National Concealed Carry Permit before U.S. Senate
Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 38

Thread: National Concealed Carry Permit before U.S. Senate

  1. National Concealed Carry Permit before U.S. Senate

    Last edited by lukem; 08-04-2011 at 08:47 AM.

  2.   
  3. #2
    It would be a symbolic fight with no chance of surviving. In the unlikely event it passes, Obama is sure to veto it. It might be better to pursue something productive. For example, remove the state residency and contiguous state provisions for buying a rifle or shotgun since we now have NICS. NICS cancels any need for such a provision in GCA68 (I think that's the law that does it)

  4. You really think Obama would veto in an election year with a majority of states supporting it?

  5. #4
    Here's for hoping!

  6. #5
    Maine CWP Trng:

    Yes, I do. He is so narcistic he can't believe any significant amount of people would oppose him on this. But I really don't think it would pass the Congress. On top of that, I think it's a bad idea. Imagine how complicated it would be. Registration would certainly be at risk in such a bill. How would you reconcile it with Vermont, Arizona, and Alaska law?

  7. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by JimPage View Post
    Maine CWP Trng:

    Yes, I do. He is so narcistic he can't believe any significant amount of people would oppose him on this. But I really don't think it would pass the Congress. On top of that, I think it's a bad idea. Imagine how complicated it would be. Registration would certainly be at risk in such a bill. How would you reconcile it with Vermont, Arizona, and Alaska law?
    There will inevitably be some posting that we should not need any permits at all etc etc et al. But, for the time being, it would be nice to not have to worry about your permit being valid any more than your driver's license. It is true, the few states that do not require any permits right now would have to introduce them but on the plus side their residents could then travel anyplace in the US.

  8. #7
    You realize, should this pass, that it will be given to BATFE to manage? I imagine they will then just keep making them harder and harder to get like they did for FFLs. There is nothing the fed gets involved in that they do not wind up complicating. If in doubt, just remember that Income Taxes were suppose to be temporary only to help fund World War II.


  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Kalifornia & Idaho
    Posts
    1,052
    I can never understand why anyone thinks this is a bad idea. It is only recognizing a Constitutional requirement anyway. It's not getting the Fed's more involved than they already (largely unconstitutionally) are.
    Maybejim

    Life Member NRA
    Life Member CRPA
    Life Member SASS

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

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by maybejim View Post
    I can never understand why anyone thinks this is a bad idea. It is only recognizing a Constitutional requirement anyway. It's not getting the Fed's more involved than they already (largely unconstitutionally) are.
    Well, I can't understand why anyone thinks this is a good idea. For one thing it is a direct violation of the 10th amendment and just provides the Feds with the first step in taking over the permit process and some Washington idiot deciding who gets permits and who doesn't. Be very careful of what you wish for because you just may get it. How you can say that it isn't getting the Feds more involved is beyond me.

Page 1 of 4 123 ... 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