaho & Florida & Oregon & Georgia & Vermont ... don't want bill that gets to Trumps desk to sign to have Higher Class fees and Higher State/CLEO processing fees (With no more Mail In certificates ,and it adds Face to face meetings & interviews with Issuing CLEO/County Sheriff on every new issue ) and more protracted scrutiny on ALL RENEWALS with higher processing fees for Renewals and class time on renewals to boot ... Many Americans see it as not worth it (National Reciprocity Price of unified guidelines) to be able to use their Idaho or Texas or Florida CHL/CWP/CCW in New York or California or New Jersey ...


----------



## RedLion

MountainGirl said:


> Or...that ^^^ might be a piece of pipe-dream bullshit Fake News, created for its own rallying purposes.


I wish I could believe that.


----------



## MountainGirl

RedLion said:


> I wish I could believe that.


Yeah, that was kind of also my point.
I believe something after it happens; everything else is BS - from both sides.


----------



## 6811

Jammer Six said:


> Good catch. Yup, I guess I do agree with Mountaingirl after all.
> 
> I don't follow laws I don't agree with.
> 
> There's a matter of scale there, I think. I obey speed limits, but I work hard, donate money, time and skill to make sure undocumented immigrants feel welcome here.


Undocumented immigrants? What exactly is an undocumented immigrants? Are they the immigrants that came to the US and the immigration officers failed to give them documents? You make this sound that America is at fault which is why these people did not have documents when they entered the US. Stop sugar coating the issue, these people are criminals. They are Illegal aliens that snuck in the country and evaded customs and immigration. They belong in prison and they should be deported. And people like you who support these criminals are co-conspirators who also belong in prison.


----------



## Jammer Six

And yet, here I am.


----------



## Sasquatch

6811 said:


> Undocumented immigrants? What exactly is an undocumented immigrants? Are they the immigrants that came to the US and the immigration officers failed to give them documents? You make this sound that America is at fault which is why these people did not have documents when they entered the US. Stop sugar coating the issue, these people are criminals. They are Illegal aliens that snuck in the country and evaded customs and immigration. They belong in prison and they should be deported. And people like you who support these criminals are co-conspirators who also belong in prison.


Car thieves are undocumented valets. Burglars are undocumented house guests. See, just put undocumented in front of any criminal activity and it makes it okay.


----------



## RedLion

6811 said:


> Undocumented immigrants? What exactly is an undocumented immigrants? Are they the immigrants that came to the US and the immigration officers failed to give them documents? You make this sound that America is at fault which is why these people did not have documents when they entered the US. Stop sugar coating the issue, these people are criminals. They are Illegal aliens that snuck in the country and evaded customs and immigration. They belong in prison and they should be deported. And people like you who support these criminals are co-conspirators who also belong in prison.


Very true sir. All illegals should be rounded up and immediately tossed across the border. No due process needed to invaders. Come across and get caught, then you get a year of hard labor in a Joe Arpaio camp. Come and get caught subsequent times, the penalty goes up to including being hung. I do not care about those knowingly invading my country and stealing from my fruits of labor. String up the lefties that enable these crimes as well.
Also refer to the Illegal Crime Stats thread in the News Forum.....


----------



## Gator Monroe

Illegals do don't deserve 2A/RTKBA .


----------



## Jammer Six

All rights, all people, all the time.

Including immigrants, felons and short people. The only adults I would prevent from owning weapons would be those who are stomp-down crazy.


----------



## RedLion

Jammer Six said:


> All rights, all people, all the time.
> 
> Including immigrants, felons and short people. The only adults I would prevent from owning weapons would be those who are stomp-down crazy.


Spoken like a commie.


----------



## Gator Monroe

Jammer Six said:


> All rights, all people, all the time.
> 
> Including immigrants, felons and short people. The only adults I would prevent from owning weapons would be those who are stomp-down crazy.


Deport Criminal Illegals (Diversity is perversity)


----------



## Jammer Six

If you believe that the right to bear arms and the right to self defense are natural rights, from your god, the Creator, Mother Nature or whoever else, then you must believe that these rights belong to everyone, regardless of which side of an imaginary line they were born on.

If your god stoped handing out rights at the border, I'm not impressed with your god. Mine handed out natural rights to everyone.

Everyone.

If you believe that the border limits rights, then you believe that those rights come from man's law, and are not natural rights. 

I feel sorry for those of you who believe this. You deserve pity.


----------



## Gator Monroe

Borders limit rights ( Try setting up a Jewish Temple in Saudi Arabia )


----------



## Coastie dad

JAMMITUPHIS6 only says he believes that way in order to be obstinate and try to get a rise out of easily provoked people. Everything he does is to be obstinate and try to provoke. 
Ignore him. He is, and never will be, any thing more than comic relief around here to the people who can see through his deceitful ways. Just a simple toy to play with on occassion.


----------



## Smitty901

Did we really think the bill was going anywhere? I did not.


----------



## Gator Monroe

Smitty901 said:


> Did we really think the bill was going anywhere? I did not.


I knew folks in so called "Free States" would balk at any hint of nationwide training and issuing standards and fees ...


----------



## Jammer Six

Coastie dad said:


> He is, and never will be, ...


That made my day.


----------



## preppermyA

Jammer Six said:


> All rights, all people, all the time.
> 
> Including immigrants, felons and short people. The only adults I would prevent from owning weapons would be those who are stomp-down crazy.


Didn't you just eliminated yourself?


----------



## Coastie dad

Jammer Six said:


> That made my day.


Good for you. Wondered if you would catch that. To be, but never be, makes you nothing.


----------



## A Watchman

Sasquatch said:


> Car thieves are undocumented valets. Burglars are undocumented house guests. See, just put undocumented in front of any criminal activity and it makes it okay.


Absolutely ...... I am an undocumented prepper.


----------



## Gator Monroe

Undocumented Militia ?


----------

