It's ok! I'm an INGO member!
Todd Young (R-IN)
Joe Donnelly (D-IN)
Find your U.S. Rep
They shouldn't just drop a hellfire missile on your café experience...Rand Paul
California was Constitutional Carry. It was a gun paradise. And then, in the name of "reasonableness" they flushed it all away in order to codify racism.
"No, I am not calling you Johnny Dangerous."
As BOR has stated its not common for states to go backwards, but what if Liberalism continus to spread and they get a majority voice...
Also I understand that my LTCH could be repealed anytime the government wants to, but IMO the government would look bad if they ended it for no reason, and I could see them using the end of CC as a reason.
And I do enjoy listening the The Gun Guy. Unfortunately, being on Saturday night makes it a little difficult to hear it every time. Really wish it was on during the week when I am driving l am driving all day.
I stand corrected, with thanks. Rep inbound.
It was not confusion, but ignorance; I didn't know about the Mulford Act. (Not surprising, considering the time frame of that law) The synopsis at the wiki link makes it sound very similar to the passage of the so-called "Patriot Act". To wit: bad stuff happens, people call on politicians to make it stop, when they need to be knocking heads to make it stop instead. Politicians respond with laws that do nothing to constrain the guilty and do everything to empower the criminals. Crime increases; lather, rinse, repeat.
California was actually Constitutional carry, as Vermont still is? No permit required at all, anywhere? Or more "permits issued very freely, with minimal requirements"?
Places with carry prohibitions have only to repeal their way back from such errors. Once there, at the default uninfringed state, there is nothing to "Constitutional Carry" which could be repealed, only new infringing prohibitions enacted.
Such new infringements, even after a period of liberty, might codify new exceptions, recognize old exceptions, or provide for no exceptions at all.
There is simply no way of predicting what tomorrow's State may impose upon or deny its subjects when there seem to be no limits to what we will adapt to and endure.
The difference he's citing is one of perspective, and it's an important difference. It goes back to "From whom do you obtain your rights?"
If you obtain your rights from your government, what they do in the manner of infringements is borderline acceptable, sometimes even welcome, such as Kirk cited in the Mulford Act reference or even my citing of the so-called "Patriot Act". People wanted to feel safer, and granting vast powers to an authority figure or agency seemed like the way to quickly obtain security, if you're willing to forget that little thing about security and liberty from Ben Franklin and suspend your disbelief enough to see gov't as benevolent.
OTOH, when you recognize gov't as an antonym of freedom, you see the overstepping of boundaries inherent in any government that is not constrained and held to task by a vigilant people.
We, sadly, are not and have not been a vigilant people, and government, which we created to serve us, is now barely discernible from a master; unlimited and unconstrainable.
Could our RKBA be abolished with a stroke of a pen? Yes, and that pennstroke might have happened years ago with executive orders or some law, passed but awaiting a specific event to be enforced.
Some will pooh-pooh this idea (I can already hear Kirk "L. Neil Smith"ing it or dismissing it as a "comic book") but the Founders had their beliefs that shaped this country, and sadly, we as a people seem to have forgotten that. It's not about anarchy and "no government", but rather about limited government, kept as small and inefficient as possible.