Yeager - STOP National Concealed Carry!

[Benp]

Also, you have to beware because sometimes you ask for one thing, but instead receive something that resembles what you asked for, and later could be used for the exact opposite for which it was originally intended.
"A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take away everything that you have."

 

[Kirk Freeman]

He seems to be assuming that states have the right to regulate or eliminate carry.

...and therein lies the fallacy.

Under his theory, how is McDonald not an infringement on states' rights? The federal government (though a court) telling states that they may not eliminate carry? Preposterous! How dare they! Seems like Yeager would rather have onerous state firearm laws stand than have the feds tell a state that they don't have the "right" to regulate.

Yes, that is it precisely; this is the Lost Cause School of Constitutional Law. Yeager is way off the paper, shooting over the berm or something.

I would love to ask him about McDonald.

 

[Benp]

I would love to ask him about McDonald.

Well, on his farm he had some geese...

 

[Kutnupe14]

Interstate compact that's all that's need for nationwide reciprocity. Just like how a DL works. Problem solved.

 

[lonehoosier]

Interstate compact that's all that's need for nationwide reciprocity. Just like how a DL works. Problem solved.

Don't forget, marriage license to.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Don't forget, marriage license to.

I'm totally forgetting about marriage licenses. I know you married guys are always trying to get converts to share in your misery. lol

 

[MarkC]

I'm totally forgetting about marriage licenses. I know you married guys are always trying to get converts to share in your misery. lol

What's the old saying? Bigamy is its own punishment? Because of Full Faith and Credit, at least one of the marriages would be recognized in all fifty states!

 

[HoughMade]

What's the old saying? Bigamy is its own punishment? Because of Full Faith and Credit, at least one of the marriages would be recognized in all fifty states!

I can come up with a hypothetical where neither marriage would be recognized. Easy. What if he was married to Wife A, then Married Wife B, then Wife C, then Wife A dies or they get divorced?

Adjunct my sweet Aunt Fanny, that's some full-time law prof stuff, right there.

 

[MarkC]

I can come up with a hypothetical where neither marriage would be recognized. Easy. What if he was married to Wife A, then Married Wife B, then Wife C, then Wife A dies or they get divorced?

Adjunct my sweet Aunt Fanny, that's some full-time law prof stuff, right there.

You're right! With marriages B and C being void in most states, then the guy gets off Scot-free after A dies or gets divorced!

But to Kut's point: He has still had to endure the suffering of THREE marriages.

(I'm glad the Mrs. does not browse INGO.)

 

[T.Lex]

Wait.

Is polygamy still a crime?

Contemporaneous marriages B and C could put him in jail.

Notwithstanding those states that still recognize common law marriage. Read once of a guy that got dinged with that. Didn't even KNOW he was married until he married B, then A came back and explained in a very detailed affidavit that they were already common law married.

Imagine that: married without even knowing it.

 

[MarkC]

Wait.

Is polygamy still a crime?

Contemporaneous marriages B and C could put him in jail.

Notwithstanding those states that still recognize common law marriage. Read once of a guy that got dinged with that. Didn't even KNOW he was married until he married B, then A came back and explained in a very detailed affidavit that they were already common law married.

Imagine that: married without even knowing it.

Well, "ignorance of the law is no excuse," and if he was living with Mrs. Wife A in a husband-wife type relationship for the prescribed period of time in a common-law marriage state, shouldn't he have at least had an inkling that maybe something like that was going to happen?

On the other hand, it is the "unsophisticated consumer" that keeps driving a large part of the market for attorneys!

 

[HoughMade]

The way I understand it, you can't "accidentally" be common law married. You have to intend to be married.

 

[Rookie]

Indiana doesn't recognize common law marriage...

 

[stephen87]

Did someone jump up and down on his head at the range instead of a gun?

Talking about operating under a complete and total misapprehension.

Right? I haven't seen "national concealed carry" pushed. I have seen a lot of people, some politicians as well, asking for "national reciprocity" which is an entirely different ship than Mr. Yeager is talking about.

Why is the dude still a "thing"?

I cannot believe anyone pays this guy money.

Somebody break it down for me "Barney" style I just don't get it.
What was the guy who made videos that had the hott chick "Dirk and Liz" ?
At least you could look at her while he spouted lies.

Because some people still like to swing on his nuts.

For some reason I was reminded of the good old days when the INGO would destroy a member for making a negative comment about yeager. I wonder if any private government documents can be exposed.

Someone call Jeremy, tell him he's welcome back. The Yeager ship seems to have sailed.

 

[sheepdog697]

Hes not wrong but he's not right either

True that.

 

[Coach]

The Convention of States is a direct representative of the correlation of the current situation. We have to remember the Constitution, as we know it, was derived from the Articles of Confederation. Thus being said, the representative bodies of such States were sent in convention. The results were not what was expected, a total change from the original founding. In other words, beware what you seek, as it may not be what you want.~~"One Man's Opinion!"

The Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation because the AOC was not working and everyone knew it. The Supremacy Clause was the big difference. The Constitution is the opposite of the AOC. The South lost the Civil War and the 14th amendment was a doubling down on the Supremacy Clause.

If Yeager is right about something it is not this subject.

 

[jamil]

Why is the dude still a "thing"?

I cannot believe anyone pays this guy money.

Somebody break it down for me "Barney" style I just don't get it.
What was the guy who made videos that had the hott chick "Dirk and Liz" ?
At least you could look at her while he spouted lies.

He's thinking federalism is still a thing.

But anyway, as a matter of principle I kinda see both sides of it. I"m just talking about concepts here, and not about how things are. I like the idea of federalism. There are obviously some general boundaries to federalism in a free society. For example, I don't think a free federalized society could call itself very free if states had the power to enslave people. It seems self evident to me that the right to protect oneself is fundamental. I don't care how far fringe a state leans left, or how anti-gun they are, states should not have the power to infringe on an individual's fundamental right to self-protection with firearms without due process.

Why can't the federal government just recognize the right of the people to carry anywhere on US soil and be done with it? I guess it's asking too much to just respect the freaking constituion.They do it with the freedom of religion and the First Amendment.Why not the same thing with the second? You don't need any licence from your state or federal government (or local sheriff) in order to practice your faith anywhere on US soil.And it's legal to cross state lines with your Bible (or Quran, Torah etc).I guess James Yeager is just against some kind of carry permit delivered by the federal government.I can see why it might be a bad thing as it could be easily taken away.Having your state permit recognized by all the US states (like a driver's licence) is different than a national/federal conceal carry permit.Not needeing any permit to exercice your natural rights in the first place would be even better.

Indeed. As was said, I think Yeager doesn't understand what it would actually accomplish. I think Yeager was mostly right about the concepts of federalism but he's full of **** if he thinks it should be absolute and limitless.

 

[jamil]

The Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation because the AOC was not working and everyone knew it. The Supremacy Clause was the big difference. The Constitution is the opposite of the AOC. The South lost the Civil War and the 14th amendment was a doubling down on the Supremacy Clause.

If Yeager is right about something it is not this subject.

I think Yeager is confusing federalism as an ideal with the reality of what we actually have now. He doesn't get to impose the constitution he wants. He's stuck with the constitution we currently have.

Ideally I think federalism is good, and I'd rather have power concentrated more at the state and local level. So for me, I'd rather have more federalism than now. But since this nation was founded on the the principles of individual liberty, there should be limits to what individual rights states may infringe upon.

 

[Coach]

Federalism concentrated at the state and local level did not work. It lasted six years and the people that wanted it that way admitted it did not work. How often do the people in the position of authority and the creation of a government admit that? How bad must it have been? Yet people still long for it.

 

[MarkC]

The way I understand it, you can't "accidentally" be common law married. You have to intend to be married.

True; however, based on some of my former "clientele" who lived together for years and years, as if husband and wife, but never quite got around to getting married, I could see a couple "negligently" becoming "married" in a common law state, but I agree, it wouldn't be accidental.

For example, New Hampshire's statute:

“Persons cohabitating and acknowledging each other as husband and wife, and generally reputed to be such, for 3 years shall thereafter be deemed to have been legally married, until one of them dies." N.H. Stat. 457:39

Indiana doesn't recognize common law marriage...

True; see IC 31-11-8-5:

[FONT=&amp]Sec. 5. A marriage is void if the marriage is a common law marriage that was entered into after January 1, 1958.

[/FONT]I think it is fair to say that all of our outrageous hypotheticals involve states that still provide for common law marriage, which, admittedly, are few, IIRC.