I think that logic works fine for the average gun owner, but not someone who has a CC license. Just the very fact that you have a CC license and carry means that you really should have a working knowledge of where you can and can't go. Not only was this pounded in my head during my CC class, but there are so many places that it is a felony to go, that it would be foolish not to know this information.
Why we need National CCW Reciprocity now!
- Thread starter usmarine0352_2005
- Start date
- Status
I think that logic works fine for the average gun owner, but not someone who has a CC license. Just the very fact that you have a CC license and carry means that you really should have a working knowledge of where you can and can't go. Not only was this pounded in my head during my CC class, but there are so many places that it is a felony to go, that it would be foolish not to know this information.
usmarine0352_2005
member
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2005
- Messages
- 2,796
I agree that he should have checked the laws. However, on that point, he shouldn't have to check the laws because it should be legal to for a non-felon to carry in every state.
It's illegal in some states to have oral sex......I wonder how many people have broken that law un-knowningly. Should people have to check the sex laws in that state before they go to that state and have sex?
.
Owen Sparks
member
- Joined
- May 27, 2007
- Messages
- 4,523
Do you want to have to deal with the BATF to get a carry permit? It will become as complicated and expensive as buying a supressor. Federal involvement is a really bad idea as it will be paterned after the most restrictive state laws.
I think that logic works fine for the average gun owner, but not someone who has a CC license.
That's a fair point, but for the sake of argument: someone gets a permit. Just to put on as much spin as I can
, a stalking victim. Our putative gun holder isn't a gun enthusiast; she'd just as soon not have to mess with carrying, but she is facing a threat serious enough that she puts up with the hassle. She gets trained and takes a course that covers her states laws - no post offices, no outdoor music festivals, no place the state ABC board makes off limits to those under 21, and so on (I'm using WA law here). Now she drives a couple of hours to MT on a visit. Maybe she should spend a couple of hours boning up on the MT (and ID!) laws[1], but she doesn't - she isn't planning on going to bars or anything. She goes to MT and doesn't bother a soul, but she decides to visit a cash machine attached to a bank. The machine jams while she is getting money, so she goes into the bank to tell them. Oooops, MT forbids carry in bank lobbies.
In order to further the cause of justice, for how many years should she be incarcerated?
[1]...and it's non trivial to keep up. Keeping up with your own state is one thing, but multiple states? I travel through ten or so states every summer, and budget a day in the spring to research the relevant laws, including a few page printout for each state to take along. And I'm still not sure I'm compliant. For example, let's say you're touring in an RV and visit WA. You're parked somewhere in the boonies and see bear tracks. You decide to load a shotgun and leave it in the RV while you sleep. You think you're safe, because you read the dozens of sections of the RCW dealing with guns. But a lot of people miss the restriction on loaded long guns in vehicles - it's in a completely different section of the law - the hunting regulation section - which you didn't think to review because you weren't hunting and assumed the pages and pages of law you did review must cover the bases. Again, for how many years should you be incarcerated?
That's a fair point, but for the sake of argument: someone gets a permit. Just to put on as much spin as I can
, a stalking victim. Our putative gun holder isn't a gun enthusiast; she'd just as soon not have to mess with carrying, but she is facing a threat serious enough that she puts up with the hassle. She gets trained and takes a course that covers her states laws - no post offices, no outdoor music festivals, no place the state ABC board makes off limits to those under 21, and so on (I'm using WA law here). Now she drives a couple of hours to MT on a visit. Maybe she should spend a couple of hours boning up on the MT (and ID!) laws[1], but she doesn't - she isn't planning on going to bars or anything. She goes to MT and doesn't bother a soul, but she decides to visit a cash machine attached to a bank. The machine jams while she is getting money, so she goes into the bank to tell them. Oooops, MT forbids carry in bank lobbies. In order to further the cause of justice, for how many years should she be incarcerated?
[1]...and it's non trivial to keep up. Keeping up with your own state is one thing, but multiple states? I travel through ten or so states every summer, and budget a day in the spring to research the relevant laws, including a few page printout for each state to take along. And I'm still not sure I'm compliant. For example, let's say you're touring in an RV and visit WA. You're parked somewhere in the boonies and see bear tracks. You decide to load a shotgun and leave it in the RV while you sleep. You think you're safe, because you read the dozens of sections of the RCW dealing with guns. But a lot of people miss the restriction on loaded long guns in vehicles - it's in a completely different section of the law - the hunting regulation section - which you didn't think to review because you weren't hunting and assumed the pages and pages of law you did review must cover the bases. Again, for how many years should you be incarcerated?
Ragnar Danneskjold
Member
The phrase "you go to war with the army you have, not the army you wish you had" comes to mind.
You work with the laws you have, not the laws you wish you had. In an ideal world, there would be no permits or different laws per state and county. One could just carry their gun where they want, as that is what is said in the Constitution. It is a noble goal we should all work towards.
But it is still the law we wish we had, not what actually have. Right now, the laws are different and there are massive penalties for minor infractions. It is every CCW holders' responsibility to know the law as it is, or face the consequences. That is reality. "You can deny reality, but you cannot deny the consequences of denying reality." -Ayn Rand. And she's right. The reality is NYC does not allow concealed carry. You may be a stalking victim with a sob story about why you carried where you're not supposed to, but reality does not take that into account. The law, as flawed as it is, is the law. That is the reality we must all live under until we change it. Choosing to be ignorant of it will not free you from the consequences.
The "should" of the future has no impact on what is true now. What "should" the consequences be? None. But that is not the law right now, so it's irrelevant. Base your actions off what the law says now, not what you wish it to be in the future.
You work with the laws you have, not the laws you wish you had. In an ideal world, there would be no permits or different laws per state and county. One could just carry their gun where they want, as that is what is said in the Constitution. It is a noble goal we should all work towards.
But it is still the law we wish we had, not what actually have. Right now, the laws are different and there are massive penalties for minor infractions. It is every CCW holders' responsibility to know the law as it is, or face the consequences. That is reality. "You can deny reality, but you cannot deny the consequences of denying reality." -Ayn Rand. And she's right. The reality is NYC does not allow concealed carry. You may be a stalking victim with a sob story about why you carried where you're not supposed to, but reality does not take that into account. The law, as flawed as it is, is the law. That is the reality we must all live under until we change it. Choosing to be ignorant of it will not free you from the consequences.
The "should" of the future has no impact on what is true now. What "should" the consequences be? None. But that is not the law right now, so it's irrelevant. Base your actions off what the law says now, not what you wish it to be in the future.
Bobson
Member
I'd say we need nation-wide Constitutional Carry, rather than nation-wide permit reciprocity.
tyeo098
Member
The mantra of someone who hasn't read the current bill for National Reciprocity
Ragnar Danneskjold
Member
This. The Constitution already established the carrying of arms as a Right. We just need that to be enforced.
IMO, the Constitution/BoR is like a membership agreement. To be a member state in the Union, you must follow these rules.
usmarine0352_2005
member
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2005
- Messages
- 2,796
Who doesn't want this?
.
tyeo098
Member
There are those among us who would rather keep the system the say it is. Most notably those who live in free states and do not see the effect of a non-compliant state government.
They do not understand that the journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step.
Likewise, the end goal to nation-wide constitutional carry starts with this bill, for our rights were whittled away to get us here, and now we need to get them back, bit by bit. Too much freedom too fast and you will alarm the sheeple -- sending us backwards!
Bobson
Member
I understand what you mean here, but don't forget that the reverse is also true. Rights may be whittled away bit by bit, and this is much more likely than our rights being restored bit by bit.
I would rather see no change at all, than seemingly positive change that may actually be underhanded deceit. If I lived in California, or other state where I felt like I had nothing to lose, I might feel differently. The problem is, some of us live in real freedom right now, and it's not worth any risk - even a slight one.
tyeo098
Member
If its an anti-gun bill, its an anti-gun bill.
If its a pro-gun bill, its an anti-gun bill in disguise.
Where do we get our rights back? Do we tell our reps to vote for anti-gun bills because they might be pro-gun bills in disguise?
Not to mention, have you seen the people who came up with this? All A+ ratings my the NRA and the NRA is behind the bill. Kind of hard to hide anti-gun material in there.
mljdeckard
Member
I have to chuckle a little bit at the "All or nothing" mentality. Abolish permits. Don't accept anything but total restriction repeal.
If we had held this mentality twenty years ago when the carry revolution was beginning, we never would have gotten anything. If we had insisted in 1988 that all states just go permitless carry, where would we be now? Instead, we were patient and used the antis' own creeping incrementalism against them, from may issue to shall issue, to several states either having or on the verge of having constitutional carry. We have Heller and Macdonald now to leverage better laws. So when we are faced with the next inevitable step for carry, a national agreement for reciprocity, all of a sudden we get suspicious and want to pull the plug. If we are so afraid of the .gov that we choke when the big decisions come, what did we do this much for? I think it's time to go big or go home.
If we had held this mentality twenty years ago when the carry revolution was beginning, we never would have gotten anything. If we had insisted in 1988 that all states just go permitless carry, where would we be now? Instead, we were patient and used the antis' own creeping incrementalism against them, from may issue to shall issue, to several states either having or on the verge of having constitutional carry. We have Heller and Macdonald now to leverage better laws. So when we are faced with the next inevitable step for carry, a national agreement for reciprocity, all of a sudden we get suspicious and want to pull the plug. If we are so afraid of the .gov that we choke when the big decisions come, what did we do this much for? I think it's time to go big or go home.
Bobson
Member
I have not.
I'm not saying I'm well-informed regarding the nationwide reciprocity bill that was being discussed a while back; I didn't take the time to educate myself on it, and so I didn't bother pretending I had a firm stance one way or the other. I didn't support it, but I wasn't against it either.
I'm just saying, I can see why some might feel that this is an important first step, while others might see it as an unnecessary risk, that's all. I can see both sides of the issue being at least somewhat justified in their opinions. I don't think one could ask for a more fair approach than this.
Since when does "go big or go home" translate to "settle for whatever you can get"?
Last edited:
tyeo098
Member
I would take the time to read it, its barely 2 pages long.
Quite a good read!
EDIT: A-here you go!
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h822/text
mljdeckard
Member
It means settle....FOR NOW. This has worked very well for us for the last 20 years.
Bobson
Member
After making it clear I'm not a law major, I have to admit I don't see anything in there I would disagree with outright. I'm a bit confused about the audit mentioned in Section 3, and for what purpose it is included.
Unless I'm mistaken, the bill seems to state that anyone who lives in a state where they can already obtain a concealed-carry permit would be granted the right to carry that weapon nationwide - provided they also carry the permit and a form of picture ID. However, those who live in states where they can't obtain a permit would still be SOL, because this wouldn't have an effect on them.
I like that it wouldn't explicitly interfere with constitutional carry itself, because it doesn't mandate a permit - it just grants those who have the permit already (or obtain one) to carry outside their home state.
Very interesting bill. It states that it passed the House back in November. Has it been shot down in the Senate?
tyeo098
Member
Section 3 is so they can see how this bill has affected public safety, and if need be, repeal it. It calls for an 'audit' (read: investigation) of what the bill has done.
The bill is currently in the a Senate Committee. It stayed a loooong time in the House Committee, I expect no less from the Senate.
"I'm just a bill... I'm just a bill... And I'm sitting here on Capitol Hill..."
The bill is currently in the a Senate Committee. It stayed a loooong time in the House Committee, I expect no less from the Senate.
"I'm just a bill... I'm just a bill... And I'm sitting here on Capitol Hill..."
bottom shelf
Member
Might SEEM like common sense, but when I was 28 years old, I did not check the laws of every state I was going to either. I was just lucky enough to not get in trouble.
Ghost Tracker
Member
I JUST WANT NATIONWIDE PERMIT RECIPROCITY! That's all. I LIKE my state's gun laws. They're not oppressive, they're not draconian. But once we pull states like Illinois, Massachusetts & California into the nation-wide Constitutional Carry debate the weight of their opinions will ONLY drag "average" gun-freedoms DOWNWARD! To avoid being sucked into that liberal vortex, please leave the citizens & legislators of the Bluegrass State free to decide their own criteria for concealed carry...PLEASE.
ok....ive been reading about the reciprocity bill....
can someone please tell me how...in any way.....it is going to somehow change your states gun laws to match CA, MA, NYC, ect....
because thats all i hear anyone talk about....but for the life of me, i cannot figure out how, or even where they are getting that from.
can someone please tell me how...in any way.....it is going to somehow change your states gun laws to match CA, MA, NYC, ect....
because thats all i hear anyone talk about....but for the life of me, i cannot figure out how, or even where they are getting that from.
Ragnar Danneskjold
Member
"We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately" -Benjamin Franklin
bushmaster1313
Member
It's called Federalism and States Rights.
If you think states have the right to ban things like cocaine, abortion and speeding, you have to support a city's right to require a permit to possess a firearm.
tyeo098
Member
States don't have rights, people (..and companies) have rights!
Neverwinter
Member
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2008
- Messages
- 1,049
Julius Caesar was forbidden from crossing the Rubicon back into Rome.
Equal protection clause. It's the same reason that depriving a gay/lesbian their CCW permit on the basis of their orientation would be unconstitutional.
As it currently stands, carrying in states with reciprocity still require you to follow the rules of the jurisdiction. Increasing the number of laws you have to keep track of is the trade-off in having the increased freedom of being able to carry where you formerly couldn't. Claiming that increased reciprocity is a bad thing unless all of the laws are standardized on one set of rules only increases the likelihood that we'll all end up with NYC/CA/MA laws, which I doubt anyone here thinks is a good idea.pintler said:
Having to look at different portions of state law is not unprecedented for CCWs. Sometimes the restrictions for things like bars are described in the liquor statutes as opposed to the weapons statutes.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
