Nat'l CCW outrage brewing among anti-gunners


PDA






Dave Workman
July 21, 2009, 04:33 PM
Outrage over national concealed carry while Seattle looks for a killer

http://www.examiner.com/x-4525-Seattle-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m7d21-Outrage-over-national-concealed-carry-misplaced-while-Seattle-looks-for-a-killer



if that doesn't work, try this:

http://tinyurl.com/kns7gr


You will find links to other Examiner.com articles about this, from David Codrea and John Pierce

If you enjoyed reading about "Nat'l CCW outrage brewing among anti-gunners" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
sonier
July 21, 2009, 06:03 PM
whats the law called which proposed one...... HR?? what

ArmedBear
July 21, 2009, 06:12 PM
Like your Senators in Washington would vote for the amendment, anyway.

This is about winning, not kissing ass and worrying about fake "outrage" drummed up by antis in Seattle.

Seattle is second only to San Francisco when it comes to always-outraged moonbats. Sun Tzu is a lot more useful than Dale Carnegie, when dealing with those who will never be allies.

cauberallies
July 21, 2009, 06:43 PM
The anchor woman on CNN around 4 pm today was confident that this will most likely make it through congress. I was surprised to hear that.

Oro
July 21, 2009, 06:51 PM
The anchor woman on CNN around 4 pm today was confident that this will most likely make it through congress. I was surprised to hear that.

I'm not. There is not "teflon" defense for being anti-gun right now. The mood in the country is sour at elected officials, and mid-term election season is going to start this winter. An anti-gun vote is not something most Democrats can make right now. It's public politics pure and simple.

It will probably be like the parks carry bill. It will get attached to some abomination of a health reform bill and it will be a bitter pill part of that Dems will have to swallow to get some socialized medicine in place.

Dr. Fresh
July 21, 2009, 06:52 PM
ArmedBear, at least our gun laws are much better than those in CA, so those pesky Seattle people can't do squat.

EDIT: Anyone have a link to the bill itself? I'm kind of curious how it works. Can someone with a CPL from Washington carry as if they had one in New York?

withdrawn34
July 21, 2009, 07:04 PM
As I understand it you are still subject to the laws of the state you are in. I'm not sure what is preventing, say, NYC from "accepting" your permit, but then saying you are not allowed to carry anywhere.

Officers'Wife
July 21, 2009, 07:07 PM
When aren't the anti-gunners outraged about something?

OK, I'll be nice. These kind of 'something has to be done or the world will end' proclamations are part and parcel of the utopia crowd. Luckily the pendulum has swung the other way to more common sense among the masses and these tactics are becoming less and less effective. The one advantage to having a far left President is that by the time he has done his thing the common people are going to be heartily sick of the Utopian reformers.

Dr. Fresh
July 21, 2009, 07:09 PM
paul34, wouldn't NYC have to pass an ordinance first?

tdowell
July 21, 2009, 07:15 PM
As I understand it you are still subject to the laws of the state you are in. I'm not sure what is preventing, say, NYC from "accepting" your permit, but then saying you are not allowed to carry anywhere.
The law, as I heard it explained today, states that "if a new yorker is licensed to carry a gun in New York, then a missourian has the same right in new york." that being the case it would not affect states like IL were ccl is already illegal.

toivo
July 21, 2009, 08:39 PM
As I understand it you are still subject to the laws of the state you are in. I'm not sure what is preventing, say, NYC from "accepting" your permit, but then saying you are not allowed to carry anywhere.

This could get interesting, because NYC doesn't even recognize a New York State permit. Would they have to start?

spentbrass
July 21, 2009, 09:18 PM
But...the South Park killings were commited with a knife. Ahh, forget it, no reasoning with a Seattlite when it comes to guns.

Deltaboy
July 21, 2009, 09:53 PM
Nothing like seeing quakes have a fit.

Prince Yamato
July 21, 2009, 11:01 PM
This could get interesting, because NYC doesn't even recognize a New York State permit. Would they have to start?

Yes. It would be like a driver's license. NYC has to recognize an NYS driver's license. Now they will have to recognize the pistol license too.

Faitmaker
July 22, 2009, 07:42 AM
There's HR 197 (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-197) which also says that you can carry in states that do not issue. It was referred to committee in Feb so I wouldn't put much faith in that one. This would allow you to carry in Wis and Ill as well if passed.

The one that everyone is talking about is S 845 (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-845) which does not have the No CCW provision like HR 197. This would allow you to carry according to STATE laws. If NY allows NYC to restrict carry, you would have to follow those restrictions. This bill DOES NOT make any laws invalid other than any law not recoginizing an out of state permit. If NY CHL holders cannot carry in NYC, you won't be able to either.

And of course, you can go here (http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=455789) to join the discussion we've been having on this forum about the ramifications and the constitutionality of the bill.

ArmedBear
July 22, 2009, 09:57 AM
ArmedBear, at least our gun laws are much better than those in CA, so those pesky Seattle people can't do squat.


Clearly, that's true.

Hence, why waste energy on their attempts to manufacture "outrage" that doesn't really exist? It's playing into their hands, not helping the cause of RKBA.

That was my point. Don't take a few astroturfing anti's at their words. There's no real outrage.

Perhaps reporting on the attempts to fake it would be more valuable than playing into the BS.

Not as good for hit counts, perhaps?

christcorp
July 22, 2009, 11:38 AM
I'm not a fan of taking power from the state and giving it back to the federal government. BUT; I do think it's wrong if a state has certain standards set forth for the issuance of a CCW; such as no person that has been treated for drug abuse can have a ccw. Yet; a person from another state where they don't have such a rule, and has a ccw even though they been treated for drug abuse a number of times; and now that person can come into the other state and carry. Especially considering a local person might be denied having a CCW permit.

I'd rather see that all 50 states have similar requirements for obtaining a CCW. Just about all 50 states have similar requirements for a driver's license. I.e. at least 16 years old, no medical conditions that would affect driving, written and practical test, eye exam, etc... I'd like to see either a national ccw requirement or at least a set of standards that all states would adopt and use as requirements.

toivo
July 22, 2009, 01:34 PM
I'm just thinking out loud, but what about having an optional national CCW that sets a fairly high bar (let's say NY-style background check) but is recognized by all 50 states, no doubt, no question? You could still opt to go with your state CCW on its own terms, but if you travel a lot you could choose to "go national." People who don't trust the Feds and/or don't need the flexibility could stick with their state system.

Obviously this too is a compromise, but it would definitely undercut all the anti rhetoric, like Bloomberg ranting about CCWs from "easy" states flooding New York with their evil guns and lawless ways. Also, it would get interesting for non-CCW states: How would such a system treat them? Could they opt out? Would that be constitutional?

I don't really see this as a states-rights issue. Certain rights are protected by the Constitution because they are seen as worthy of being guaranteed to all. If individual states can abrogate any of these rights, in what sense are they "guaranteed"? I'm not a Constitutional scholar by any means, but I believe this is the crux of the "incorporation" doctrine.

Jeff White
July 22, 2009, 01:35 PM
The anti-gunners won a round...58 voted for it, it needed 60 to pass...It was interesting to hear the statists like Boxer and Feinstein screaming about how it violated states rights....

ArmedBear
July 22, 2009, 01:41 PM
...and Shumer say that "this saved lives."

...because God knows, while I won't ever shoot an innocent person in Idaho, as soon as I cross the Oregon line, I might turn into a sociopathic killer.

Those fingerprints the FBI has on file for me are only really valid in Idaho, too. They don't work in Oregon. My fingerprints change spontaneously as soon as I cross over into Oregon.

Finally, the Oregon cops are clairvoyant. They KNOW who has a gun hidden on him as he drives into the state. So only with a permit could someone possibly carry a gun into Oregon. Making sure my permit isn't valid 30 miles from my house simply GUARANTEES that no criminal will carry a gun into Oregon without a permit.

(None of that even accounts for the fact that much of Eastern Oregon is the Third World compared to Boise...)

CajunPower
July 22, 2009, 03:13 PM
I hope seattle's mayor realizes my state has reciprocity with his, and I can carry in his city all day long.

rbernie
July 22, 2009, 03:17 PM
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=463965

If you enjoyed reading about "Nat'l CCW outrage brewing among anti-gunners" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!