Old Dog
Member
In the handguns subforum, reading the thread about having to buy 10-round magazines for travel to states with magazine capacity limits got me thinking (I know, that can be dangerous)...
It seems we have more than a few THR members who, as a matter of principle, maintain that they refuse to ever travel to another state that has magazine capacity limits, maybe an AWB, more restrictive gun laws than their own state, or simply does not recognize their state's concealed carry license.
Now, for those of us accustomed to routinely going forth in public armed, probably most of us wouldn't feel comfortable in the streets of Washington D.C. or Chicago without carrying. Two cities with some of the most awesome museums (yes many of us dinosaurs love museums), cultural sites, great sports towns and great restaurants... Then there's places such as New York state, with a lot of splendid natural beauty (not talking about NYC, obviously, even though I think everyone should spend some time there at least once, otherwise you're not credible talking smack about a city in which you've never spent a minute). Nevertheless, even NYC has some cool places to visit, neat places to see (and some awesome food). Hell, going to Ellis Island and seeing my grandfather's signature on a passenger manifest from his ship that sailed from Liverpool was a powerful moment for me.
I think it's great to have firm principles, but we here seem to believe that firearms are our sole method of self-defense, and many say they will not go anywhere that they cannot carry a firearm. My wife and I love to travel in Europe and Asia. I would not deprive us of these experiences solely because we cannot take our guns. Heck, we even go to Mexico every year.
My state, currently under fire (figuratively, though the wildfire smoke gets annoying) by the 2A absolutists, has the most awesome state parks and premier national parks and forests.
For those not covered under LEOSA, are you one who categorically refuses to set foot in another city or another state because you find any infringement of your Second Amendment rights unacceptable? No matter how great some of the city's or state's attraction may be?
I have family, properties, friends in several states with restrictions: California, Hawaii, Illinois, New York, Maryland, to name them. Would you not go to the wedding or funeral of a family member or dear friend because you'd have to go to, for example, Maryland? One of my daughters had her destination wedding in a foreign country. I did buy a cheap OTF knife in a tobacco shop that I threw in the trash at the airport upon departure, but didn't once fret about not having a handgun with me.
Would you not travel to a state where you could carry legally, but object to magazine capacity limits, not being able to transport an AR-15 or you think has too many "gun free zones?"
What is your acceptable level of compromise for you to travel to another city or state, i.e., would you accept being restricted to 10-round mags for a week or two as long as you could legally carry?
Would you not travel to a city or state if you could not legally carry?
It seems we have more than a few THR members who, as a matter of principle, maintain that they refuse to ever travel to another state that has magazine capacity limits, maybe an AWB, more restrictive gun laws than their own state, or simply does not recognize their state's concealed carry license.
Now, for those of us accustomed to routinely going forth in public armed, probably most of us wouldn't feel comfortable in the streets of Washington D.C. or Chicago without carrying. Two cities with some of the most awesome museums (yes many of us dinosaurs love museums), cultural sites, great sports towns and great restaurants... Then there's places such as New York state, with a lot of splendid natural beauty (not talking about NYC, obviously, even though I think everyone should spend some time there at least once, otherwise you're not credible talking smack about a city in which you've never spent a minute). Nevertheless, even NYC has some cool places to visit, neat places to see (and some awesome food). Hell, going to Ellis Island and seeing my grandfather's signature on a passenger manifest from his ship that sailed from Liverpool was a powerful moment for me.
I think it's great to have firm principles, but we here seem to believe that firearms are our sole method of self-defense, and many say they will not go anywhere that they cannot carry a firearm. My wife and I love to travel in Europe and Asia. I would not deprive us of these experiences solely because we cannot take our guns. Heck, we even go to Mexico every year.
My state, currently under fire (figuratively, though the wildfire smoke gets annoying) by the 2A absolutists, has the most awesome state parks and premier national parks and forests.
For those not covered under LEOSA, are you one who categorically refuses to set foot in another city or another state because you find any infringement of your Second Amendment rights unacceptable? No matter how great some of the city's or state's attraction may be?
I have family, properties, friends in several states with restrictions: California, Hawaii, Illinois, New York, Maryland, to name them. Would you not go to the wedding or funeral of a family member or dear friend because you'd have to go to, for example, Maryland? One of my daughters had her destination wedding in a foreign country. I did buy a cheap OTF knife in a tobacco shop that I threw in the trash at the airport upon departure, but didn't once fret about not having a handgun with me.
Would you not travel to a state where you could carry legally, but object to magazine capacity limits, not being able to transport an AR-15 or you think has too many "gun free zones?"
What is your acceptable level of compromise for you to travel to another city or state, i.e., would you accept being restricted to 10-round mags for a week or two as long as you could legally carry?
Would you not travel to a city or state if you could not legally carry?
