National CCW? - Page 3
Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 66

Thread: National CCW?

  1. The relatively strong tradition of State regulation of guns is our strongest bulwark against infringement. The gun controllers can dictate in the bluest States; but they have to fight like hell for inroads such as in Colorado. Those purple battle-ground States are our canary-in-the-mine; that's where the war might be won. Only when the last Red State falls would the war have been lost. When Wyoming is lost the 2A is lost; but, it's going to take the gun controllers a long time to conquer that 50'th State.
    All our efforts have to be concentrated on keeping the several States in complete charge of their own gun laws. We should be prepared to SUPPORT regulation of inter-State transfers through FFLs and State paperwork - as onerous as they are - to keep the Feds out of the States' regulation of guns. In each State we can fight within our legislatures to keep local regulation within the bounds of toleration.
    For example, let's advocate for: a Federal minimum 4473 form and a minimum retention period of 3 years; with States authorized to specify longer retention periods. A minimum 3 year retention period would satisfy legitimate ATF trace purposes for guns that may have crossed State lines. Some States would adopt a 20 year retention period (now the Federal minimum!) while other States would adopt 10 or 5 year retention periods.
    Let's sue Won't-Issue States in the Circuit courts to get any Shall-Issue we can achieve. Eventually, SCOTUS will have to settle the 2A-Constitutionality of Won't-Issue.
    Let's patronize FL and UT and other States' Non-Resident CCP programs. Let's show their legislative budget committees that we will support their State budgets if they support our 2A rights. (Let's argue that no permit should be required for open-carry but allow that concealed-carry regulation is probably Constitutional.)
    Rural States will never out-vote liberal States in the US House of Representatives. Rural States elect too many untrustworthy Senators to the US Senate. SCOTUS can't be trusted to protect Civil Liberties. No place in the world is more hostile to the natural right of self-defense than the District of Columbia where each legislator is protected by 3.3 gun-packing Capital Policemen.
    All politics are local. When only a small fraction of all gun-owners are members of the NRA (or any other 2A-organization) we are failing to muster our own militia. We have to fight this battle in the town-square. If we can't persuade our fellow gun-owners to get-up off the bar-stool and:
    - contribute the price of a case of beer to defend our 2A rights;
    - vote for the candidate who vows to protect our 2A rights and against the candidate who promises a chicken-in-every-pot,
    then we have to plan to lose.
    Mark

  2.   
  3. #22
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan
    Posts
    3,352
    I guess I don't understand all the talk about modifying the present system of regulations that are "infringements" upon the right to keep and bear arms. Could it be that people have accepted the basic concept that the right to bear arms SHOULD be regulated? And the government, whether that government be Federal or State, is the entity that should have the power to ... regulate?

    Unless I have a completely erroneous understanding of the actual "right to keep and bear arms" being a natural right of each and every human being that is born upon this planet merely because they have been born..... any and all "regulation" of that right, no matter which government is doing it, is an "infringement" and is unacceptable.

    Make no mistake... as long as folks argue which regulation is acceptable the government will always.... "regulate" (infringe/be in control of). And it is all this arguing about which "regulations" are Ok that allows the government to remain "in control of".

    There is no need for any "gun control".... guns don't do harm... what is needed is to control those people who use guns to do harm. And it would seem we already have tons of laws for that.

  4. #23
    I don't want the feds involved in issuing permits at all! If they did, they would most likely be based on one of the very restrictive states, anyway. Also, people would still get jammed up on the East & West coasts, as I'm sure that someone would get arrested for HP ammo in NJ, 8 rounds in their gun in NY, a 11+ round mag in any number of states that ban them, etc.
    I would like to see a national reciprocity law that stated that a person could carry as in their home state, anywhere that US law applied. That way people like me & millions of others could load my G19 with 16 rounds of HP ammo, load up my G17+3 spare mag w/ HP ammo, and my backup (G26, LCR, LCP, etc.) w/ HP ammo & go to NYC, Atlantic City, Boston, Chicago, LA & SF, and HI. Or run down to the USVI or PR, if I wanted, w/o fear of arrest for exercising a natural, God given right!

  5. #24
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan
    Posts
    3,352
    Quote Originally Posted by minuteman32 View Post
    I don't want the feds involved in issuing permits at all! If they did, they would most likely be based on one of the very restrictive states, anyway. Also, people would still get jammed up on the East & West coasts, as I'm sure that someone would get arrested for HP ammo in NJ, 8 rounds in their gun in NY, a 11+ round mag in any number of states that ban them, etc.
    I would like to see a national reciprocity law that stated that a person could carry as in their home state, anywhere that US law applied. That way people like me & millions of others could load my G19 with 16 rounds of HP ammo, load up my G17+3 spare mag w/ HP ammo, and my backup (G26, LCR, LCP, etc.) w/ HP ammo & go to NYC, Atlantic City, Boston, Chicago, LA & SF, and HI. Or run down to the USVI or PR, if I wanted, w/o fear of arrest for exercising a natural, God given right!
    Food for thought... perhaps some serious soul searching thought by everyone...

    How about instead of yet another gun control law.... that "national reciprocity" law mentioned in the post above which would actually be Federal "permission" (think of it as the Feds "issuing" a permit by writing it into law)... we work in each of our States to have Constitutional carry wherein anyone can carry in any way they want no matter where they are from? After all... to get a State like California to agree to a national reciprocity law California would want everyone in the entire country to abide by California's restrictive laws. Ya can't have the residents of a State not be allowed to carry while allowing folks from other States to carry like they do in their home State.... it's NOT going to happen.

    Why would anyone want yet another law that only gives the government the power to ............ abuse that law? And you KNOW the government would eventually abuse that law... perhaps by requiring anyone who carries across State lines to meet certain "special" criteria that is modeled upon the State with the most restrictive carry laws. Or could it be that folks are thinking the selfish desire to make it "convenient" for them to carry across State lines is worth giving the government even more power to control guns?

  6. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by Matt1861 View Post
    Does anyone have a good status update on the possibility of a national concealed carry permit, valid in all states and territories?
    Such a thing would only serve as a national registration program. No thanks.
    NRA Life Member
    NRA Certified Instructor (Pistol & Personal Defense in the Home)
    North Carolina Concealed Carry Instructor

  7. #26
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan
    Posts
    3,352
    Ok... here is more food for thought...

    Instead of inflicting the control of who is NOT ALLOWED! to carry across State lines by the Federal government being in charge of some "national reciprocity permit or a law that amounts to the same thing"... how about folks who want the convenience of carrying while traveling across State lines take it upon themselves to spend their own money and time to get non resident permits that are already available! from several States that already have reciprocity with other States... and be legal that way? I mean... why inflict even more government regulation and control on everyone just because you want to/need to travel?

    Here is some interesting info about permits/non resident permits and reciprocity...........

    http://www.handgunlaw.us/documents/N...entPermits.pdf

  8. #27
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Posts
    3,832
    Quote Originally Posted by Peggy Reist View Post
    Oh no! I didn't mean that at all. I meant more like Kansas. A shall-issue state, 8 hour class, permit good for 4 years, just pay to renew it. No permit required to buy a gun (or ammo). Only the simplest of background checks. Very few restrictions and fewer all the time. Something like that. Is that better?
    No that's much worse than my state of PA.

    You see the can of worms that gets opened when we talk about a "national" or "federal" anything when it comes to firearms?

    Do not ask for it, you may just get it, and the Feds will screw it up at best and use it as complete gun (people) control at worst.
    "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote."
    ~ Benjamin Franklin (maybe)

  9. Quote Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
    I guess I don't understand all the talk about modifying the present system of regulations that are "infringements" upon the right to keep and bear arms. Could it be that people have accepted the basic concept that the right to bear arms SHOULD be regulated? And the government, whether that government be Federal or State, is the entity that should have the power to ... regulate?. . . . Make no mistake... as long as folks argue which regulation is acceptable the government will always.... "regulate" (infringe/be in control of). And it is all this arguing about which "regulations" are Ok that allows the government to remain "in control of". . . .
    There are 2 important aspects of the problem:
    - what is our Constitutional position?
    - what is our political position?

    The founding fathers left us a 2A with just about the strongest protections we could hope for. SCOTUS - in Heller and McDonald - gave us as strong an interpretation that they could have given us. We either exercise those advantages to their maximum; or we don't bother to do what is necessary to defend our rights.

    Our opponents care not one whit about the Constitution. The Constitution means absolutely nothing if We the People will not - by overwhelming majority - support that Constitution. Such is not the case; and, it has not been the case since FDR, perhaps not since Wilson, arguably, not in Lincoln's administration. This is politics; and, we have been loosing for at least a century.

    No "right" of the Constitution is absolute. It is indisputable that it is Constitutional to deprive felons, the violent and the mentally-ill the right to keep and bear arms - natural right or not. It is Constitutional to deprive those who are not "the People" of the right to keep and bear arms - natural right or not. Illegal aliens and non-immigrant visa holders are outside 2A protections. Legal residents are in a debatable position. Americans who have renounced their citizenship are probably outside 2A protections. No one should have any delusions that "shall not be infringed" protects an absolute natural right.

    The Heller decision establishes - as well as it can be established in our system - that "reasonable" regulation of arms IS Constitutional; it remains only for our legislative and judicial bodies to discover what SCOTUS will deem to be "reasonable". That is political.

    American voters continue to elect Presidents and Senators to office who care little - or not at all - about our Constitutional rights. These Presidents, with the consent of these Senators, appoint the 9 Justices of SCOTUS who decide what our rights really mean; or, in the case of the 2A, avoid like the plague deciding wherever they don't want to decide. This process is 99% political; just 1% about the letter of the Constitution.

    If we will not defend our 2A Constitutional rights in the voting booth we can't hope to defend them in the town square, nor in our legislatures and certainly not in our courts.

    The right to carry openly is probably defendable; if we bother to do so. The right to carry concealed in the sense we call "Constitutional Carry" is unsustainable. There is nothing in the record contemporaneous with the writing of the 2A that supports a clear-cut right to carry concealed. There is too much in the record in the early and mid-19'th century supporting regulation of concealed carry. Anyone who imagines that we could sustain an unfettered right to carry concealed nationally is delusional - as a political matter.

    Conversely, it is clearly politically achievable to maintain and build political support for what we have - a system of Concealed Carry Permits. I understand a couple of States have exceptions saying, effectively, that one can't be convicted of carrying concealed without a permit if she has a well founded fear, such as when she has been threatened. I think that THIS is the clear-cut direction to pursue. Effectively, we divide the population into 2 groups: the large group who have demonstrated they retain their 2A rights by obtaining a CCP; and, the small group who cannot obtain such a CCP because they have a record of felonious or violent behavior or mental illness.

    The idea that we can eliminate all regulations in some particular aspect of life has atrophied over 200 years. Today, it is just about dead. It is delusional to expect that the gun-keeping community will persuade the non-gun-keeping community that there should be no regulation of guns whatsoever. To argue such an idea is to terrify the non-gun-keeping community into the protective "arms" of the gun-controllers.

    Do we - the 2A community - advocate liberty to felons, the violent and the insane - the right to keep and bear arms? Do we advocate that a man under arrest retains his means to an effective self-defense while locked-up in the drunk tank? Of course not! We are able to reason as well - in fact better - than our opponents. Let us reason with our fellow voters and legislators about the appropriate bounds of gun regulation - ever bearing in mind the Constitutional principle that the natural right of self-defense is not to be "infringed" upon.

    Now, from this position, we can conduct a constructive debate about, for example, the reasonableness of disarming civilians entering:
    - a courthouse;
    - a school;
    - a public highway, sidewalk or town square.

    We should be prepared to concede that bailiffs in a courthouse suffice to secure the public. We should argue that the police are not adequate to secure the public in the highways, sidewalks or town squares. After we succeed with the latter argument we can begin to make progress arming school employees.

    As chaotic as our present system is - 40 Mostly-Issue States with reciprocity - is a pretty good base to work from. We can argue to the remaining 10 Won't-Issue States that the CCP system works very well. We can work for greater uniformity in State carry laws. If we are aggressive in pursuing this system we can Stand-our-Ground and maybe even gain some ground eventually.

    If we delude ourselves into believing we can achieve Utopia in the Oval Office, Congress or SCOTUS then we are betting it all on Black (or Blue) and we know how that's been working out for us all!

    In my opinion - success or failure will turn on educating our women and our elderly that they have a right to an effective means to self defense by:
    - their boyfriends, husbands and sons bearing arms;
    - their neighbors bearing arms; and,
    - for some of themselves and their sisters bearing arms.

    Think about it. I might fail to persuade my wife, daughter, mother to carry a gun herself. Nevertheless, I might persuade her that she is just-as-safe - perhaps safer - if the men around her are carrying arms. If the policemen around her are keeping her safe why should not the non-police-men around her do so as well? If the police-women around her are keeping her safe why should not the non-police-women around her do so as well? Such a line of reasoning just might succeed.

    If women can serve in the police and military then women can safely and responsibly bear arms just as do policemen and servicemen.

    Long term, we need to get gun-saftey classes in elementary and middle schools. We need to get marksmanship in high-schools. This is a 2-pronged approach. Locally, we have to persuade our school boards to act in the interest of safety and preparing teens to consider careers in public service. Nationally, we need to persuade our Congressmen that Federal funding for schools needs to be tied to preparation of the militia for public service. We must also persuade our Congressmen that the 1A rights of speech and press (and, generally, expression) must be protected from intimidation by public employees under color-of-law. Would we tolerate school officials suppression of T-shirts expressing of support for the right to vote by minorities, women or 18-year-olds? No? Absurd you say? Well, then, why do we tolerate school officials suppression of T-shirts expressing support for our military or our 2A rights to keep and bear arms?

    All the work we have to do is political. There is no other path to defending our Constitutional rights. We either practice politics smartly - effectively - as have the Progressives, Socialists, and Totalitarians; or, we practice politics ineffectively (or, not-at-all). Our greatest success in the past 20 years has been won in State legislatures adopting Shall-Issue laws. All politics is local; learn from our success.

    Mark

  10. #29
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan
    Posts
    3,352
    Apparently some folks have swallowed the idea that "shall not be infringed" doesn't mean "shall not be infringed" but means "the government has the power to decide and institute .. reasonable... infringements". The Constitution says what it says... period. Any and all "interpretations" that put restrictions upon what the Constitution says are "infringements".... period.

    And while I understand that the socio-political climate has evolved to where many people think the Constitution is something that is open to "interpretation" that is NOT what the Constitution was written for. The Constitution was written for one thing and one thing only... to limit the power of the Federal government. And from the instant it was written the Federal government has been trying to find ways to eliminate the restrictions the Constitution puts upon the government.

    And many individual States have Constitutions with protections for the right to bear arms written in them too.

    Am I "delusional" to think that it is possible to return to Constitutional carry? Then how does one explain this?

    Constitutional Carry Index

    Constitutional Carry

    Vermont has had Constitutional Carry since the nation's founding in 1791--
    they never enacted any law banning the right to discreetly bear arms.

    Montana enacted Constitutional Carry in 1991, for all areas
    outside city limits (99.4% of the state), and is working on the rest.

    Alaska enacted Constitutional Carry in 2003.

    Texas enacted Constitutional Carry "light" in 2007
    as the "Motorist Protection Act," freeing people to carry in their vehicles,
    and to and from their vehicles and their homes, land or business.

    Arizona got full Constitutional Carry in 2010,
    and the sky has not fallen, despite desperate fears to the contrary.

    Wyoming enacted Constitutional Carry for residents in 2011.
    -snip-

    Quite frankly the fight isn't on the Federal level... the fight for Constitutional carry is on the individual State level.

    The only thing standing in the way of having Constitutional carry is the belief that it can't happen because of socio-political influences.........

    Edited to add...

    What is "delusional" is thinking a system where the government is in control of who is "allowed" and who is "not allowed" to have permission to bear an arm in the form of a permit has any connection what so ever to ... the right to bear arms ... as stated in the 2nd Amendment that makes NO mention of which method of "bearing" .. "shall not be infringed". Which makes any government permit (or permission by way of a written law) that "allows" a person to exercise a right without suffering a penalty an "infringement". Remember, if some are "allowed" some are also "not allowed" and it is the "not allowed" part that is the "infringement".

  11. #30
    Why do we even need a permission slip?
    The Only Easy Day Was Yesterday

Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... 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