^^ so, operating an illegal paramilitary organization is illegal... can one operate a legal paramilitary organization?

4/15/2014 9:45:21 PM

you are required to have "don't tread on me" flags

4/16/2014 9:06:22 AM

NRA is seeking a national universal reciprocity law requiring all states to recognize concealed carry from other states. now we get to see what conservatives support more, states rights or the NRA

4/24/2014 4:48:42 PM

Hmm, tricky since there is precedent for similar things (i.e. marriage licenses, drivers licenses, etc.). Will be interesting to see how it goes.

There are a lot of potential 2nd amendment cases that SCOTUS has left alone for quite some time, but it looks like they're going to take on 1 or 2 this session so we may get some clarification on what limits states are allowed to place on citizens 2nd amendment rights.

4/24/2014 4:51:26 PM

[Edited on April 24, 2014 at 4:58 PM. Reason : dbl post]

4/24/2014 4:55:03 PM

the language in other decisions from the SCOTUS has been explicit that some restrictions are constitutional, which items are you talking about?

i didn't think there are laws for marriage certificates, otherwise states would have to recognize same-sex marriages. and i thought drivers license agreements were voluntary, is there a law?

[Edited on April 24, 2014 at 4:59 PM. Reason : dbl post]

4/24/2014 4:58:23 PM

i do not support national reciprocity

from a state's rights and a gun control perspective

4/24/2014 4:58:37 PM

i bet most people feel the same, but most people don't have the NRA paying them (and threatening them if they don't play along)

4/24/2014 6:05:15 PM

Quote :

"i didn't think there are laws for marriage certificates, otherwise states would have to recognize same-sex marriages. and i thought drivers license agreements were voluntary, is there a law?"

Pretty sure marriage license recognition was already ruled on and established legally based on the full faith and credit clause of the US constitution (I believe related to mixed race marriage, don't remember the case but I brought it up in a same sex marriage thread ages ago). Probably some issues with the same sex marriage recognition probably had to do with DOMA and with the supreme court not hearing a case related to it yet.

I would imagine that a lot of other things (like driver's license) probably are voluntary and not codified into law, I haven't checked. My point was more that we'll probably get some clarification on a federal lever this year. Wehn you have places like NJ which never issues permits because they have obscene strictness where you pretty much have to prove that someone is trying to kill you and you have taken every other possible step to protect yourself before they'll even consider issuing a handgun permit vs. say... NC which is pretty lax I can't imagine you'll see much in terms of reciprocity happening without a federal mandate of some kind.

Not sure how I feel on this particular issue. On the one hand there is strong precedent for citizens having a legal right to be armed, including courts recently smacking down local restrictions that tried to prevent it (Chicago, DC cases). On the other courts have repeatedly upheld "reasonable restrictions" that bar felons and ex felons from having guns, regulating who can concealed carry, etc. There's definitely a lot of gray area and room for debate.

4/24/2014 6:17:22 PM

to clarify, i believe that national reciprocity would be a step in the wrong direction for pro-gunners

4/24/2014 6:33:09 PM

[Edited on April 24, 2014 at 6:44 PM. Reason : .]

4/24/2014 6:44:41 PM

^^ Why?

4/25/2014 2:22:28 PM

it moves us towards regulating concealed carry at the federal level. that is a bad thing for me. i know on which side of the CC debate the state of NC is generally going to fall. if you move that debate to the federal level, it's not such a sure thing.

4/25/2014 3:57:15 PM

I would think it would be convenient if you ever intended to travel outside of NC.

4/25/2014 4:17:24 PM

I'm pretty sure NeuseRvrRat thinks a federal implementation is likely to be undesirably restrictive. He's probably not wrong.

4/25/2014 4:32:02 PM

i've traveled and carried outside of NC with no problem. it's pretty simple to just research the laws before you travel.

yeah, it'd be nice, but i don't think the juice is worth the squeeze.

[Edited on April 25, 2014 at 6:30 PM. Reason : dfas]

4/25/2014 6:30:32 PM

Felt this needed to be posted since a few people are still under the incorrect belief that the GOP and NRA are wiling to use reason, facts, and/or compromise in regards to gun control.

Republicans Say No to CDC Gun Violence Research
http://www.propublica.org/article/republicans-say-no-to-cdc-gun-violence-research?utm_campaign=sprout&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_content=1398378882

Quote :

"After the Sandy Hook school shooting, Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA) was one of a few congressional Republicans who expressed a willingness to reconsider the need for gun control laws. "Put guns on the table, also put video games on the table, put mental health on the table," he said less than a week after the Newtown shootings. He told a local TV station that he wanted to see more research done to understand mass shootings. "Let's let the data lead rather than our political opinions." For nearly 20 years, Congress has pushed the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to steer clear of firearms violence research. As chairman of the appropriations subcommittee that traditionally sets CDC funding, Kingston has been in a position to change that. Soon after Sandy Hook, Kingston said he had spoken to the head of the agency. "I think we can find some common ground," Kingston said. More than a year later, as Kingston competes in a crowded Republican primary race for a U.S. Senate seat, the congressman is no longer talking about common ground. In a statement to ProPublica, Kingston said he would oppose a proposal from President Obama for $10 million in CDC gun research funding. "The President's request to fund propaganda for his gun-grabbing initiatives though the CDC will not be included in the FY2015 appropriations bill," Kingston said. Rep. Steve Womack (R-AR), the vice chairman of the subcommittee, also "supports the long-standing prohibition of gun control advocacy or promotion funding," his spokeswoman said. CDC's current funding for gun violence prevention research remains at $0. As gun violence spiked in the early 1990s, the CDC ramped up its funding of firearms violence research. Then, in 1996, it backed off under pressure from Congress and the National Rifle Association. Funding for firearms injury prevention activities dropped from more than $2.7 million in 1995 to barely $100,000 by 2012, according to CDC figures. [...]"

so we can let the facts decide, just don't go trying to find any facts

[Edited on April 27, 2014 at 11:30 AM. Reason : .]

4/27/2014 11:29:09 AM

4/27/2014 4:08:12 PM

4/27/2014 4:24:03 PM

Felt this needed to be posted since a few people are still under the incorrect belief that the GOP and NRA are wiling to use reason, facts, and/or compromise in regards to gun control.

Republicans Say No to CDC Gun Violence Research
http://www.propublica.org/article/republicans-say-no-to-cdc-gun-violence-research?utm_campaign=sprout&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_content=1398378882

Quote :

"After the Sandy Hook school shooting, Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA) was one of a few congressional Republicans who expressed a willingness to reconsider the need for gun control laws. "Put guns on the table, also put video games on the table, put mental health on the table," he said less than a week after the Newtown shootings. He told a local TV station that he wanted to see more research done to understand mass shootings. "Let's let the data lead rather than our political opinions." For nearly 20 years, Congress has pushed the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to steer clear of firearms violence research. As chairman of the appropriations subcommittee that traditionally sets CDC funding, Kingston has been in a position to change that. Soon after Sandy Hook, Kingston said he had spoken to the head of the agency. "I think we can find some common ground," Kingston said. More than a year later, as Kingston competes in a crowded Republican primary race for a U.S. Senate seat, the congressman is no longer talking about common ground. In a statement to ProPublica, Kingston said he would oppose a proposal from President Obama for $10 million in CDC gun research funding. "The President's request to fund propaganda for his gun-grabbing initiatives though the CDC will not be included in the FY2015 appropriations bill," Kingston said. Rep. Steve Womack (R-AR), the vice chairman of the subcommittee, also "supports the long-standing prohibition of gun control advocacy or promotion funding," his spokeswoman said. CDC's current funding for gun violence prevention research remains at $0. As gun violence spiked in the early 1990s, the CDC ramped up its funding of firearms violence research. Then, in 1996, it backed off under pressure from Congress and the National Rifle Association. Funding for firearms injury prevention activities dropped from more than $2.7 million in 1995 to barely $100,000 by 2012, according to CDC figures. [...]"

so we can let the facts decide, just don't go trying to find any facts

4/27/2014 4:24:36 PM

Troll on 18 wheeler, troll on

4/27/2014 6:14:20 PM

Quote :

"also put video games on the table"

will forever get from me

4/28/2014 2:51:23 PM

No please continue to talk about video games, music, and movies please.

Our society is barbaric and these measures will get things done!

The more things we take away or limit for more people the better chance we have of passing real legislation.

4/28/2014 2:57:48 PM

that was a republican who said that, and its funny because the funding he now opposed would have investigated those things

4/28/2014 3:32:53 PM

On the troll again... Just can't wait to get on the troll again

4/29/2014 12:11:49 AM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/threats-against-maryland-gun-dealer-raise-doubts-about-future-of-smart-guns/2014/05/02/8a4f7482-d227-11e3-9e25-188ebe1fa93b_story.html?hpid=z1

This makes the second time recently where a gun shop made their plans known to start selling a smart gun (a gun that requires an accompanying watch in order to fire in this case), and then withdrew their plans once they started receiving death threats from gun rights activists

I was previously unaware of this:

Quote :

"Gun rights advocates are worried about a New Jersey law under which only smart handguns can be sold there within three years of being sold anywhere in the country. "

[Edited on May 3, 2014 at 9:12 AM. Reason : J]

5/3/2014 9:10:23 AM

that law is absolutely ridiculous

5/3/2014 12:51:53 PM

It's not completely ridiculous. Technology is a viable strategy to treating our gun problem. That law would be mostly harmless, doesn't take anyone's guns, existing traditional guns would still be available aftermarket, I presume, and you could still smith your own gun.

Assuming the tech were secure and reliable, then I don't see a problem with a smart gun mandate that permits the sale of existing guns, or the hobbyist/speciality gun makers.

5/3/2014 1:36:09 PM

Quote :

"Assuming the tech were secure and reliable"

guns aren't as reliable as i would like them to be even without electronic interlocks

but if you can't see why legislation mandating the future use of a technology before that technology even exists or becomes widely available is ridiculous, then there's no help for you

[Edited on May 3, 2014 at 1:44 PM. Reason : sgsg]

5/3/2014 1:41:00 PM

Yeah, that's a dumb law

Threatening these companies is terrible, innovation should be encouraged, but at the same time no one should expect the first attempts to be reliable enough to replace all guns.

IMO opinion a better test and initial use of fingerprint technology on guns would be as a security device on retention holsters, and even then you couldn't trust them in situations where you absolutely need to be able to pull your gun quickly 100% of the time.

5/3/2014 1:50:04 PM

when i said fingerprint technology i meant to say authentication technology

5/3/2014 2:26:09 PM

I mean, what is it, basically an RFID fob? Car companies have been using those to enable keyless ignition in cars for more than a decade, we're not talking cutting edge tech here. It should be pretty close to 100% reliable from day one.

5/3/2014 2:35:31 PM

is there an exception in the law for LEOs? i doubt they'd accept such interlocks on their weapons.

5/3/2014 2:43:12 PM

^^ they are not 100% effective on cars, they do fail on occasion

5/3/2014 2:44:58 PM

Quote :

"Gun rights advocates are worried about a New Jersey law under which only smart handguns can be sold there within three years of being sold anywhere in the country. ""

I don't know how someone can gloss over this as trivial.

[Edited on May 3, 2014 at 4:55 PM. Reason : .]

5/3/2014 4:54:51 PM

Quote :

"Threatening these companies is terrible, innovation should be encouraged, but at the same time no one should expect the first attempts to be reliable enough to replace all guns. "

Smart guns is a large class of products, a mandate would encourage innovation, just like the indoor smoking ban spurred eCig growth (or countless other areas where banning an old technology allowed new better tech to flourish).

The details of this law aren't clear to me, it could be a horrible law, but the idea of a triggered mandate isn't inherently terrible. It's a little of a politically grimy tactic, but less worse than just obstinate opposition as the gun nuts practice. None of the gun nuts' traditional arguments apply to smart guns. They'd have to make up new ones proving this isn't just some principled stance on the constitution.

That Linux based auto targeting rifle* could be considered a smart gun, if I were a politician i'd push this angle.

* id own one if I had the money to spend

5/3/2014 5:04:38 PM

Quote :

"the idea of a triggered mandate isn't inherently terrible."

"Within three years of the first electric car sold, all cars sold must be all-electric."

"Within three years of the first construction of a LEED-certified building, all new construction must be LEED certified."

A mandate of this sort is inherently terrible.

5/3/2014 8:25:26 PM

^ those would be terrible, but we already have all kinds of technology mandates on cars (seat belts, wipers, air bags, emissions controls, fuel efficiencies, etc).

And new buildings do have to meet standards.

Guns have gotten more powerful, accurate, and reliable over the years, there hasn't been a concordant increase in safety, and smart guns are actively opposed by the NRA. What are reasonable people to do when one side is being unreasonable? This type of law undoes that damage. It shouldn't be necessary, but blame the gun nuts.

5/4/2014 7:54:01 PM

I'm not aware of any laws from before seatbelts that said as soon as someone made a seatbelt, you could only sell cars that had them. The difference is that those laws came after they were proven, not before.

Also, what do you mean guns are more powerful or accurate? Guns really haven't changed much, and they aren't more dangerous now because they are newer.

[Edited on May 4, 2014 at 8:41 PM. Reason : .]

5/4/2014 8:39:26 PM

Guns aren't 100% reliable as is but at least with mechanical technology a typical malfunction can be cleared using basic techniques. I would hate to depend on some new technology to work perfectly when my life is on the line. I also fail to see how this would prevent much in the way of gun violence. I mean it could help with accidental discharges but something like the recent mass shootings it would do nothing. Do we think that a gun on the black market wouldn't have an accompanying smart device or whatever makes it function? Or how about the millions of guns that are in circulation now?

I see very little in the way of benefits and a lot in the way of completely unnecessary.

5/5/2014 8:36:21 PM

^ stopping mass shootings is not really possible, statistically. Crazy people are crazy.

The core issue with guns is stopping the gun trafficking to criminals. A significant chunk of illegal guns already get filtered through gun shows, and the rest are legally owned or stolen. over time, it could make gun theft harder, if the criminal also had to find and steal the watch, assuming it was even in the house. Then there would be the issue of selling the stolen gun, which would also be harder because the mechanism would need to be bypassed.

An accidental discharges and suicides are a big factor as well.

It might not do anything, but there's no good reason for the NRA to oppose safe guns. Or for gun nuts to threaten a gun store owners life for selling one.

5/5/2014 8:44:00 PM

Quote :

"A significant chunk of illegal guns already get filtered through gun shows"

define "illegal gun". do you simply mean a stolen gun?

do you have any data to support this statement?

5/5/2014 9:07:45 PM

he doesnt know anything about them

other than rednecks attend

5/5/2014 9:28:50 PM

^^ no, I meant guns used in a crime.

http://www.tracetheguns.org/#

Pretty strong correlation with lax gun laws, and a state being an exporter of guns used in crimes.

5/5/2014 9:31:12 PM

Quote :

"It might not do anything, but"

This is most gun-control groups, in a nutshell. "It might lead to unreliable firearms, and it will definitely add a $1500 tax to all guns sold, and it might not have any impact on violence at all, but... wait... what was I saying?"

[Edited on May 5, 2014 at 9:44 PM. Reason : ]

5/5/2014 9:36:03 PM

reliable guns are already quite expensive. low income folks have a right to bear arms, too.

5/5/2014 9:48:43 PM

Quote :

"An accidental discharges and suicides are a big factor as well. "

how would this gun stop an accidental discharge or suicide?

Quote :

"It might not do anything, but there's no good reason for the NRA to oppose safe guns. Or for gun nuts to threaten a gun store owners life for selling one. "

this is really the only thing you said that's right

5/5/2014 10:17:51 PM

Quote :

" how would this gun stop an accidental discharge or suicide? "

Because a kid or toddler fiddling with a gun wouldn't be wearing a bracelet... or a disgruntled teen taking his mom's gun to splatter his brains would also have to find the bracelet.

I don't really like the bracelet tech btw, it's a crude solution, but it's the first step in smart guns, if the market weren't being stifled by gun nuts.

5/5/2014 10:20:41 PM

The market is being "stifled" by the people who make up the market. The people who are most enthusiastic about this particular product and buy the majority of the guns purchased legally don't want this.

5/5/2014 10:25:05 PM

The entire idea is a terrible "solution". You complain about guns being illegally sold through gun shows, you don't think they would come with whatever smart device is required to use said gun? How hard would it be for some techy people to create a universal device that allows for any smart gun to be used? I am sure that wouldn't be popular on the black market if these types of things were common place. Also, lest we not forget about the millions of firearms currently out there that would not have these devices.

All something like this might prevent is a kid playing with his/her parents gun and accidentally shooting themselves or others. Something that should be prevented with common sense gun storage safety. If you are going to pick an anti gun battle this is a pretty stupid one to go with, it is so incredibly flawed.

5/5/2014 10:30:07 PM