Skip to main content

View Diary: Gun-trafficking case in Charlotte may have exposed loopholes in gun laws (129 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Well, nobody really believes that. (3+ / 0-)

    Unless your gun has been surgically attached, it doesn't. No more than stowing it before boarding.

    That's not even "gun control". It's more like "massacre control".

    by Inland on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 12:15:58 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Today, a Vermonter could cross state lines (0+ / 0-)

      into New York and become a felon for doing something he's legally entitled to do in his home state.  That interferes with our right to travel, and for no better reason than malicious contempt.

      •  The reasonable Vermonter does not go to NY armed. (3+ / 0-)

        Stubbornly refusing to follow a properly enacted law is folly. Not giving NYers the respect to choose which laws to enact is infantile. Again, as I stated up thread, your right to travel is unimpeded. Your right to travel armed is nonexistent and the act is prohibited by law in NY. Get over it. Life is never fair and is not about only ourselves.

        I know it has been many years since I lived in upstate NY, 1979, but we had Vermont citizens come to our NRA sanctioned pistol matches all the time. There was a process to allow them to possess handguns for that specific purpose then and I would be surprised if that has changed. The required concealed carry permit was locally administered, required residence in the locality where the permit was issued, was not valid in NY City, was for sporting purposes only, and was a pain in the ass to obtain. I did it to compete but out of state competitors could not get one even though they could be legally allowed to participate in our meets. That is a long stretch to allowing any goober of unknown origin or intent to travel among your citizens with weapons, concealed or otherwise.

        Time makes more converts than reason. Thomas Paine, Common Sense

        by VTCC73 on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 01:20:11 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Well of course. (0+ / 0-)

          Unless your an activist, the reasonable person doesn't go looking for a felony charge.  Which is why I take issue with the law in the first place.  And we won't get over it; we'll keep advocating for national reciprocity until we get it.

          •  American democracy has a long history (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            DefendOurConstitution, lyvwyr101

            of activism for issues people care about. Please continue to work towards passing legislation in which you strongly believe. My disagreement with your position is irrelevant. Don't be surprised if pigs fly before you get it passed.

            Time makes more converts than reason. Thomas Paine, Common Sense

            by VTCC73 on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 02:32:41 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  State by state. (0+ / 0-)

              That's been the plan over the past decade.  And while I appreciate the activist tradition, even I'm wary about gun owners engaging in "civil disobedience." It serves our purpose to project a calm, reasonable image rather than one that is confrontational and alarming.  Take the Free Staters in New Hampshire or that guy in Eugene, Oregon for example.  Rather than organize a rally and project safety and security in numbers, they walk around alone or in groups of two openly carrying rifles and pistols.  I believe them when they say they're trying to normalize gun ownership and carrying rights, but that's work that needs to be done with forethought and an eye for reassuring the community.

      •  No, it doesn't. You have to know the laws (0+ / 0-)

        of the state you're traveling in, for any activities.

        I see what you did there.

        by GoGoGoEverton on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 01:27:07 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  No, and no: (3+ / 0-)

        There's lots of things someone is legally entitled to do in his state but aren't entitled in another.   Nobody thinks that our laws against prostitution interferes with a Nevadan's right to travel, for an easy example.  

        And as to whether there's reason other than malicious contempt, you're really saying that New Yorkers have more restrictive laws on themselves, and expect Vermonters to follow them while in New York, out of contempt for Vermonters?  That's even less believable than the right to travel argument.  It seems that the only contempt that's being shown is the contempt for New Yorkers to order their own lives without having to accomodate a special set of laws for people who are passing through.  As if Vermonters have this bubble of immunities that they can take and rub in New Yorkers' noses.  

        That's not even "gun control". It's more like "massacre control".

        by Inland on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 01:29:47 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site