Found via Wirecutter, apparently Nationwide Reciprocity is the death of States Rights.
For libertarians, this bill is not a matter of our Second Amendment right; rather, it’s a matter of federal overreach. Under Concealed Carry Reciprocity, state gun laws would be rendered null and void, as anyone with a concealed carry permit in one state would be able to travel across state lines while armed.
Federal Overreach and the National Concealed Carry Law
Immediately I got worried. Did something got changed in the bill since the last time I checked it out? I rush over H.R. 38’s page and checked the text . Maybe since IANAL I could not find it in the “extensive” 48 lines dealing with citizens legally carrying a sidearm across state lines. But the article gets better.
A 2017 study indicates that it’s not just those who value state autonomy who are opposed to the bill. A national survey found that 83 percent of Republicans and 84 percent of independents believe that people with a legal right to carry concealed should have to pass a test demonstrating that they can “safely and lawfully handle a gun in common situations they might encounter.”
The underlined passage is a link in the original article that leads to none other than John Hopkins Center For Gun Policy and Research. In case anybody does not know, please take a guess who bought and paid for that department to be created?
If this is the new way of the Libertarian Party, you have indeed become a vote-sucking machine for the Democrats and a bad clown show for whatever Libertarians used to stand behind.
9 thoughts on “The Libertarian Party as the Left “Light”.”
Weird. I don’t recall them taking that stand when gay marriage was forced on the nation.
The L Niel Smith, “aim for anarchy” contingent who cry STATIST! at the mere mention of government at all are why the Libertarian party has become an ever more liberal group.
Rational people who know what libertarianism actually means bailed long ago.
Ok, that was a pretty nutty article. But while I have my doubts about the LP at times, I don’t understand why you associate this article with real Libertarians, or with the LP.
The “states rights” argument is entirely bogus, for two reasons. States rights apply, per the 10th Amendment, to those powers “not prohibited to the states”. The power to infringe on the right to bear arms IS prohibited to the states by the 2nd Amendment. The text is clear, and state courts have even recognized this fact at times. And even if you choose to ignore the plain English, the point was made explicit by the 14th Amendment.
As for Neil Smith, I like his principled stand on many issues. That doesn’t mean I always agree with him, but often I do. I find it bizarre that anyone would blame him for things the LP may have done wrong, and in particular, why his position of enforcing the Constitution is an explanation for the LP becoming “ever more liberal”.
You guys have a serious identification issue. Not to sound insulting at all, but when you start talking about Big “L”, little “l” and other versions, it sounds stupid as shit.
There is a brutal need to clean house and get under one brand that encompasses everybody while acknowledging the differences.
And no streaking.
There is a real distinction between the Libertarian Party aka “Big L” and the libertarian philosophy aka “little l”.
Just as there’s a distinction between Democrat and democracy.
All the of the various camps of the little l believers in the philosophy and debates about what makes a true libertarian is where it gets kooky as all get out. I believe that the Catholic church did eventually decide on how many angels could dance on the tip of a pin; libertarianism has no such unity.
The distinction gets lost. Nobody capitalizes verbally.
Again, there is an issue with the image that needs to be addressed. And that even the Cato institute starts to sound like democrats are running the show is also troubling.
Read it again. It’s his “aim for anarchy” position and the screams of STATIST from his side of the camp that drive non-liberal libertarians away.
I understand that’s what you said, I just don’t understand why.
The civil rights act also trampled states rights.
The big I issues the idiot who wrote that seems to have overlooked is that laws in this country have an order of operations.
So yes, you can buy Marijuana in retail establishment in several states, but you can still be arrested by the DEA for it.
Same with Jim Crow, the states passed those laws, but they were illegal under the US Constitution.
Yes concealed carry reciprocity will effectively nullify the Sullivan Act in New York City, but guess what, that Iaw is clear infringement of the right to keep and bear arms, so cry me a river, assholes.
Plus violent crime would likely go down in these shit holes, which is a civil rights thing too.
Comments are closed.
Login or register to comment.