12 States on path to NO-permit carry
- Thread starter Ryanxia
- Start date
- Status
callenlee
Member
Tennessee permit is $115. I've seen classes range from free (one of the local police departments offers a free class...I'd imagine there is probably a nice wait list) to $60.
I don't carry mainly because I'm either at work where firearms are prohibited by law, or at home. I don't have a problem so much with the permit itself or with the class. My objection is the $115 for the permit. I'd understand if the fee was 1/3 or even 1/2 of that figure, but 115 is a bit exhorbitant I think. If the cost was lower I would get a permit and carry where legal just in case.
I don't carry mainly because I'm either at work where firearms are prohibited by law, or at home. I don't have a problem so much with the permit itself or with the class. My objection is the $115 for the permit. I'd understand if the fee was 1/3 or even 1/2 of that figure, but 115 is a bit exhorbitant I think. If the cost was lower I would get a permit and carry where legal just in case.
Last edited:
Owen
Moderator Emeritus
Maine is effete? Its all lumberjacks and fishermen. effete? really?
The War Wagon
Member
I'll be happier when ALL 57 states are on that path... 
I guess no one else remembers the Monte Python lumber jack song.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zey8567bcg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zey8567bcg
Fl will never give up the revenue, they send out your vechicle regitration renewal 3 months months early, and your corporate renewal 6 months early, it's due in May,I got mine in Decemberor January. Really strapped for cash.
Unless they can figure a way to charge you for not having a license,lol
Unless they can figure a way to charge you for not having a license,lol
HoosierQ
Member
Are we sure we actually want this to happen? At the state level I mean?
We're seem to be getting closer and closer to universal reciprocity. Right now with an Indiana permit, I can carry all the way South to the gulf states and all the way west (once I figure out how to get around Illinois) to the great basin with a few islands of non-reciprocation here and there.
I'd rather see 1) every state in the union go "shall issue" and 2) every state then go with reciprocity. If I lived in one of those states that gave up permits I think I'd loose the ability to carry outside of my state.
I certainly agree with the sentiment that "the 2nd Amendment is my carry permit". However the law is the law and that is not yet the legal reality.
I am sure I am in the minority here but lets play the politics of statistics for a moment. The continued issuance also creates a nice statistic for us...the extremely low rate of crime among "the permitted". Again, not the ideal situation...needing a statistic to support what's right...but it is a political fact that people and lawmakers react to statistics.
We're seem to be getting closer and closer to universal reciprocity. Right now with an Indiana permit, I can carry all the way South to the gulf states and all the way west (once I figure out how to get around Illinois) to the great basin with a few islands of non-reciprocation here and there.
I'd rather see 1) every state in the union go "shall issue" and 2) every state then go with reciprocity. If I lived in one of those states that gave up permits I think I'd loose the ability to carry outside of my state.
I certainly agree with the sentiment that "the 2nd Amendment is my carry permit". However the law is the law and that is not yet the legal reality.
I am sure I am in the minority here but lets play the politics of statistics for a moment. The continued issuance also creates a nice statistic for us...the extremely low rate of crime among "the permitted". Again, not the ideal situation...needing a statistic to support what's right...but it is a political fact that people and lawmakers react to statistics.
Black Duck Charlie
Member
Owen Sparks;
Let's see.... We all know about the 2nd Amendment, so I'll skip that.
Section 8 of the Constitution deals with the Powers which are granted to Congress: To enact taxes; to regulate commerce, both with Foreign Nations and between individual States; to provide for the arming, training, etc of the Militia; etc; etc. Can't find where it says people are allowed to go armed any time they want. Can't find anything which bars the States from passing laws on who is allowed to go about armed, either.
The States. Well, the Powers granted to the individual States start with Article 4, Section 1 -- and Section 2 says "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States" -- but there is nothing there that says people are allowed to go armed any time they want, nor (again) anything saying States are not allowed to pass laws keeping certain people from going about armed.
Amendments 9 and 10. Here we go, the first two Amendments that are usually quoted as giving individual people and States the right to what they want, when they want. Yet all these two Amendments say is that "certain rights" are still retained by "the People" and "the States". They do not say that individuals and/or states are allowed to do what they want, when they want. Still nothing concerning being allowed to go armed whenever/wherever they want.
The 14th Amendment. Again, a favorite of those espousing "States' Rights". It doesn't really say what many of them claim, though -- and still nothing saying that people are allowed to go armed in public. Of course, nothing saying that States cannot pass gun-control laws, either. It does however, require that "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
In the entire Constitution, with the obvious exception of the 2nd Amendment, I can find nothing which actually allows people to go about armed. On the other hand, I also find nothing which says that individual States are not allowed to pass laws designed to control who IS allowed to go about armed.
Whether the 2nd Amendment allows individual States the "right" to pass and enact laws designed to keep certain people from going about armed, simply because it does not expressly forbid them from doing so (see Amendment 10), is another debate.
Let's see.... We all know about the 2nd Amendment, so I'll skip that.
Section 8 of the Constitution deals with the Powers which are granted to Congress: To enact taxes; to regulate commerce, both with Foreign Nations and between individual States; to provide for the arming, training, etc of the Militia; etc; etc. Can't find where it says people are allowed to go armed any time they want. Can't find anything which bars the States from passing laws on who is allowed to go about armed, either.
The States. Well, the Powers granted to the individual States start with Article 4, Section 1 -- and Section 2 says "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States" -- but there is nothing there that says people are allowed to go armed any time they want, nor (again) anything saying States are not allowed to pass laws keeping certain people from going about armed.
Amendments 9 and 10. Here we go, the first two Amendments that are usually quoted as giving individual people and States the right to what they want, when they want. Yet all these two Amendments say is that "certain rights" are still retained by "the People" and "the States". They do not say that individuals and/or states are allowed to do what they want, when they want. Still nothing concerning being allowed to go armed whenever/wherever they want.
The 14th Amendment. Again, a favorite of those espousing "States' Rights". It doesn't really say what many of them claim, though -- and still nothing saying that people are allowed to go armed in public. Of course, nothing saying that States cannot pass gun-control laws, either. It does however, require that "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
In the entire Constitution, with the obvious exception of the 2nd Amendment, I can find nothing which actually allows people to go about armed. On the other hand, I also find nothing which says that individual States are not allowed to pass laws designed to control who IS allowed to go about armed.
Whether the 2nd Amendment allows individual States the "right" to pass and enact laws designed to keep certain people from going about armed, simply because it does not expressly forbid them from doing so (see Amendment 10), is another debate.
Black Duck Charlie
Member
Of course, when everyone is allowed to go about armed, then even those who are mentally unbalanced and ready to "snap" at the slightest provocation are going to go about armed. You all know the type: Paranoid, "knowing" that their neighbor/co-worker(s)/etc are just waiting for an opportunity to kill them. Then there is another kind: The average habitual criminal (no, not "hardened criminal" - just "habitual")....
Does anyone here really believe that not requiring some kind of permit to go about armed is a good idea? And, yes, I know that anyone who is determined enough to get a gun illegally will always find a way to get a gun, so don't bother. There are probably ten times as many people who would "go postal" if they had legal access to a gun who do not get an illegal gun as there are people who do, and we just do not hear about it.
Does anyone here really believe that not requiring some kind of permit to go about armed is a good idea? And, yes, I know that anyone who is determined enough to get a gun illegally will always find a way to get a gun, so don't bother. There are probably ten times as many people who would "go postal" if they had legal access to a gun who do not get an illegal gun as there are people who do, and we just do not hear about it.
Freedom_fighter_in_IL
Member
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2010
- Messages
- 2,097
Black Duck Charlie, could you please tell me what part of "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." is in ANY way UNCLEAR? This is the problem we face. People are trying to get around the SIMPLEST worded amendment in the constitution. There is NO other way to define it. NO state has the authority to countermand it. They get around breaking the law by trying to say retarded crap as you just spouted off. Shall not be infringed PERIOD. It's not followed by any other BS such as "valid only in Arizona, Vermont, Alaska".
It's just plain stupid that our Government can't admit that the states with the absolute HIGHEST crime rates are the same ones that are so restrictive on firearms. Just look at this one I live in. Kids killing each other on almost a daily basis! Anyone think they got those firearms legally? The only ones these firearms laws you seem to like Charlie are hurting is LAW ABIDING CITIZENS!
It's just plain stupid that our Government can't admit that the states with the absolute HIGHEST crime rates are the same ones that are so restrictive on firearms. Just look at this one I live in. Kids killing each other on almost a daily basis! Anyone think they got those firearms legally? The only ones these firearms laws you seem to like Charlie are hurting is LAW ABIDING CITIZENS!
forestdavegump
Member
Awesome!!!!! I always felt if you can't be trusted with a gun maybe you should not be breathing air.........but read my signature I wear a scarlet G as I am a gun criminal?
forestdavegump
Member
We aim to please....Can't sit here watching the criminals outside 7-11 and do nothing? Got to go with the flow and make all happy! No gun permits=open carry for all and it is Black Duck Season....How Fowl....It is utopia!
wickedsprint
Member
Some states that don't require a permit still have the permit process in place, not sure if intentional though. Wyoming was one.
It is amazing that a piece of cloth costs $140, an 8 hour course with videos, written tests and live fire and then a 8 to 10 week wait and the cops doing a monthly back ground check*...and another $60 every five years all because of a piece of cloth....
A piece of cloth is the difference between concealed carry and open carry. In Kentucky, open carry is allowed without a permit. It is possible to protect oneself here without a permit, without 'training', without spending $140 ,without waiting two months, without having the cops doing a behind the scenes monthly background check*, when a person decides to open carry here...
But as soon that pistol is covered by a cloth....it is a whole different world. That piece of cloth suddenly makes that pistol more dangerous and requires training, fees and long waits...
* Kentucky runs NICS every month on all permit holders, not everyone here knows this. But that is the reason for Kentucky coming in #1 in states for background checks. Now you know.... the rest of the story.....
A piece of cloth is the difference between concealed carry and open carry. In Kentucky, open carry is allowed without a permit. It is possible to protect oneself here without a permit, without 'training', without spending $140 ,without waiting two months, without having the cops doing a behind the scenes monthly background check*, when a person decides to open carry here...
But as soon that pistol is covered by a cloth....it is a whole different world. That piece of cloth suddenly makes that pistol more dangerous and requires training, fees and long waits...
* Kentucky runs NICS every month on all permit holders, not everyone here knows this. But that is the reason for Kentucky coming in #1 in states for background checks. Now you know.... the rest of the story.....
I can't imagine what a carry goes for in NYC. When I left it was over $300 and that was 17 years ago, must be close to a grand now.
So if we get to the stage where there are no licenses, will we still need FFL's to sell guns. Their main reason seems to be to make sure you can legally own one, so if anyone can walk in and buy one, then why would you need an FFL?
Obviouslly there would be no check run if you didn't need a license. You could just buy a gun and walk out ith it.Maybe on class 3 atuff they would still run a check, but otherwiseI guess a drivers license or any form of ID, or no form of ID.How would that work?
If you ask the guy to fill out a form, the form gets destroyed in 2 days, so anyone can just walk in and get a gun, he could have a case pending or an old one that dosen't come up right away, "before computers", so how would that be resolved, anything goes?
Two guys I know for 30 plus years had incidents where the have permits now, but one was turned down on his 3d renewal, because a case of pot smoking when he was 16 that was supposed to me dismissed and destroyed, never was, they issued him a ccw here in FL, then on the 3d renewal found his record from 40 years ago. Cost him a grand to have his lawyer get it resolved.
The other embarrased me, I took an employee up to my friend at police plaza, and the officer came back screaming his head off, at me, thinking I embarrassed him, the guy had a case where the charges were dropped, but again the court screwed up. He got his permit but it cost him time and money to get it fixed.
So who is going to do all this rediculous work if no license is required?
Apparantlly no one checks this stuff unless it's a fluke.
I read someware that they take you at your word for what you put on the 4473 form unless you have an incident. Then they fact check, or they used to, this was 20 years ago. Obviouslly they would have to have an army of people to check everyone who applies for a license or buys a gun. And pre computer days, someone would have to enter all those old cases into the system or they wouldn't show up, kind of makes sense when you see how everything else gets fouled up.
So if we get to the stage where there are no licenses, will we still need FFL's to sell guns. Their main reason seems to be to make sure you can legally own one, so if anyone can walk in and buy one, then why would you need an FFL?
Obviouslly there would be no check run if you didn't need a license. You could just buy a gun and walk out ith it.Maybe on class 3 atuff they would still run a check, but otherwiseI guess a drivers license or any form of ID, or no form of ID.How would that work?
If you ask the guy to fill out a form, the form gets destroyed in 2 days, so anyone can just walk in and get a gun, he could have a case pending or an old one that dosen't come up right away, "before computers", so how would that be resolved, anything goes?
Two guys I know for 30 plus years had incidents where the have permits now, but one was turned down on his 3d renewal, because a case of pot smoking when he was 16 that was supposed to me dismissed and destroyed, never was, they issued him a ccw here in FL, then on the 3d renewal found his record from 40 years ago. Cost him a grand to have his lawyer get it resolved.
The other embarrased me, I took an employee up to my friend at police plaza, and the officer came back screaming his head off, at me, thinking I embarrassed him, the guy had a case where the charges were dropped, but again the court screwed up. He got his permit but it cost him time and money to get it fixed.
So who is going to do all this rediculous work if no license is required?
Apparantlly no one checks this stuff unless it's a fluke.
I read someware that they take you at your word for what you put on the 4473 form unless you have an incident. Then they fact check, or they used to, this was 20 years ago. Obviouslly they would have to have an army of people to check everyone who applies for a license or buys a gun. And pre computer days, someone would have to enter all those old cases into the system or they wouldn't show up, kind of makes sense when you see how everything else gets fouled up.
2000Yards
Member
In 74 posts, by my count, only two people suggested that a permitting process for carrying a gun in public might be a good idea. An expansive interpretation of the 2nd amendment would allow ownership and carry of guns by people on their way to committing crimes, who have just committed a crime, who are repeat and violent offenders. It should allow carry in every place the public is permitted to go - could be a courthouse, could be the White House, an air plane, private propert, etc. COTUS makes no mention of any limiting factors - shall not be infringed applies logically to children, mentally handicapped, and the legally blind. Anyone, anywhere, anytime. No limits.
So is my understanding of "shall not be infringed" right? Did I miss anything? While we're at it, let's fix what's been done to the first amendment - "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech" because, hey, if I want to scream "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater, COTUS guarantees my right to do so.
If you want to buy a car and drive all over your own property, go for it. If you want to operate that machine in public, we all have an interest in making sure you are competent to do it. Ensuring, if someone is going to carry (and potentially use) a gun in public, that they know how to operate it, have some level of proficiency with handling, etc. - I simply can't see as a bad idea.
I understand the slippery slope argument, and there are may issue states that are effectively no-issue, but those are separate problems. Because someone is abusing the system in some way, that doesn't mean the right solution is to throw out the system all together.
2KYDS
So is my understanding of "shall not be infringed" right? Did I miss anything? While we're at it, let's fix what's been done to the first amendment - "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech" because, hey, if I want to scream "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater, COTUS guarantees my right to do so.
If you want to buy a car and drive all over your own property, go for it. If you want to operate that machine in public, we all have an interest in making sure you are competent to do it. Ensuring, if someone is going to carry (and potentially use) a gun in public, that they know how to operate it, have some level of proficiency with handling, etc. - I simply can't see as a bad idea.
I understand the slippery slope argument, and there are may issue states that are effectively no-issue, but those are separate problems. Because someone is abusing the system in some way, that doesn't mean the right solution is to throw out the system all together.
2KYDS
forestdavegump
Member
Open carry. For ALL Americans who choose to!
We can open carry in alot of places in the US. It just freaks out some that don't know the laws. I open carry when I am not driving as I usually don't have my wallet or state ID on me...which is legal here too. When I drive it is just easier to carry concealed as I have my wallet and all that paper work.
But as for my signature you can see that I have been labelled a criminal, by some one out side of my state for doing so.....I don't advocate law breaking, but it is up to the individual.
Natural law would dictate, what is necessary is legal. I would advise that you check your local laws, by READING, the state laws, county laws, and city laws, crazy at it may seem a lot of the cops don't know them! Exercising and standing up for your rights is how to keep them. I would love to see the day in the USA that all good people could carry their guns for all to see, and crime would go down?
We can open carry in alot of places in the US. It just freaks out some that don't know the laws. I open carry when I am not driving as I usually don't have my wallet or state ID on me...which is legal here too. When I drive it is just easier to carry concealed as I have my wallet and all that paper work.
But as for my signature you can see that I have been labelled a criminal, by some one out side of my state for doing so.....I don't advocate law breaking, but it is up to the individual.
Natural law would dictate, what is necessary is legal. I would advise that you check your local laws, by READING, the state laws, county laws, and city laws, crazy at it may seem a lot of the cops don't know them! Exercising and standing up for your rights is how to keep them. I would love to see the day in the USA that all good people could carry their guns for all to see, and crime would go down?
And who'd pull a gun on a guy that can throw his axe at you?
mljdeckard
Member
They didn't mention Utah. We are working on it, our current gov has cold feet. We are looking for a way to leverage or veto-proof it in next year.
effengee
Member
This is why I love Vermont.
Permits? we don' need no steenking permits hahaha
I don't like the idea that I would have to pay to "qualify" to exercise my second amendment right.
I actually carry concealed because it keeps people from freaking out and keeps me from being banned at stores run by idiots who don't understand what the right to keep and bear arms means...
I am Vermont strong, I own guns, and I vote! I also have kids who will pass on to their kids what it means to be a gun owner.
Permits? we don' need no steenking permits hahaha
I don't like the idea that I would have to pay to "qualify" to exercise my second amendment right.
I actually carry concealed because it keeps people from freaking out and keeps me from being banned at stores run by idiots who don't understand what the right to keep and bear arms means...
I am Vermont strong, I own guns, and I vote! I also have kids who will pass on to their kids what it means to be a gun owner.
Black Duck Charlie
Member
"The anti-press has even dug up some CCW instructors who are against permit free concealed carry. They are putting their individual ability to make extra money ahead of freedom....."
Uh, isn't that what Capitalism is all about, making as much money as you can? Damn, what a liberal ideaology, thinking that someone should NOT make a ton of money just so you can be happy. It might even socialist!
Uh, isn't that what Capitalism is all about, making as much money as you can? Damn, what a liberal ideaology, thinking that someone should NOT make a ton of money just so you can be happy. It might even socialist!
Black Duck Charlie
Member
A question: Is it better to allow EVERYONE the unfettered right to carry a gun -- or to allow only those who are not felons and/or psychopaths the unfettered right to carry guns?
Seems to me the "Constitutional Carry" people would allow EVERYONE to carry a gun whether they are dangerous criminals or not -- simply because it's "Constitutional".
Seems to me the "Constitutional Carry" people would allow EVERYONE to carry a gun whether they are dangerous criminals or not -- simply because it's "Constitutional".
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked