A little spirited discussion here or there harms little. Don't sweat it, it's probably a good thing so long as folks can keep their cool and discuss calmly. I don't see too many hackles raised.Hello Mr. James well I guess I did it again done got everyone fired up and caused you lots of work. I am really not and instigator and I don’t mean to start trouble wouldn’t blame if you kicked me off this site. Japsco113 AKA as John
True enough, anything done for "the common good" more often than not seems to merely encroach on the rights of the individual to the detriment of all. My concern is less 'for the common good' and more 'for the welfare of the individual.' Specifically the individual that intends to carry for self defense. And to me it's less proficiency as I think the vast majority that intend to carry for self defense are going to practice within their capacity and get that sorted out as most people with a defensive mindset that aren't set on intentionally/willfully harming another will also be cautious and seek to avoid indiscriminately injuring others with errant rounds.AHHH, So much to answer, ... so little time! 😁
First,... Nope, Fed laws trump State Laws,... been this way for a long time.
US Constitution 10th Amendment,...
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Second,... ahhh yes,... that dear old cliche "for the common good"!
A phrase used, as far back as when Pres John Adams time in office, but, that was late 1800's and I doubt very much it was defined, as, when, dear ole' Hitler used it ,... (Gemeinnutz geht vor Eigennutz)“ “The Nazi 25-point Programme,” Hitler's speech on party's program (February 24, 1920) in Munich, Germany.),.... or,... how his current descendants use it today!
I think it is by far the most definitionally twisted terminology ever contrived by the democrat/marxist insurrectionists!!! It's definition has changed with the whim of those controlling propaganda, as much as the length of skirts ( quote from the 60's, I believe😁) and by wanna-be people controllers seeking more power than they have been authorized to enact!
Basically, a term that doesn't hold water anymore, for me.
Third,... I believe every state in the Union have current laws on the books to RESTRICT the Rights of those Persons who are violent, not law abiding, mentally ill!
Sooo, trying to DENY an INALIENABLE RIGHT as a form of punishment, is not only redundant, but, in the true sense and definition of the word "Inalienable",.... not even humanly possible!
And last but not least, IMO,... "responsibilities" come with all aspects of living in a civilized society, but, is a dieing, if not dead concept, along with "respect", another dieing concept in most of today's world.
(disclaimer,...all the above, is just my simple opinion,... not to be confused with an order, demand, or, mandate, of any kind)😎
To me the larger concern is the legal aspect as stated previously. There's the surface level constitution which is simple enough, but then you dig deeper and one also has to think about state law as written, and further still case law/precedent as the law has been judicially interpreted/adjudicated in the past. I'm no lawyer, just a dingy mechanic, but I'm masochistic enough to actually enjoy reading and learning about various codes and statutes and trying to sort out how they would be applied. There probably aren't a lot of people that even take a surface level interest in the law outside of lawyers/police/prosecutors/judges. So I do view it as a good thing when that type of education is pushed. I wonder how many people errantly believe that Biden's advice to grab a shotgun and put some buckshot through your door is sage advice and not a scary proposition that will not fly in most circumstances/jurisdictions.