TexasCHLforum.com

LucasMcCain wrote:

Soccerdad1995 wrote:I can see a couple potential issues with national reciprocity.

First, we would presumably still allow states to set laws on where and even how you can carry. For example, in Texas, certain signs have the force of law to prevent carry. I can't see the feds requiring us to lessen this requirement for someone with an LTC issued from a state where signs do not carry force of law. So where do we draw the line? What if NY or CA says fine, you can carry, but only if a private property owner first obtains a sign explicitly allowing carry (kind of a reverse 30.06), and then the gun has to be state compliant, of course, and must not have a round in the chamber. Hollow points are banned, etc, etc. Maybe I am skeptical given the obstructionism we are seeing over the "fines for signs" law here.

Second, I am not sure I want the feds to have any control over where I can carry if it means that a future administration could go the other way and say that they can restrict my carry even if the state allows it. For this reason, I would much prefer that this happen as a result of a SCOTUS case than by executive order.

I too have fears of allowing the federal government to regulate any firearms issues. However, they already are. ACoE property, post offices, GFSZA (you're welcome, Scott), ATF, NICS, NFA, and the list goes on. The feds are supposed to be protecting our constitutional rights, not whittling away at them, or allowing the states to do so. If we've got an opportunity to get some protection for our rights out of the feds, I think we should go for it.

We are in general agreement, as usual. But I do have one minor nitpick on the part I bolded.

By it's very nature, government (at all levels) will infringe on the rights of the governed. So I don't know that I would say the feds are "supposed to be protecting our rights" as mush as I would say that the constitution guarantees our rights and it is up to us to protect them from this natural tendency of the government.

TXBO wrote:There are a couple of things at play here. First Trump is trying to moderate his positions to calm the temper tantrums from the left. Second, some of his promises, such as Mexico paying for the wall, are so outrageous as to never have been taken serious in the first place.

I don't know that Mexico paying for the wall is outrageous. We give them a little over $50 million a year in foreign aid. Seems like we could net the bond payments against that amount and raise enough funds to finance a pretty darn nice wall. Maybe also issue a special tariff on Mexican goods, after renegotiating NAFTA or course.

rotor wrote:

LucasMcCain wrote:

rotor wrote:Do you really want national reciprocity? You can't argue that each state should control abortions but the feds should control gun carry reciprocity. Some things better left to the states. You don't like Commiefornia, move.

False equivalency. There is no constitutionally guaranteed right to abortions. There is a constitutionally guaranteed right to keep and bear arms. That right is currently being infringed by the states unconstitutionally. It's the duty of the federal government to do something about that. Abortion should be regulated by the states, as it is not a constitutional right, there is no power given specifically to the federal government to regulate it, and support for it varies drastically from state to state.

I know these are sensitive subjects. Please don't take this as an attack. It's really not. Just discussion.

I am not arguing the constitutional right for abortion although the supreme court has interpreted this. And I really would like to be able to carry in my birth state, NY. I see the difficulty with Trump trying to argue that the feds should control the states over gun rights and the states should control abortion rights and the feds should be out. The supreme court has upheld abortion as a constitutional right, at least for now. I doubt that it will be taken away.

I can see a couple potential issues with national reciprocity.

First, we would presumably still allow states to set laws on where and even how you can carry. For example, in Texas, certain signs have the force of law to prevent carry. I can't see the feds requiring us to lessen this requirement for someone with an LTC issued from a state where signs do not carry force of law. So where do we draw the line? What if NY or CA says fine, you can carry, but only if a private property owner first obtains a sign explicitly allowing carry (kind of a reverse 30.06), and then the gun has to be state compliant, of course, and must not have a round in the chamber. Hollow points are banned, etc, etc. Maybe I am skeptical given the obstructionism we are seeing over the "fines for signs" law here.

Second, I am not sure I want the feds to have any control over where I can carry if it means that a future administration could go the other way and say that they can restrict my carry even if the state allows it. For this reason, I would much prefer that this happen as a result of a SCOTUS case than by executive order.

txglock21 wrote:My top three things that I care about:
1) Put a conservative, pro 2A on Supreme Court. (Hopefully more in the future)
2) Repeal/replace or amend Obamacare.
3) National reciprocity. (Not holding my breathe on this one)

The rest is icing on the cake if accomplished.

I agree with all 3. #3 would be below tax, immigration, and regulation reform for me personally, but it is a good goal. Your #1 is by far the most important.

I care more about substance than semantics. He promised to "repeal and replace" Obamacare. I don't care if he "amends" it instead. Either way, we end up in the same place, with something that is different and better.

Get a wall up on our southern border. If we recoup the cost from lower immigration enforcement costs or by netting it from foreign aid to Mexico, that is fine. I don't need us to actually send them an invoice.

Give the FBI and other agencies direction to pursue criminals who happen to be members of the "elite". Again, I don't care whether President Trump is personally pushing the prosecution forward. It isn't his job to do so. But he should make sure that others are actually doing their jobs.

President Trump has a lot to get done. Let's worry about the results as opposed to the tactics.