New Mexico drops and then re-adds FL and others from CCW Reciprocity

[wyntrout]

Thanks! When I get a chance, I'll see.

Wynn

[jg rider]

Deleted
Now let's get back on topic !

[jg rider]

Since this thread originally started based upon the reciprocity of NM's carry permits, I thought I'd provide a website that sort of explains the NM position on their decisions for reciprocity.

http://www.dps.nm.org/index.php/nm-c...ty-agreements/

They are looking for substantial similarity to their own requirements for licensing and if the state's requirements are not similar, they won't grant reciprocity. It goes without saying that there is a lot of quid pro quo going on; therefore if one state does not honor another, then they won't honor them, even if that other state is more stringent.

It would be nice if there were some national standards; however, I have to agree with many that have sounded off on this topic that how do we know those standards would be realistic and not lead to ridiculous abuse by the liberals.

Hope this helps with the original intent of the thread.

Thanks for this RedRyder. More or less like Nevada. I like the wording of "static training", "dynamic training"
If I knew about them, I would have used them, instead of "proficiency training", that's gotten me into deep do-do

It would be nice if there were some national standards; however, I have to agree with many that have sounded off on this topic that how do we know those standards would be realistic and not lead to ridiculous abuse by the liberals

I don't know if that would be such an issue. If it's gov't mandated, which I doubt it will be, we hold the house, and hopefully, soon the senate. If it stays with the states, CCWs were issued in states with mostly liberals, example mine. What am I missing?

[Bawanna]

Everyone hold your breath and squint your eyes, I'm calling in an air drop of flame retardant.

As usual it maranque just like on your basic lemon pie. Feel free to waller around in it, eat all you want, it won't harm you other than maybe make you a future Biggest Loser contestant.

If the air drop fails I'm gonna order a group hug! Don't make me go there.

[Tinman507]

[Bawanna]

I like the one in the middle. That's one smokin hot kuola bear. How the heck to you spell kuala, kuola, well heck with it, pretend I'm Jocko and deal with it.

[MikeyKahr]

K....

koala O and we're dealing with it....we're hip deep in it!

[jg rider]

I feel better now that I know there's words like "static" and "dynamic"

Where do you come up with these pictures so fast?

[Tinman507]

Google in the wrong hands is a dangerous tool

[jg rider]

Everyone hold your breath and squint your eyes, I'm calling in an air drop of flame retardant.

As usual it maranque just like on your basic lemon pie. Feel free to waller around in it, eat all you want, it won't harm you other than maybe make you a future Biggest Loser contestant.

If the air drop fails I'm gonna order a group hug! Don't make me go there.

Ok I'll delete it

[chrish]

Please excuse my choice of words. I know how the 2A reads. I was saving myself some time typing . I hope most people knew what I meant. But I have difficulty in understanding what you mean in your first paragraph.

In your second paragraph, are you saying you're antifederalist? I'm not understanding. Yes I'm glad that the first 10 articles of the Bill of Rights were added to the constitution. As I understand it, the constitution wasn't very specific. I think if the antifederalist's had won with their Articles of Confederation, we would have the 13 states then and now being sovereign states. Some saying "no guns allowed", printing there own currency, and possibly in this litigious age we'd probably need passports to cross state lines. But hey, I'm not that well knowledgeable on American constitutional history.

As for my post with a now "keep and bear" correction. Isn't that what I said in paragraph 3

Enough my head hurts!

Are we gonna get in trouble for going off topic?

just for the record, not trying to be argumentative. and yes, we may well get in trouble

in my first paragraph, i was just countering what i thought (maybe incorrectly) you were getting at that while we have the right to own a weapon, the states have a right to legislate how we exercise that right (carry method, hoops to jump thru, reciprocity, etc.) which i believe they do NOT have that legal right. to me, keep and bear means states cannot create gun law period, nada, nothing. i'm aware some (and probably most if you count liberals) do not agree w/ me.

but no, i'm mostly federalist in my personal position on the Constitution and the BoR. that was my point, possibly badly conveyed. its not that i don't agree w/ whats in the BoR, i believe the all to be true and rights that should/do exists without having to be stated. but i feel more strongly that the federalists had a point in not thinking them necessary and that once 'codified' in the Consitution would leave them up to interpretation well beyond the intention. which i think most would agree has happened. maybe not.

i'll have to look back at your paragraph 3, maybe you did and I just got caught up in the first comment and read something into your post that you didn't mean. wouldn't be the first time i opened my mouth and inserted my foot.

i think regardless of whether we are federalist or anti-federalist in our personal positions on the foundation of the country and government, we pretty much all agree it's a royal mess now.

[jg rider]

just for the record, not trying to be argumentative. and yes, we may well get in trouble

in my first paragraph, i was just countering what i thought (maybe incorrectly) you were getting at that while we have the right to own a weapon, the states have a right to legislate how we exercise that right (carry method, hoops to jump thru, reciprocity, etc.) which i believe they do NOT have that legal right. to me, keep and bear means states cannot create gun law period, nada, nothing. i'm aware some (and probably most if you count liberals) do not agree w/ me.

but no, i'm mostly federalist in my personal position on the Constitution and the BoR. that was my point, possibly badly conveyed. its not that i don't agree w/ whats in the BoR, i believe the all to be true and rights that should/do exists without having to be stated. but i feel more strongly that the federalists had a point in not thinking them necessary and that once 'codified' in the Consitution would leave them up to interpretation well beyond the intention. which i think most would agree has happened. maybe not.

i'll have to look back at your paragraph 3, maybe you did and I just got caught up in the first comment and read something into your post that you didn't mean. wouldn't be the first time i opened my mouth and inserted my foot.

i think regardless of whether we are federalist or anti-federalist in our personal positions on the foundation of the country and government, we pretty much all agree it's a royal mess now.

I never thought we were arguing

Here's my thoughts
The pro/anti gun thing has been going on longer than I've been alive (that's been a long time) with differing interpretations, and only recently SCOTUS has made a half hearted decision on it. I think it could have been worst if there wasn't a 2A.
Without the 2A the Federal legislative branch could pass a law banning ownership of firearms by all civilians. Right?
Or if not them, the individual state legislative branches could do it for it's citizens. Could we than have some states allowing firearms and some not. What am I missing?

I agree it's a mess

[chrish]

I never thought we were arguing

Here's my thoughts
The pro/anti gun thing has been going on longer than I've been alive (that's been a long time) with differing interpretations, and only recently SCOTUS has made a half hearted decision on it. I think it could have been worst if there wasn't a 2A.
Without the 2A the Federal legislative branch could pass a law banning ownership of firearms by all civilians. Right?
Or if not them, the individual state legislative branches could do it for it's citizens. Could we than have some states allowing firearms and some not. What am I missing?

I agree it's a mess

Definitely either side of this could be argued. And I agree w/ you in what has become reality. I would say that w/o the BoR, given what has become of our federal gov't, we'd maybe be worse off.

But, if the Consitution had been followed, had the BoR not been there in the first place to be debated as to it's meaning, then would Hamilton's belief that the courts would have struck down anything not reserved for the federal gov't as unconstitutional and therefore not legal. We will never know. So, if the Constitution were followed as he believed it should be, the Federal government would have not ability to pass a law against firearm ownership as it was not enumerated in their powers.

Regarding the states, again, given what we see now...I guess yes, they'd be able to be more restrictive. But the intent was, anything not in the Constitution falls to the states and individuals. The founders (both sides) intented and belief was that government CLOSER to the people was more liberty friendly than a federal government. Has that been the case? Depends on the state and locality.

So there's the argument FOR the BoR I guess. But with different variables at play from the get-go, would it have turned out differently...dunno. Coulda, shoulda, woulda...

Yep, i'm an armchair constitutional scholar at best...but way better at it than our president IMO.

[Mr_D]

I agree. All you have to do is see the kooks/nutjobs/dolts walking around at a lot of gun shows to see why I feel that way. You know the type, all cammoed up and carrying more weapons than Carters got pills.

Which is all perfectly legal and allowed under the 2nd Amendment. You might not like it but that's OK, you have a right to disagree (till the Gov't takes it away).

[jg rider]

Definitely either side of this could be argued. And I agree w/ you in what has become reality. I would say that w/o the BoR, given what has become of our federal gov't, we'd maybe be worse off.

But, if the Consitution had been followed, had the BoR not been there in the first place to be debated as to it's meaning, then would Hamilton's belief that the courts would have struck down anything not reserved for the federal gov't as unconstitutional and therefore not legal. We will never know. So, if the Constitution were followed as he believed it should be, the Federal government would have not ability to pass a law against firearm ownership as it was not enumerated in their powers.

Regarding the states, again, given what we see now...I guess yes, they'd be able to be more restrictive. But the intent was, anything not in the Constitution falls to the states and individuals. The founders (both sides) intented and belief was that government CLOSER to the people was more liberty friendly than a federal government. Has that been the case? Depends on the state and locality.

So there's the argument FOR the BoR I guess. But with different variables at play from the get-go, would it have turned out differently...dunno. Coulda, shoulda, woulda...

Yep, i'm an armchair constitutional scholar at best...but way better at it than our president IMO.

I'm not too familiar with Hamilton. Am I correct in remembering that he had some beliefs that the fed. gov't be in control, and not the people in certain things?
Or was I brain washed ?

Also would this have been up for interpretation without the BOR
Wouldn't this have given the fed. gov't the right to make gun laws? I know I'm confused

U.S. Constitution - Legislative Branch, Enumerated and Implied Powers of Congress
Clause 18: To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

I've tried on two different occasions to read some of the Federalist papers in their original text, especially Madison. But my eyelids would droop. I even got a free audio, that was no help. I'm gonna have to spring for a modern day analysis of them.

I think he wrote that federal judges were appointed for life so that they would be free from political pressures.
Sound familiar?

We need to stop this topic of we're gonna be yelled at :7: