National CCW - Page 6
Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst ... 45678 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 71

Thread: National CCW

  1. #51
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Southwestern, MI
    Posts
    214
    Quote Originally Posted by longslide10 View Post
    Ok, I'll buy that but I'm still gonna use the short version....easier to remember
    No problem with short versions. It says the same thing. 18th century writers tended to be wordier than we are. They probably had more time on their hands.

  2.   
  3. #52
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Southwestern, MI
    Posts
    214
    Quote Originally Posted by IvanTheTerrible View Post
    I have some issues with this bill. I'm not sure I want the federal government to dictate the rules that my state must follow to the detriment of good laws already on the books. Only positive I could see is a good strong minimal training standard. Btw, I work for the federal government.
    At the risk of raising the ire of the 2A commandos, I personnaly like the requirements that many States, including my own of Michigan, have concerning training. If you are going to carry a gun, you should have a basic knowledge how to use it and especially the laws concerning lethal force.

  4. #53
    Quote Originally Posted by Seeya View Post
    About the right to travel, this has been discussed on this and almost every other gun board in existence along with most other boards many, many times. On more than one occasion I have asked to see where the SCOTUS or other courts have equated the right to travel with the right to operate a motor vehicle on the public highway. While a person convicted of DUI/DWI for the tenth time and finally served his prison sentence he may never be allowed to have a drivers license again. However this in no way will effect his right to travel upon the public highways of the US. The right to travel in any manner that you wish to any where in the US other that privately restricted areas is granted to each and every citizen of the US. What it not granted is the right to operate a motor vehicle on the public highway, that is a privilege. So I ask once again to please show me in one of these cases pointed out in the article where the courts have equated the right to travel with the right to operate a motor vehicle.

    Although I have asked this many times I have yet to have anyone actually do it. Hopefully you can be the first and I will not have to get my license renewed.

  5. #54
    Quote Originally Posted by alduane View Post
    At the risk of raising the ire of the 2A commandos, I personnaly like the requirements that many States, including my own of Michigan, have concerning training. If you are going to carry a gun, you should have a basic knowledge how to use it and especially the laws concerning lethal force.
    I agree that if you are going to carry a gun you absolutely must have a basic knowledge of how to use it and a good knowledge of lethal force laws, self-defense laws and in hushed tones, brandishing laws. I think that most, but not all, people will agree with this but the great argument is on how to require or obtain those skills. Some feel that people who choose to carry will obtain them on their own without any requirement. Some feel that such a requirement is a needless restriction that discriminates against certain individuals and has no actual bearing on the safety of the public or the person carrying the gun. Then others object to any type of training that they do not personally provide or supervise, that if left to anyone else they will be taught the wrong things.

    Although the training requirement is a noble gesture you are not going to get a lot of support for it.

  6. #55
    United States Code: Title 18,31. Definitions | LII / Legal Information Institute

    Perhaps you should investigate more on your own. Read a 6 and a 10. It is only a crime if you use the public Highways for comercial purposes. Title 18 is the crimminal code of the Republic of the United States of America. Look and study Uniform Commercial Code. This was adopted by all the states. It is the basis for most laws.Juristriction must be challenged. I cannot teach you or do all the work for everyone on here. So I give a starting point, for those who wish to investigate.
    The Only Easy Day Was Yesterday

  7. #56
    I understand that gun owners want this bill. I was even browsing the Liberal Gun Club forum, they they, more or less, supported the bill.

    but the vast majority of gun owners are conservative. Conservatives, like me, and especially those who support the tea party movement, like me, support State's Rights and the Powers of the State as given by the Constitution.


    This is where maybe I am wrong. I don't see concealed carry as having anything to do with the 2A. The argument can very easily be made that not allowing concealed carry doesn't infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms. Every state still allows you to buy a fire arm. No one is saying you cant, and no one is trying to take your guns away from you. They can say IF you want to carry, carry it out in the open. After all, if concealed carry was protected by the constitution, then why did it take so long for states to adopt it? In the Constitution, a woman's right to vote is protected. You don't see individual states that do and some that do not let women vote. Right?

  8. #57
    Quote Originally Posted by RRrider View Post
    I understand that gun owners want this bill. I was even browsing the Liberal Gun Club forum, they they, more or less, supported the bill.

    but the vast majority of gun owners are conservative. Conservatives, like me, and especially those who support the tea party movement, like me, support State's Rights and the Powers of the State as given by the Constitution.


    This is where maybe I am wrong. I don't see concealed carry as having anything to do with the 2A. The argument can very easily be made that not allowing concealed carry doesn't infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms. Every state still allows you to buy a fire arm. No one is saying you cant, and no one is trying to take your guns away from you. They can say IF you want to carry, carry it out in the open. After all, if concealed carry was protected by the constitution, then why did it take so long for states to adopt it? In the Constitution, a woman's right to vote is protected. You don't see individual states that do and some that do not let women vote. Right?
    The States have had the last 200 years to do it on their own but have not done it. I am sick and tired of having to worry about going to another State that may or may not recognize my permit. Particularly since reciprocity can change.

    For Christ's sake in this country a one eyed monkey can get a driver's license and drive in all 50 States. I am far more afraid of my fellow driver's than other gun owners that carry.

    And the second doesn't say anything at all about having to carry openly so there is that. Aside of the fact that a lot of States don't allow open carry at all.

  9. #58
    Saying that every state allows you to buy a firearm is not exactly reassuring. To purchase a firearm in some states is quite an ordeal with having to get a permit purchase, waiting times and then keeping one in your home, especially if you include DC in the discussion. There are quite a few sttes the do not permit OC and even more that require some type or permit to OC or CC. For example TN.

  10. #59
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Kalifornia & Idaho
    Posts
    1,052
    Quote Originally Posted by IvanTheTerrible View Post
    I have some issues with this bill. I'm not sure I want the federal government to dictate the rules that my state must follow to the detriment of good laws already on the books. Only positive I could see is a good strong minimal training standard. Btw, I work for the federal government.
    I'm at a loss as to what "good laws already on the books" are interfered with with this bill. Can you enlighten us? As far as training standard, I'm for training, I'm not for Government defined "training". I've seen no evidence that those with Carry permits without required training are guilty of any more problems than those with Carry Permits with no training. If it's not quantifiable, why is it good enough to require a mandate?
    Maybejim

    Life Member NRA
    Life Member CRPA
    Life Member SASS

    What you say isn't as important as what the other person hears

  11. #60
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Kalifornia & Idaho
    Posts
    1,052
    Quote Originally Posted by alduane View Post
    At the risk of raising the ire of the 2A commandos, I personnaly like the requirements that many States, including my own of Michigan, have concerning training. If you are going to carry a gun, you should have a basic knowledge how to use it and especially the laws concerning lethal force.
    Can you show any evidence that states with training requirements are any safer than states without training requirements? I am in favor of training, but not government defined training. If there is no quantifiable gain from a requirement, I would argue it is a requirement the government should not be involved in.
    Maybejim

    Life Member NRA
    Life Member CRPA
    Life Member SASS

    What you say isn't as important as what the other person hears

Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst ... 45678 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast