National concealed carry? - Page 3
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 42

Thread: National concealed carry?

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    NE Portland, Oregon - PacNW
    Posts
    328

    Thumbs up

    Quote Originally Posted by BluesStringer View Post
    Wow doublenutz, you're going to make me blush! :o Thanks for the kudos though, and thanks for *getting it*.

    Blues

    Bro I like the way you put that so much, I actually thought of using it as my signature line.

    Respect where Respect is due... and that was very well put.
    MΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

  2.   
  3. #22

    Thumbs up

    Quote Originally Posted by Torch View Post
    Federalization is a bad thing as far as I'm concerned. The founding fathers intended this county to be run mostly by the states. I'm a big 10th amendment supporter and don't like the idea of federalizing anything.

    In short, I don't think we have a 'problem' at all.
    I am not only for a Nation-Wide Concealed Carry Law I am also for a Nation-Wide Preemption law that prevents states, counties, cities and other municipalities from enacting gun laws more restrictive then at the national level; moreover, such a preemption law would not allow a grandfather clause; in other words those already on the books would be reversed...

    There is no way the founding fathers meant for people in New York and California to have less rights then the rest of the country...

    This is further supported by their placing it only 2nd to freedom of speech...

    "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

    If we do nothing we will only be able to say that we did nothing...

    Write your representatives in Washington:
    http://www.capwiz.com/nra/dbq/officials/

    Write the Media:
    http://www.capwiz.com/nra/dbq/media/

    Write GOA - the Gun Owners of America:
    http://www.gunowners.org/

    Write the Second Amendment Foundation:
    http://saf.org/

    Write the National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action:
    http://www.nraila.org/

    Write the NRA News:
    http://www.nranews.com/

    Read The Unabridged Second Amendment:
    http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/unabridged.2nd.html

    Semper Fidelis

  4. My Views

    Quote Originally Posted by Packingpadre View Post
    I also believe reciprocity should be left to the states, but Legislatures must make it easier for agreements to be worked out.
    I find it odd living in Washington state that our neighbor state to the east, Idaho, gives Washington residents reciprocity, yet Washington doesn't give Idaho the same back.

    I also found Washington's issuance of my Concealed Pistol License less than expected, there were no courses, nothing! I just went into the local police station and filled out an application, they did an FBI background check and shortly afterwards I had my license. Though I've dealt with handguns all my life, hunted and fished all my life, I'm 55 now and I very well know gun safety, but when I think that they'd just hand over a license to some youngster who just turned 21 and may never have shot much, or maybe not even any at all, and there's no safety courses or shooting courses period, it just doesn't make sense to me. I value my Concealed Pistol License, but I guess I want to be as sure as anyone else would that the people they issue them to have enough sense to handle theirs correctly. Lack of gun safety seems to me it could risk the entire program, I'm not sure why they don't require more.

    One other point I noted last night, the lady I've lived with for 13 years had to go to the hospital ER with a bad eye infection, I had to check my firearm, a S&W Model 36, at the security checkpoint inside, which is fine with me, but they stuck it in a firearms locker and didn't lock it. As I sat in the emergency room I watched their security people leave the room numerous times to assist people into the building who were arriving at the hospital, so the room would be empty for a few minutes now and then. I was very uncomfortable with the knowledge that my weapon was in that room unsecured. What's the point of a firearms locker if you're not going to lock the door? I'd have felt more comfortable having had control of it myself than knowing it was sitting in there unlocked and knowing they were leaving the room now and then even if it wasn't for very long! Just my two cents on the matter, but it stood out never the less.

    SnowCajun

  5. #24
    I for one am against a National CCW. It seems to that the magority of the gun bans, anti-gunners and anti-gun laws aor coming from the "National" level not the state level. I for one do not like the idea of them controlling any more of what I can and can't do in my life than they already do. It is easier to fight a state law than it is a Federal law.

    The federal lawmakers would rather for us to give up our right to bear arms BUT I do not ever see any of them offering to give up their bodyguards or Secret service agents to prove their point. Why is it okay for them to protect their families but I can not protect mine.
    Fred

  6. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by Bohemian View Post
    I am not only for a Nation-Wide Concealed Carry Law I am also for a Nation-Wide Preemption law that prevents states, counties, cities and other municipalities from enacting gun laws more restrictive then at the national level
    - my emphasis


    This already exists. It is called the 2nd amendment of the constitution. What you're really talking about is enacting a federal law called the "The 2nd Amendment: We Really Mean It Act".

    As far as I know of, enacting legislation that simply reiterates an existing fundamental right of the constitution is unprecedented, although I won't say that it's a bad idea...

    As long as the language of the law is careful not to acknowledge the legitimacy of any firearm restriction laws, state or federal.

    But what we're talking about here is a total rollback of gun control, all the way back to the National Firearms Act. It's going to take a tiny bit of convincing, to say the least. Nice dream though.
    Last edited by ishi; 10-01-2007 at 09:20 PM. Reason: emphasis added

  7. #26
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Out in the country; Chilton county
    Posts
    20

    Alright already! Enough about nonexistant "states' rights"

    According to Constitutional delineation, states have powers and authorities; only people have rights! Even the Federal government does not have rights!

    "States' rights" is a Mainstream Media invention and can nowhere be found in Constitutional law, notwithstanding the questionable 10th amendment.

    I'm really disappointed to see so many presumed constitutionalists espousing this ridiculous notion.

    I'd especially expect the likes of BluesStringer to know better. Let's talk about states' powers and authorities (or lack thereof) and lay off "states' rights".

    Woody (aka constitution cowboy, nee' woodcdi), you can chime in anytime now. Where's my backup when I need him?

    ElZorro

  8. #27
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    NE Portland, Oregon - PacNW
    Posts
    328
    Quote Originally Posted by ElZorro View Post
    I'm really disappointed to see so many presumed constitutionalists espousing this ridiculous notion.

    I'd especially expect the likes of BluesStringer to know better. Let's talk about states' powers and authorities (or lack thereof) and lay off "states' rights".

    ElZorro

    HUH???? Wow, that was harsh!

    I believe this was already said and undertood by several here at least by myself and Blues Stringer.

    Quote Originally Posted by doublenutz View Post
    ...the 2nd Amendment did not give States the authority to infringe upon the rights of citizens.
    Nothing said about "States rights " there
    MΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

  9. Thanks for all the viewpoints. I definitely believe in the authority of the States to do whatever they want as long as the following thing is true:

    They don't in so doing violate any citizen rights as stated in the US Bill of Rights.

    All city & state laws that tell me I can't bear my weapon which is a right guaranteed me by the bill of rights are unconstitutional & step on my individual constitutional rights. Same thing with laws that tell me I need to ask permission to either buy or carry a weapon or ammunition. Can you imagine a new law that prohibits people from carrying laptops without a permit to make sure they don't post anything on the internet? That is no more an infringement of the 1st Amendment than we currently deal with on the 2nd.

    As we all know, there are many local politicians & courts that currently follow the illogical belief that the 2nd Amendment is a "State Right" to keep a militia with arms - ignoring the fact that the bill of rights is for the people, not the states.

    I therefore think that the passage of federal legislation clarifying that could be helpful, even if only in the form of a very simple law:

    "The 2nd amendment is an individual right you thick headed numbskull left wing activist judges & politicians - ANY STATE OR LOCAL LAW THAT INFRINGES ON THE RIGHTS OF LAW ABIDING CITIZENS TO BEAR ARMS IN EITHER OPEN OR CONCEALED CARRY IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL"

    Of course the repeal of federal laws that prohibit weapons on federal property would be a good idea as well, would be a bit hypocritical to say it’s ok for the federal government to ignore the 2nd Amendment & tell the States that they can’t.

    Probably would not be clear enough for most of the anti gun folks, but you have to start somewhere right?
    Last edited by swifteagle; 10-01-2007 at 06:20 PM. Reason: typo
    My Blog: Dustin's Gun Blog

    Memberships: NRA USCCA SAF GOA AZCDL NWSA

    According to the National Safety Council, we are more likely to die in a bicycle accident or plane crash than an accidental gun shooting. We should ban bicycles & planes before banning guns.

  10. #29
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Иєш Лєяжşєşŧăŋ
    Posts
    1,084
    I'm with BluesStringer. The Constitution and Bill of Rights are the Supreme Law of the United States, and the individual States can (should?) only be permitted to enact laws which are not in conflict with those. If the finding that "any law abhorrent to the Constitution is invalid on it's face" (Marbury v Madison) has any value, it should be applied here. There is no Constitutional Right to drive a car . . . there is to keep and bear.
    NRA Life; GOA Life; CCRKBA Life; Trustee, NJCSD; F&AM: 32 & KT
    The Only Answer to a Bad Guy with a Gun - Is a Good Guy with a Gun!
    When Seconds Count...The Police are only MINUTES Away!

  11. #30
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    NE Portland, Oregon - PacNW
    Posts
    328

    Thumbs up

    Quote Originally Posted by Ektarr View Post
    I'm with BluesStringer. The Constitution and Bill of Rights are the Supreme Law of the United States, and the individual States can (should?) only be permitted to enact laws which are not in conflict with those. If the finding that "any law abhorrent to the Constitution is invalid on it's face" (Marbury v Madison) has any value, it should be applied here. There is no Constitutional Right to drive a car . . . there is to keep and bear.
    I agree wholly...
    MΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 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