SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  The Lounge    National Reciprocity for Concealed Carry
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

Moderators: Chris Orndorff, LDD
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
National Reciprocity for Concealed Carry Login/Join 
Staring back
from the abyss
Picture of Gustofer
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by wishfull thinker:
The cops are a whole separate thing to me.

In what way?


________________________________________________________

"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy." Winston Churchill
 
Posts: 13520 | Location: Montana | Registered: November 01, 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Oh stewardess,
I speak jive.
Picture of 46and2
posted Hide Post
quote:
LEOSA grants retired LEO's the right to carry a firearm in any state regardless of local or state laws - it does not require a concealed carry permit.

Which is why it simply needs to be extended to all Americans, the plain and simple universality of it, the basic no-bullshit nature of it.

Believe as they might, they're no different nor better not inherently more trustworthy than the rest of us, and if that law is good enough for them it's good enough for everyone else.

On top of which, such a notion should have been the rule all along.

The problem isn't with LEOSA - but rather the LE only part of it.

And, generally, conservatives on the whole are decidedly against special rules for special groups, and protected classes, and so on. But not here?
 
Posts: 22092 | Registered: March 12, 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Info Guru
Picture of BamaJeepster
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by 46and2:
quote:
LEOSA grants retired LEO's the right to carry a firearm in any state regardless of local or state laws - it does not require a concealed carry permit.

Which is why it simply needs to be extended to all Americans, the plain and simple universality of it, the basic no-bullshit nature of it.

Believe as they might, they're no different nor better not inherently more trustworthy than the rest of us, and if that law is good enough for them it's good enough for everyone else.

On top of which, such a notion should have been the rule all along.

The problem isn't with LEOSA - but rather the LE only part of it.

And, generally, conservatives on the whole are decidedly against special rules for special groups, and protected classes, and so on. But not here?


Agreed. But that is not the proposal on the table. The proposal on the table will concede the point that the fed.gov has the right to meddle in state issued carry permits. That is a non starter for me.

So until the proposal is that everyone can carry everywhere with no permit I'm against conceding that the fed.gov has any right to meddle with my Tennessee carry permit.



“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
- John Adams
 
Posts: 26329 | Location: TN/KY | Registered: June 29, 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Oh stewardess,
I speak jive.
Picture of 46and2
posted Hide Post
Fair point/distinction. ^

Like the Net Neutrality discussion of late, I adamantly support the principle (of nationwide CCW) and also agree that there are issues with the current/planned implementation.

I don't think this will pass anyway, which is probably a good thing in the long term (for the reasons you and others have stated), but what sucks most is the wasted time and effort and momentum of this half-baked, half-ass, bastardized version of the obvious answer.

Which describes most of what goes on in D.C., so I shouldn't be surprised any longer.
 
Posts: 22092 | Registered: March 12, 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Thank you
Very little
Picture of HRK
posted Hide Post
So it passed the house with 6 democrats crossing to vote yes and 14 republican voting no



"My rule of life prescribed as an absolutely sacred rite smoking cigars and also the drinking of alcohol before, after and if need be during all meals and in the intervals between them." Winston Churchill
 
Posts: 11119 | Location: Mouseville, FL | Registered: November 07, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Tinker Sailor Soldier Pie
Picture of Balzé Halzé
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by downtownv:

Balze here ya Go!


Thanks ya', thank ya'


~Alan

Acta Non Verba
NRA Life Member (Endowment)
Family, Guns, Country

"My guns are always loaded."
~R.G. Justified

What whiskey will not cure, there is no cure.
 
Posts: 18366 | Location: Out of Jersey, Into Utah | Registered: October 29, 2012Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Irksome Whirling Dervish
Picture of Flashlightboy
posted Hide Post
I'm opposed and believe it dies in the Senate. There is no federal mandate to ensure that each state recognize the CCW rights of other states. Once the feds are given the self-annointed power to determine what an individual may do relative to concealed carry, then they can make similar reaches in other areas.

I'm for state's rights, as shitty as they might be and dictating CCW rights from Washington DC to each state is not within a protected class for which federal government intervention can be compelled.

You can't say you want this type of federal intervention but the feds have to bow out on abortion, gay weddings and so on. There's no picking and choosing which illicit romance with federalism that you want to concede to them.

This will die in the Senate and but if it were ever to make it into law, I think the Supreme Court will give it the smackdown.
 
Posts: 2886 | Location: "You can't just go to Walmart with a gift card and get a new brother." Janice Serrano | Registered: May 03, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of pulicords
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by BamaJeepster:
quote:
Originally posted by 46and2:
quote:
LEOSA grants retired LEO's the right to carry a firearm in any state regardless of local or state laws - it does not require a concealed carry permit.

Which is why it simply needs to be extended to all Americans, the plain and simple universality of it, the basic no-bullshit nature of it.

Believe as they might, they're no different nor better not inherently more trustworthy than the rest of us, and if that law is good enough for them it's good enough for everyone else.

On top of which, such a notion should have been the rule all along.

The problem isn't with LEOSA - but rather the LE only part of it.

And, generally, conservatives on the whole are decidedly against special rules for special groups, and protected classes, and so on. But not here?


Agreed. But that is not the proposal on the table. The proposal on the table will concede the point that the fed.gov has the right to meddle in state issued carry permits. That is a non starter for me.

So until the proposal is that everyone can carry everywhere with no permit I'm against conceding that the fed.gov has any right to meddle with my Tennessee carry permit.


If you think "everyone" is going to carry "everywhere with no permit" you're dreaming an absurd dream that even our best supporter on SCOTUS (Justice Scalia) wouldn't agree with. LEOSA provided a foot in the door for qualified citizens to carry concealed as a privilege just as LEOSA provided the privilege to qualified (not ALL) cops. This refusal to accept that 2nd Amendment (like all the other Amendments) isn't without limits would be humorous if it wasn't so damn destructive to our cause. You don't have to accept these limitations as fact any more than you have to accept the fact that the world isn't flat, but arguing isn't going to make things better for those of us that would like to see a reasonable national CCW reciprocity law come to exist. It happened to LEOs (only after "9/11"), but it might happen to regular citizens because of this precedent, which BTW was supported by Pelosi and strongly opposed by NYC politicians.

As a retired cop that has enjoyed my privilege to carry nationally for some time now, I support extending that ability to those citizens who didn't have to prove themselves "worthy" of such trust for as long as I did and in the manner I did. You don't need to respect that (or me), but if my example and that of literally hundreds of thousands of LEOs who responsibly carried on and off-duty in active service and as honorably retired members of the community (with no peace officer authority) still do, helps you and others to get this, then I'm all for it.


"I'm not fluent in the language of violence, but I know enough to get around in places where it's spoken."
 
Posts: 8295 | Location: So CA | Registered: June 13, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Oh stewardess,
I speak jive.
Picture of 46and2
posted Hide Post
Want a tissue or something? ^

There's nothing more destructive to a natural Right than the blind, foolish, and incessant acceptance that a given restriction of it is reasonable, just, useful, necessary, or otherwise.

That you and others (his honor, Scalia, included) have given up and accepted the status quo is the larger problem, all damn day, but keep believing that horse dung if you prefer.

Calling the ability to carry around a firearm a privilege is as absurd as calling the Earth flat. That anyone ever came to believe such, for even an instant, is a foolish travesty.

And no one here, least of all me, is arguing for the ability to carry around a Howitzer or TOW Missile or even an M203 grenade launcher, so get a grip, hotrod, that's not the deal.

And no one here, even me, is arguing that there's not some legal precedent or history of *some* degree of restrictions. That's not the argument here, nor has it ever been.

So don't you dare lecture me about somehow hurting our cause. I don't know WTF *your* cause is, but mine is simple - one without absurd, unjust, and unreasonable restrictions.

And make no mistake, restricting the ability for regular people to carry around a pistol in any city in any state in these United States is categorically an unreasonable restriction.
 
Posts: 22092 | Registered: March 12, 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Irksome Whirling Dervish
Picture of Flashlightboy
posted Hide Post
Pulicords,

Your points are well taken but not wholly applicable to the concerns that the states have or are entitled to have.

Take any state that only requires you to pass a background check to obtain your CCW. No proficiency or review of the CCW rules in that state. Just apply, pass the background and you can carry.

Take your state which requires classes on the legalities of carrying and where, demonstrated skill and so on.

Is there a federal right to dictate to CA that it must waive the safety aspects it deems important to the CCW permits it issues? Local safety and state safety is left to the states and not to the feds to dictate to a state.

This is the core argument for why a national law will usurp state law in an impermissible way. CA has a vested interest in determining the minimum criteria for a CCW permit that another state cannot take away but would be taken away by this proposed federal law.
 
Posts: 2886 | Location: "You can't just go to Walmart with a gift card and get a new brother." Janice Serrano | Registered: May 03, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Oh stewardess,
I speak jive.
Picture of 46and2
posted Hide Post
Federalism is a fine idea, with ample flaws such as this. Does it exist just the same, and must we deal with that? Of course. No shit. It shouldn't be so, but I'll always concede it is.

But the very instant some dickhead in California (or any State) decided it was reasonable to impose restrictions such as those, *that* very moment was a colossal failure re Rights.

It's always some do-gooder, ninny, wanker, too, "doing something", "for the kids", and eroding these natural Rights (merely recognized by our Constitution), day after day after...

What California (and the rest) ought to have a vested interest in is staying the fuck out of the way when it comes to such Rights. Instead, they and others keep fucking it all up.

That some retired officers of the world, or former justices of the world (may the otherwise brilliant man rest in peace), ever came to call such things a privilege IS the damn problem.

That said, I had already agreed with Bama (subsequent to the quoted message that started this last bit of back and forth) and said its probably best if this doesn't pass (in this form).

What I argue for, primarily, is the principle of nearly no restrictions, or a much, much, much tighter interpretation of the often quoted phrase from the 2nd that we all know...

Yes, it's stupid to think it's OK to carry around a belt fed Gatling gun to the mall. And what's equally stupid is the idea that denying CCW in any State is in any way reasonable.

Do I begrudgingly follow the stupid-assed rules anyway, of course, but they're no less vile, even little piddly bullshit like a proficiency test for CCW. It may be legal, but it's never OK.
 
Posts: 22092 | Registered: March 12, 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of pulicords
posted Hide Post
quote:
That some retired officers of the world, or former justices of the world (may the otherwise brilliant man rest in peace), ever came to call such things a privilege IS the damn problem.

Do I begrudgingly follow the stupid-assed rules anyway, of course, but they're no less vile, even little piddly bullshit like a proficiency test for CCW. It may be legal, but it's never OK.



It doesn’t take a retired cop or a brilliant Supreme Court justice to take notice that no right is absolute, just someone that lives outside the shell of their own echo chamber. Those “stupid ass rules” that you whine about are what makes ours’ not just a civilized society, but one that recognizes and respects more of the God given RIGHTS than acknowledged by any other nation on this planet. We have a great opportunity here that can be squandered only if children fail to recognize that (in not just this country, but every country) they can’t get what they want, whenever they want, all th time.

This isn’t about California it’s about the balance that is the essence of our Constitution. Perhaps that’s “piddling bullshit” to you, but it’s what keeps Left wing zealots who mirror your attitude at bay. Now that the pendulum which saw Obama in office for eight years has swung to the other side, I just hope and pray that shortsided people like yourself don’t cost us the opportunities we so rightly earned to make things better.


"I'm not fluent in the language of violence, but I know enough to get around in places where it's spoken."
 
Posts: 8295 | Location: So CA | Registered: June 13, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
non ducor, duco
Picture of Nickelsig229
posted Hide Post
I'm hoping that it passes and in some way sets a precedent that federal laws supersede state laws. Hopefully nullifying these bullshit assault weapons bans in my home state of CT.

I'm kicking and flailing in quick sand with these new laws banning us from effectively owning any modern day semi auto rifle.




First In Last Out
 
Posts: 4088 | Location: CT | Registered: October 15, 2002Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Oh stewardess,
I speak jive.
Picture of 46and2
posted Hide Post
You're just wrong about some things, and I'm not going to waste time trying to convince a retired old police officer who favors more restrictions that more liberty is better and right. Your opinion is worth no more than mine, and not everyone needs the same degree of those things. You simply prefer a greater degree of authoritarianism. Many don't. So what.

That you think you're 'telling me something' is unnecessary and inaccurate anyway.

You're in no position to lecture me, or make this remotely personal. Stow that shit. (I'm sorry for the tissue comment, I did say it first, and it was too much).

As though I don't understand what is necessary for a civilized society.

Get out of here with that stuff.

......

Separately:

I'm sorry, folks, I should have dialed my tone and such back some. ^

My sentiments stand, but we (each other/broadly) definitely aren't the enemy here.

And the internet skews things some, perception wise. As I was writing all that I was petting a dog, laughing at the TV, and in two intermittent text conversations, anything but stressed or the like, and I'm certain it doesn't come across that way sometimes.

A million miles short of some fool-ass sovereign citizen or the like -- I take the topic of and my personal individual liberty *very* seriously, more so than just about anything else in life, topic wise, because IMO it's the very foundation of actually living this life to its fullest.

Of course government is necessary, law enforcement is necessary, rules are necessary... I only debate and question the amount, application, and so on, and lean little-L libertarian: (restricting Apache Helo ownership is good, NY denying a Texan the right to CCW is not)...

Don't let my passion and intensity mistakenly lead you to think I'm some kook, with fool ideas of ignoring laws, or that I'm some gangsta, or anything of the sort. I speak my mind, and generally have little patience for any further or unjust attempt to deny me of liberty.

These are philosophical positions, ways I'll vote, problems I see, and the like. Nothing else.

And at the end of the day, Donald Trump is the President, and Hillary isn't, and he's already accomplished many other meaningful steps in the right direction - none of which would have happened with that wench in office, so we're golden, this is all picking nits...

And Trump is President partially because of places like this here forum, these sorts of discussions, by good people like here - people who give a shit, and love this country, and encourage participation in the process, and aren't over zealous preppers, or mall ninjas...

Not a moment goes by that I've forgotten that, no matter how disagreements on topics go.
 
Posts: 22092 | Registered: March 12, 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Essayons
Picture of SapperSteel
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Nickelsig229:
I'm hoping that it passes and in some way sets a precedent that federal laws supersede state laws. . .


Really?

I surely do NOT want that.

THINK! Will your opinion/attitude change the next time the left wins the Oval Office and both houses of Congress?

I'd like to think that what you really mean is that you want Article IV, Section 1 of the Constitution to be fully enforced, to wit: Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

As always,

Sap


Thanks,

Sap
 
Posts: 3250 | Location: Arimo, Idaho | Registered: February 03, 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by olfuzzy:
Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) is warning that House Leadership plans to merge Obama-style gun control with national reciprocity for concealed carry.


I am hearing rumblings that Massie has never supported reciprocity. All I can find is that he is NOT a co-sponsor of the original legislation, and that he is now shouting from the rooftops against it. Does anyone know more?
 
Posts: 312 | Registered: October 13, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
bigger government
= smaller citizen
Picture of Veeper
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Herknav:
quote:
Originally posted by olfuzzy:
Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) is warning that House Leadership plans to merge Obama-style gun control with national reciprocity for concealed carry.


I am hearing rumblings that Massie has never supported reciprocity. All I can find is that he is NOT a co-sponsor of the original legislation, and that he is now shouting from the rooftops against it. Does anyone know more?


https://twitter.com/RepThomasM...serp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor

https://www.facebook.com/RepTh...sts/1843059172384905

NRA-ILA's opinion:
https://www.nraila.org/article...-pending-in-congress
 
Posts: 7546 | Location: West Michigan | Registered: April 20, 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Tinker Sailor Soldier Pie
Picture of Balzé Halzé
posted Hide Post
I'm in 100% agreement with 46and2 on this.

And I'm sorry for you guys in New Jersey, Connecticut, and the like, but I tell you this now. I will not want to sacrifice even a single element of my right to carry in Utah just so you can get some semblance of freedom in your restrictive states. Not a single bit. So if this law does that in any way, or even allows the possibility of the feds ever doing that in any way, then that's immediately a non-starter for me. And so far I haven't been convinced that that's not the case.


~Alan

Acta Non Verba
NRA Life Member (Endowment)
Family, Guns, Country

"My guns are always loaded."
~R.G. Justified

What whiskey will not cure, there is no cure.
 
Posts: 18366 | Location: Out of Jersey, Into Utah | Registered: October 29, 2012Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Political Cynic
Picture of nhtagmember
posted Hide Post
out of all the gun bills these guys could have take up this session I was hoping this wouldn't be it

I believe that a far more useful piece of legislation was the HPA and the ATF's movement towards removing suppressors from their lists of NFA items

too bad the HPA didn't pass - its had two shots so far and I don't know how many more it will have unless the ATF can unilaterally decide to remove them from the list by directive.



Peace is not the absence of conflict, but rather when you have your foot firmly on the enemies neck

"I'm only myself when I have a guitar in my hands." - George Harrison


 
Posts: 45287 | Location: Arizona | Registered: January 16, 2002Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Cruising the
Highway to Hell
Picture of 95flhr
posted Hide Post
I've read this bill as passed a couple of times. I have mixed feelings about the Feds getting in to the middle of this, but so far I don't see anything negative as it's written.

In some ways I see this as no different than drivers licenses, what would happen if states didn't have to honor each other states drivers license or vehicle registration?

Some states require some pretty extensive safety inspections to register a car, others have none, should a state that has an inspection process deny the vehicles of those that have none?

Again, have my issues with the Federal Government involvement in many things that should be left up to the states. I truly have some mixed feelings on this one.




“Government exists to protect us from each other. Where government has gone beyond its limits is in deciding to protect us from ourselves.”
― Ronald Reagan
 
Posts: 5430 | Location: Near the Beaverdam in VA | Registered: February 13, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
  Powered by Social Strata Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7  
 

SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  The Lounge    National Reciprocity for Concealed Carry

© SIGforum 2017