we need a law that we can buy one carry permit for all 50 states
- Thread starter Bigman
- Start date
- Status
Car Knocker
Member
Sure, and there's no doubt in my mind that such a permit would be much more restrictive than the one I have now. No thanks!!!!!
Optical Serenity
Member
+1 Janitor.
Zundfolge
Member
We already have such a law ... its an obscure, little known passage called the second amendment.
Now if we could just get our government to follow the Constitution we might get somewhere
Now if we could just get our government to follow the Constitution we might get somewhere
cslinger
Member
Yeah we need a law that says you are considered a treasonous pig should you not follow the constitution.
Flyboy
Member
Bullpucky.
I didn't see anything in the Second Amendment that requires I buy a permit to exercise its terms. However, you are, of course, free to point out anything I might have missed.
Zundfolge
Member
Flyboy said:
Good point ... the Second Amendment basically says we should be able to CCW anywhere we please WITHOUT a permit.
I stand corrected.
Flyboy
Member
Zundfolge, you know I just had to pick on you. If you're ever in my neck of the woods, I'll make up for it by buying a beer or two.
Keep the pointy end downrange!
--Flyboy
Keep the pointy end downrange!
--Flyboy
EddieCoyle
Member
Vermont's got it right.
joab
Member
Wouldn't that be a violation of state's rights.
What can i say I'm a southener
What can i say I'm a southener
Standing Wolf
Member in memoriam
I don't want the federal government within ten miles of my holster.
rero360
Member
however I think it would be good for the fed. to b**ch slap the states for enacting CCW permits in the first place, which are unconstitutional. and as far as states like Kali and my homestate of NY, I say the fed anal rapes 'em, dry. the only restrictions I see as being legit on owning firearms are in regards to felons and the mentally disturbed. I do believe that the government should limit its involvment in peoples lives, however I think the fed should be able to stop a state from doing something unconstitutional.
benEzra
Moderator Emeritus
+1 quiettype.
With my NC permit, I can already carry in ~33 states. Working at the state level to extend reciprocity is the way forward, IMHO.
The problem with a Federal CCW permit is that if you pass such a law, the congresspeople from California, Massachusetts, and New Jersey get to help set the restrictions and qualifications, which guarantees that it will be more restrictive than the laws of any pro-gun state.
With my NC permit, I can already carry in ~33 states. Working at the state level to extend reciprocity is the way forward, IMHO.
The problem with a Federal CCW permit is that if you pass such a law, the congresspeople from California, Massachusetts, and New Jersey get to help set the restrictions and qualifications, which guarantees that it will be more restrictive than the laws of any pro-gun state.
El Tejon
Member
Yes, it is a federal matter. In fact it is the reason the federal government exists--to ensure our rights.
Bigman, such laws already exist. It is the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the 14th Amendment which were passed because certain states were denying American citizens their rights, including their right to bear arms.
Bigman, such laws already exist. It is the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the 14th Amendment which were passed because certain states were denying American citizens their rights, including their right to bear arms.
The Drew
Member
There is also the full faith and credit clause, that states use to have drivers licenses be legal in other states... But somehow that doesn't apply to CCW permits... (remember the gay marriage debate? This was the clause that some states were whining about that they'd have to accept a gay couple as married if they got married in a gay marriage state)
Thain
Member
Well, the Federal Government has no authority to pass such a law. Granted, they've passed a thousand other gun laws under the umbrella of the Takings Clause, Interstate Commerce Clause, or Taxation Powers... But most of us consider those wrong, too.
The power to regulate the concealed carry of arms belongs to the States. Given our present situation of 38 shall-issue states, 6 may-issue, and 2 unrestricted states (VT & AK rock!) I think we're in a pretty good postion. Illinois, Kansas, Nebraska and Wisconsin need to wake up and retake their rights from their nanny governments, and the "mayberry-issue" states need to become "shall-issue" (and in some future Golden Age they'll all be unrestricted! )
What we should work for as permit holders is 100% Reciprocity between all 50 States. If you think the Anti-Gun Rights groups have an odd way of reading the Second Amendment, the way they read the Full Faith and Credit Clause is downright delusional. Michigan gives me a permit to carry, it should be recognized by every other State... but it's not.
But so long as the GOP interperts this as selective about marriage records, the DNC will interpert it as selective about carry permits. Stupid c--p like this is why I'm a Libertarian.
The power to regulate the concealed carry of arms belongs to the States. Given our present situation of 38 shall-issue states, 6 may-issue, and 2 unrestricted states (VT & AK rock!) I think we're in a pretty good postion. Illinois, Kansas, Nebraska and Wisconsin need to wake up and retake their rights from their nanny governments, and the "mayberry-issue" states need to become "shall-issue" (and in some future Golden Age they'll all be unrestricted!
)What we should work for as permit holders is 100% Reciprocity between all 50 States. If you think the Anti-Gun Rights groups have an odd way of reading the Second Amendment, the way they read the Full Faith and Credit Clause is downright delusional. Michigan gives me a permit to carry, it should be recognized by every other State... but it's not.
100% Reciprocity is the next "big fight" for Gun Rights.
But so long as the GOP interperts this as selective about marriage records, the DNC will interpert it as selective about carry permits. Stupid c--p like this is why I'm a Libertarian.
The Drew
Member
Thain said:Well, the Federal Government has no authority to pass such a law. Granted, they've passed a thousand other gun laws under the umbrella of the Takings Clause, Interstate Commerce Clause, or Taxation Powers... But most of us consider those wrong, too.
The power to regulate the concealed carry of arms belongs to the States. Given our present situation of 38 shall-issue states, 6 may-issue, and 2 unrestricted states (VT & AK rock!) I think we're in a pretty good postion. Illinois, Kansas, Nebraska and Wisconsin need to wake up and retake their rights from their nanny governments, and the "mayberry-issue" states need to become "shall-issue" (and in some future Golden Age they'll all be unrestricted!
What we should work for as permit holders is 100% Reciprocity between all 50 States. If you think the Anti-Gun Rights groups have an odd way of reading the Second Amendment, the way they read the Full Faith and Credit Clause is downright delusional. Michigan gives me a permit to carry, it should be recognized by every other State... but it's not.
100% Reciprocity is the next "big fight" for Gun Rights.
But so long as the GOP interperts this as selective about marriage records, the DNC will interpert it as selective about carry permits. Stupid c--p like this is why I'm a Libertarian.
The difference between CCW permits and gay marriage is that CCW is the mainstream... the VAST majority of states have it in some form or another. If those 4 states want to restrict the right altogether, they should be allowed to do so, but any state that issues permits should recognize a permit from any other state...
Henry Bowman
Senior Member
We have one. It's called the "Oath of Office" and includes a pledge to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Maybe we need to start treating statists and terrorists alike as "Enemies of the Constitution."
USMCRotrHed
Member
That was my 1st thought
Yes and No. First of all let me say I am not a lawyer so I may be wrong. Feel free to point it out if my logic is off.
The 10th amendment does grant all powers to the states that are not granted to the federal govt. by the constitution, BUT the second amendment (to me) takes firearms regulation away from the states. It then in turn originally placed that regulatory power to the individual. So, IMHO a state really has no right to even issue a CCW permit because this could infringe someone's right to bear arms. With the 2A the federal government passed it's regulatory power to the people.
This has never been contested because a law suit has never been filed using this angle. Some justice like Ruth Bader Ginsberg would probably shoot it down anyway (for the general welfare of the people).
On the other hand, one could argue that states don't prohibit gun ownership, they just place restrictions on where you can carry and fire your weapon of choice.
I know the general feelings about this topic at THR and trust me, that's the side I am on, but there are other members of society that are less informed than we believe we are. Those same people can still put up a convincing case that is hard to fight if the right words are not used. They try to appeal to peoples emotions, we try to appeal to their logic. It's easier to feel than to think and most people are lazy.
joab said:
Yes and No. First of all let me say I am not a lawyer so I may be wrong. Feel free to point it out if my logic is off.
The 10th amendment does grant all powers to the states that are not granted to the federal govt. by the constitution, BUT the second amendment (to me) takes firearms regulation away from the states. It then in turn originally placed that regulatory power to the individual. So, IMHO a state really has no right to even issue a CCW permit because this could infringe someone's right to bear arms. With the 2A the federal government passed it's regulatory power to the people.
This has never been contested because a law suit has never been filed using this angle. Some justice like Ruth Bader Ginsberg would probably shoot it down anyway (for the general welfare of the people).
On the other hand, one could argue that states don't prohibit gun ownership, they just place restrictions on where you can carry and fire your weapon of choice.
I know the general feelings about this topic at THR and trust me, that's the side I am on, but there are other members of society that are less informed than we believe we are. Those same people can still put up a convincing case that is hard to fight if the right words are not used. They try to appeal to peoples emotions, we try to appeal to their logic. It's easier to feel than to think and most people are lazy.
Henry Bowman
Senior Member
Ain't that the danged truth!
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked