North dakota considering concealed carry with a permit
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 12

Thread: North dakota considering concealed carry with a permit

  1. #1

    North dakota considering concealed carry with a permit

    It has come to my attention through another C/C gun forum that North Dakota is considering a legal concealed carry with out a permit.

    Bill would allow gun owners to conceal and carry without a permit in North Dakota | West Fargo Pioneer

    Good luck to the people of North Dakota, hope you get it.

  2.   
  3. Indiana "carry without permit"

    Indiana lawmakers will consider a bill similar to the ND one: "House Bill 1159, introduced by state Representative Jim Lucas (R-69), would eliminate the requirement to obtain a permit in order to lawfully carry. This bill recognizes a law-abiding adultís unconditional Right to Keep and Bear Arms for self-defense in the manner he or she chooses. This bill will make the current permitting system optional to allow citizens to obtain permits to take advantage of reciprocity agreements with other states."

  4. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by SR9 View Post
    It has come to my attention through another C/C gun forum that North Dakota is considering a legal concealed carry with out a permit.

    Bill would allow gun owners to conceal and carry without a permit in North Dakota | West Fargo Pioneer

    Good luck to the people of North Dakota, hope you get it.
    Your thread title...

  5. #4
    These "state constitutional carry" bills are not normally favored by local law enforcement and so the governors can veto them even if they pass.

    As long as you live in a "shall issue" state, you really don't need "state constitutional carry" and the disadvantage is there is no vetting of persons carrying concealed legally.

    State constitutional carry fans get really aggravated at the mention of the issue of the pro's and con's. They also misconstrue the meaning of "bear arms" in the Federal 2nd Amendment as well. Scalia defines this as meaning "bring your gun" not "wear your gun in public".

    It all gets really hot and bothered fast.

    Personally I am in favor of shall-issue and in favor of universal state reciprocity. But I am not in favor of state constitutional carry.

  6. Quote Originally Posted by HKS View Post

    As long as you live in a "shall issue" state, you really don't need "state constitutional carry" and the disadvantage is there is no vetting of persons carrying concealed legally.
    .
    Shall issue is not working so well in Illinois, specifically Cook county


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

  7. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    TN
    Posts
    4,255
    Quote Originally Posted by HKS View Post
    These "state constitutional carry" bills are not normally favored by local law enforcement and so the governors can veto them even if they pass.

    As long as you live in a "shall issue" state, you really don't need "state constitutional carry" and the disadvantage is there is no vetting of persons carrying concealed legally.

    State constitutional carry fans get really aggravated at the mention of the issue of the pro's and con's. They also misconstrue the meaning of "bear arms" in the Federal 2nd Amendment as well. Scalia defines this as meaning "bring your gun" not "wear your gun in public".

    It all gets really hot and bothered fast.

    Personally I am in favor of shall-issue and in favor of universal state reciprocity. But I am not in favor of state constitutional carry.
    I guess you would be fine with a 1st Amendment permit too, as long as it is "shall issue"? I guess the mandatory fee, paperwork and training for exercising a Constitutional right could also be extended to the right to vote? After all, we can't have every idiot freely speaking their mind and then vote for their candidate without government guidance.

    There is no vetting of persons carrying concealed illegally. You have no argument.

    Scalia is dead, so apparently is the Constitution. What is the difference between "bring your gun" and "wear your gun in public"?

  8. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Republic of Dead Cell Holler, Occupied Territories of AL, former USA
    Posts
    7,762
    Quote Originally Posted by HKS View Post
    These "state constitutional carry" bills are not normally favored by local law enforcement and so the governors can veto them even if they pass.

    As long as you live in a "shall issue" state, you really don't need "state constitutional carry" and the disadvantage is there is no vetting of persons carrying concealed legally.

    State constitutional carry fans get really aggravated at the mention of the issue of the pro's and con's. They also misconstrue the meaning of "bear arms" in the Federal 2nd Amendment as well. Scalia defines this as meaning "bring your gun" not "wear your gun in public".

    It all gets really hot and bothered fast.

    Personally I am in favor of shall-issue and in favor of universal state reciprocity. But I am not in favor of state constitutional carry.
    Maybe you could show us where in the Constitution it grants one singular SCOTUS Justice the authority to define with force of law, the meaning of any word or phrase contained therein. Scalia was as entitled to his opinions as you or I are. Doesn't mean he's right, and it sure as heck doesn't mean any lowly citizen has to agree with and/or acquiesce to definitions of anything that doesn't comport with the lowly citizen's own understanding of the English language.

    The very fact that you advocate for government "vetting" (whatever greater or lesser of a complicated and expensive process you might imagine that to mean) of people only exercising their unalienable and fundamental rights in the same post that you advocate for national reciprocity is proof positive that you know nothing of the original intent of either the Second Amendment or the wider Constitution itself. I live in a state that does a NICS check for a permit to conceal, and no permit at all is required to open carry. Permits are cheap, no BS "training" or handling demonstrations on a range are required, and no freakin' fingerprinting like a common criminal is required either. If you get your national reciprocity, my state will surely lose its ability to more or less show trust in her citizens in the above regards. National reciprocity will most certainly result in the lowest-restrictive states eventually being forced to adapt to the highest-restrictive states' requirements. No federal law in the history of history has ever controlled an issue to the lowest common denominator. Please leave us alone with your big, centralized, gun-controlling federal schemes to take away what little liberty citizens of this country have left.

    Blues
    No one has ever heard me say that I "hate" cops, because I don't. This is why I will never trust one again though: You just never know...

  9. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by HKS View Post
    These "state constitutional carry" bills are not normally favored by local law enforcement and so the governors can veto them even if they pass.

    As long as you live in a "shall issue" state, you really don't need "state constitutional carry" and the disadvantage is there is no vetting of persons carrying concealed legally.

    State constitutional carry fans get really aggravated at the mention of the issue of the pro's and con's. They also misconstrue the meaning of "bear arms" in the Federal 2nd Amendment as well. Scalia defines this as meaning "bring your gun" not "wear your gun in public".

    It all gets really hot and bothered fast.

    Personally I am in favor of shall-issue and in favor of universal state reciprocity. But I am not in favor of state constitutional carry.
    And that's the difference between the pro-gun forums and the Brady Campaign and Mom's Demand Actions forums. You can come here and express your desire for gun control and your disregard for the Constitution of the United States and we will allow your post to stay, we will allow you to remain a member of the forum, and we will debate your ideas. But what happens when a pro-gun person posts on the Brady Bunch website or the Moms not getting enough action websites about the utter nonsense of things like "no vetting of persons carrying concealed legally" - their posts get removed and the person gets banned. Why? Because their views, like yours, are emotionally based and have no factual basis in the real world.

    I'll give you an example. Your statement "the disadvantage is there is no vetting of persons carrying concealed legally." Let's compare Vermont and California. A convicted felon is carrying a concealed firearm. That is a crime in both Vermont and California. The convicted felon walks into a convenience store in Vermont or California, points the gun to the clerks head and robs them. That is a crime in both Vermont and California. So exactly what has this "vetting of persons carrying concealed legally" accomplished to reduce crime? Absolutely 100% NOTHING! All your "shall issue" permit system does it make it harder and more expensive for the person who desires to follow the law to do so. It has no effect on the person who is going to violate the law anyway.

    Let's take another example. Cop stops Joe Smith for speeding. He asks Joe Smith if he has any weapons. Joe Smith says yes, there is a pistol in the glove box. Again, let's go to Vermont or to Washington where a CPL is required to carry a loaded handgun in a vehicle. If Joe Smith is prohibited from possessing a firearm in Vermont or Washington then it is illegal in both states for him to have the gun in the vehicle. The CPL requirement does not change that in any way. If Joe Smith is not prohibited from possessing a firearm now what changes in Washington because of the CPL requirement? Only one thing changes. Joe Smith must go and have his fingerprints taken, pay the state a fee for a background check, receive a permission slip from the state and carry that permission slip with him whenever he has the gun in the car. That is all that has changed. Absolutely NOTHING ELSE has changed other than making Joe Smith jump through the hoops and pay the state a tax in order to legally exercise his right to bear arms which is supposed to be protected by the US Constitution! Does the CPL requirement do anything to reduce crime? NO, absolutely not.

    Why stop with the 2nd Amendment. Why don't we have 4th Amendment permits? Imaging how much easier that would make a cop's job and how much safer society would be? Here's how it would work. You have to do the same thing to get a 4th Amendment permit as you do a concealed carry license. Have fingerprints done every 1 to 5 years. Pay the state for a background check. You get your 4th Amendment permit. Cop stops you for speeding. He asks to see your 4th Amendment permit. You don't have it. So without it the government has now granted the authority to the cop to pull you out of your car, handcuff you, sit you down on the ground and search through every crevice of your vehicle looking for anything illegal. I mean why should you have any 4th Amendment rights without being vetted by the government first? Would you be in favor of that? Why not?

    I would love to hear an intelligent reply but I won't hold my breath.
    Anyone who says, "I support the 2nd amendment, BUT"... doesn't. Element of Surprise: a mythical element that many believe has the same affect upon criminals that Kryptonite has upon Superman.

  10. #9
    North Dakota already allows concealed carry with a permit.

  11. Quote Originally Posted by Genasi View Post
    North Dakota already allows concealed carry with a permit.
    This thread was started by SR9. He very seldom ever gets anything right.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

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