National permit recognition gains support
- Thread starter LAR-15
- Start date
- Status
The Real Hawkeye
member
This is part of the problem. This attitude that says they CAN do what they want, lawlessly or not, is what emboldens them. If most Americans were informed about the concept of limited Constitutional government, and held the view that the Federal Government CAN only do what it is empowered to do, they would be less inclined to usurp powers not delegated. This is why you should not speak the way you do. Words actually have implications behind them. Ideas have consequences. Once you, as an individual, resign yourself to the idea that the Federal Government can do what it likes, regardless of the law, then you have bowed out of the struggle.LAR-15 said:They can whether you like or not and it goes against the Constitution.
We need to use the language of liberty, not of serfdom, unless that's how you think of yourself. Regardless of where you live, I live in a Constitutional Republic. Not a singular and consolidated republic, mind you, but a republic made up of a voluntary union among several sovereign States, in which the Federal Government is strictly limited in its powers to the express terms of the US Constitution, all other powers retained by and belonging to the States and the people respectively. Won't you join me?
Don't Tread On Me
Member
At the very, very, very least - there is obviously enough dissent within the "gun-nut" community (as this and all threads on this subject shows) to convince us all to just let this go. It isn't worth it.
For these Representatives to be submitting such legislation means that some group (NRA?) and a number of citizens want this to be on the pro-gun agenda.
I say we go after things where we can get at least 80% of the community to go along. If we all can't back something supposedly pro-gun, there's no way it stands a chance against the anti-gun "mainstream" of politics.
For these Representatives to be submitting such legislation means that some group (NRA?) and a number of citizens want this to be on the pro-gun agenda.
I say we go after things where we can get at least 80% of the community to go along. If we all can't back something supposedly pro-gun, there's no way it stands a chance against the anti-gun "mainstream" of politics.
Manedwolf
member
wally said:
Not to mention the fact that criminals don't tend to obey THAT sort of law, either, and knowing that the occupants of a restaurant are unarmed...
To say nothing of bars. There'd just been that nutcase going on an axe-and-gun rampage in a MA bar because none of the patrons (or likely the bartender, it being MA) could be armed to stop him...
The Real Hawkeye
member
You mean all bar tenders don't really have sawed off double barrel shotguns under the bar?Manedwolf said:
Robert Hairless
Member
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2003
- Messages
- 3,983
RealGun said:
I agree with the general principle and in fact I tried drafting my response without referring to you in particular but it didn't work because of the way you had worded your message to focus on how the bill appeared to you, the effect of it on your own state, your preference, and your opinion:
Other people in the thread were expressing their opinions--often based on someone's misreading of the bill (that way of saying it doesn't work, does it?)--so it hadn't occurred to me that anyone could reasonably object to a response directed at those opinions.
But I offended you and for that I am sorry.
My more generalized response would be that the bill as it has been reported here but not as interpreted here (that does seem to work) is a good bill. It allows the states to continue to set their own standards within their own borders while allowing people with concealed carry permits to behave legally as if they held resident carry permits while within the borders of each state. There is no fee, no tax, no additional license, no monitoring, no prying, no additional application, no limitations, and no additional checks.
The bill, if enacted, would free people who carry legally from worrying whether their permit is honored in another state. If one is driving from your state of South Carolina to New York State, for example, one should not be arrested for carrying a concealed weapon without a permit. (New York State does not issue non-resident permits so one would be subject to arrest right now, without this law.) And if one is simply passing through Maryland one would be able to stop there for food or an overnight stay at a motel--neither of which are permissible now, because the federal safe passage act does not allow extended stopovers in such a state.
This bill would be a good law and would remove the need to have several non-resident permits, totalling several hundred dollars in cost, simply to travel within the borders of our own country. The bill has benefits without downsides. It's not a national license to carry. It is a transparent bill, providing a rational solution to a complex problem without intruding upon anyone's rights. It deserves our enthusiastic support.
Matthew748
Member
I have commented on just about all of the threads on this topic in the past. It seems folks that live in states where CCW is the exception rather than the rule are in support of it. This is just a clever ruse to get rid of CCW. If this passed, the next thing they would do is pass some sort of standardization act using, oh I don’t know, Maryland or New Jersey as their model. It might look like a ray of hope to some people in bad states, but it is a double edged sword. When the pendulum swings the other way it will come back and cut us.
Highland Ranger
Member
I'll admit, there was a point where I was in favor of this sort of thing.
Florida permit and I can be an American just like you.
But somehow giving ground just doesn't seem like a good way to win in the long haul.
Florida permit and I can be an American just like you.
But somehow giving ground just doesn't seem like a good way to win in the long haul.
hugh damright
Member
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2005
- Messages
- 825
Ain't that the truth! People often tell me that States' rights are dead, or the Constitution is dead, but what is really dead is their respect for our constitutional form of government.
I was reading a book called "We the States" (highly recommended) which begins a chapter regarding the 14th Amendment by saying:
Great danger to constitutional government lies in popular misunderstanding of its precise methods and purposes. In many ways the small minority who would treat the United States Constitution as an archaic hindrance to their centralist purposes, and willingly would discard or subvert it, pose less threat than that far greater number who vocally support the Constitution, but who unwittingly approve or participate in actions that tend to destroy its protective features.
Manedwolf
member
The Real Hawkeye said:You mean all bar tenders don't really have sawed off double barrel shotguns under the bar?
Maybe not that extreme, but it being MA, I'd be willing to bet that (since you need a concealed weapon permit for it, too), the bartenders aren't even allowed to have one of the large fire-extinguisher-looking sorts of pepperspray cannisters.
Nothing would surprise me about MA laws making victims of the populace, I mean.
As for the national CCW, I'd be in favor of it ONLY if it was a national re-recognition of Full Faith and Credit, and akin to driver's licenses being recognized across all states. No additional requirements, no additional bureacracy, and NO additional registries.
Desertdog
Member
My feelings too.
The Real Hawkeye
member
Ditto.Desertdog said:
hugh damright
Member
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2005
- Messages
- 825
Full Faith and Credit
If FF&C applied only between States which wanted CCW, and there was no national standard .... I am not sure if I have another objection to FF&C being applied to CCW, except that I don't see how it could work ... if one State required training, testing, photo ID, fingerprinting, and so on to get CCW, then why would this State recognize a permit from another State where the only requirement was a clean record? And if this disparity in standards would have to be resolved by a national CCW standard ...wouldn't it be a worse standard for many of us ... and what would keep it from growing out of control until one of the national CCW requirements would be a badge (i.e. CCW for police only).
If FF&C applied only between States which wanted CCW, and there was no national standard .... I am not sure if I have another objection to FF&C being applied to CCW, except that I don't see how it could work ... if one State required training, testing, photo ID, fingerprinting, and so on to get CCW, then why would this State recognize a permit from another State where the only requirement was a clean record? And if this disparity in standards would have to be resolved by a national CCW standard ...wouldn't it be a worse standard for many of us ... and what would keep it from growing out of control until one of the national CCW requirements would be a badge (i.e. CCW for police only).
The Real Hawkeye
member
That is the danger. Given a choice, I'd rather leave things as they are. Let States work out reciprocity on their own, and let the people in the bad States move or work towards changing public opinion and their own State's laws. The success of CCW in other States will assist them in these endeavors. Experience teaches us the whenever the Fed gets a foot in the door, the door gets gradually wider, till its wide open. Just take public education as an example. First they just wanted to assist in funding. Next thing you know, they are issuing national standards for all public schools in the nation. No one has stopped to asked where this authority came from. They just follow orders. Same could happen with CCW once the camel's nose is under the tent.hugh damright said:
Highland Ranger
Member
This raises a point - I just read the NRa-ILa release on this and they are in favor of it.
If I have a Florida non-resident permit, would that be good in NJ?
If not, then this doesn't benefit those of us in the iron curtain states anyway . . . . .
If I have a Florida non-resident permit, would that be good in NJ?
If not, then this doesn't benefit those of us in the iron curtain states anyway . . . . .
The Real Hawkeye
member
Under the proposed law, it would be good in NJ, but the proposed law would also establish standards that Florida would have to adopt in order to be included (voluntary, at least at first), and they almost certainly would choose to do so, which could make it harder to get a Florida permit. That's the concern.Highland Ranger said:
mountainclmbr
Member
If this ever passed, I would give a month's salary just to see the look on the face of Teddy the swimming champion!
Lone_Gunman
Member
Are the liberals in Congress such as Ted Kennedy in favor of this bill?
It would seem to me that they ought to be. I think this gun has major anti-gun potential.
If they can get CCW regulated on a federal level, then just as soon as the liberals take control again, they can modify the federal requirements for the bill until no one can get a CCW.
For example, when the Democrats take control again, they could raise licensing fees to $10,000, and require a 1,000 hour training course. Very few people would think national CCW is a good idea then.
It would seem to me that they ought to be. I think this gun has major anti-gun potential.
If they can get CCW regulated on a federal level, then just as soon as the liberals take control again, they can modify the federal requirements for the bill until no one can get a CCW.
For example, when the Democrats take control again, they could raise licensing fees to $10,000, and require a 1,000 hour training course. Very few people would think national CCW is a good idea then.
The Real Hawkeye
member
Unfortunately, it's my congressman who is sponsoring it. This is a delema for me, because he has always been very pro-gun, and probably thinks he doing us a great favor with this bill. Haven't contacted him about it yet. Clearly, since he is the sponsor, he believes in it, so not sure what good contacting him would do.
Nathaniel Firethorn
Member
As I've said in other posts about this topic, it would work about the same as the Firearms Owners' Protection Act. Which, since Ronald Reagan's presidency, has prevented the several states from confiscating your firearms if you're just passing through.
- NF
- NF
crazed_ss
Member
Manedwolf said:
Agreed 100%
carebear
Member
The Real Hawkeye said:
Where exactly do you find in the text of the law as written now that FL would be required to do anything?
I could go either way on the bill itself but I'm not finding any such requirement.
Manedwolf
member
The Real Hawkeye said:
The issue I have is that in my location, it's not at all uncommon to accidentally cross into MA in a curve on a road, even if you're heading to someplace in NH.
And woe unto you if you forgot to unload your weapon and stash it and the ammo separately in the trunk, if an MA cop stops you. You're in serious trouble.
That strikes me as sheer idiocy.
IndianaDean
Member
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2004
- Messages
- 541
We should just enact Vermont carry for the entire country and eliminate permits.
- Status