In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Why Adopt a Vermont-style CCW Law?
sovereignman
Member Posts: 544 ✭✭✭
In this article there are 8 reasons to adopt a Vermont style CCW. Imagine,in Vermont when I cross the state line I strap on a firearm, no government interference, no big brother doling out privileges,no FFL leech dealers sucking money out of my pocket.
Why Adopt a Vermont-style CCW Law?
1st of 8....1. Carrying a firearm is a "right" not a "privilege"
The Second Amendment guarantees that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." This means that law-abiding citizens should not need to beg the government for permission to carry a firearm. That would turn the "right" to bear arms into a mere "privilege." Likewise, one should not have to be photographed, fingerprinted, or registered before they can exercise their Second Amendment rights. Criminals certainly do not jump through these "hoops." The Second Amendment is no different than any of the other protections enumerated in the Bill of Rights. That is, honest citizens should not need a government issued permission slip; rather, they should be able to carry as a matter of right.
article here... http://gunowners.org/vtcarry.htm
Why Adopt a Vermont-style CCW Law?
1st of 8....1. Carrying a firearm is a "right" not a "privilege"
The Second Amendment guarantees that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." This means that law-abiding citizens should not need to beg the government for permission to carry a firearm. That would turn the "right" to bear arms into a mere "privilege." Likewise, one should not have to be photographed, fingerprinted, or registered before they can exercise their Second Amendment rights. Criminals certainly do not jump through these "hoops." The Second Amendment is no different than any of the other protections enumerated in the Bill of Rights. That is, honest citizens should not need a government issued permission slip; rather, they should be able to carry as a matter of right.
article here... http://gunowners.org/vtcarry.htm
Comments
So, without trying to make you angry or feel insulted, I still need to tell you that you need to preach to your enemies and get them to change their thoughts on the gun rights issue. Because most gun owners already agree with you but at the same time we conduct ourselves in such a way as to not get arrested.
Now, with all that said, if you know a better way or if you have a better understanding of the situation than what I described, then please educate me.
You act like you are the first person to realize that the US Constitution and many state constitutions clearly provide for gun rights of ownership and carry for individual citizens like you and I. Most gun owners already know that. But the problem is that there are millions of other citizens, thousands of politicians and dozens of anti-gun right groups that are constantly working to limit or even eliminate our gun rights.
So, without trying to make you angry or feel insulted, I still need to tell you that you need to preach to your enemies and get them to change their thoughts on the gun rights issue. Because most gun owners already agree with you but at the same time we conduct ourselves in such a way as to not get arrested.
Now, with all that said, if you know a better way or if you have a better understanding of the situation than what I described, then please educate me.
I do every chance i get. I can and have for years. This system has been corrupted by accomplices working as licensed arms of government.. What would have happened if all the FFL dealers had said no to the government? Greed is a factor in this equation. Our own kind is part of the problem. JMO.
Now, you fault the FFL holders for following the law and getting paid for their time. When you yourself work and follow the law, do you not want to be paid? Besides, if you have such scorn for FFl's, then don't go to them and use their services.
As far as that goes, you fault the FFL's for not resisting the government and their new laws but what EXACTLY have you yourself done to actively resist the government and their laws? If your advice about the FFL's "just saying no" to the govenment is good and fair advice, why don't you yourself "just say no" to the government and do as you damn well please regarding buying, selling. CARRYING, and possessing guns?
You seem like a decent enough person and I believe you are a brother gun owner. But I also know that out of the 84 million or so gun owners in America, only about 10% or so of them (8 million or so) actually DO anything to help preserve their gun rights. Posting on an internet gun forum doesn't count for much BTW. So I have to assume when I am addressing someone I don't know about (you) that you are most likely in that 90% (about 76 million gun owners) who do little or nothing to actually help with trying to save and expand our gun rights.
If you care to answer, am I right or wrong?
Since the anti-gun crowd lobbied and put one over one us, as they have often done, it became law that in order to purchase a gun through the mail or at a gun store you had to go through an FFL. In other words, since we did not succeed in fighting the anti-gun crowd, and winning, until we are able to change it we are unfortunately stuck with what I just described.
Now, you fault the FFL holders for following the law and getting paid for their time. When you yourself work and follow the law, do you not want to be paid? Besides, if you have such scorn for FFl's, then don't go to them and use their services.
As far as that goes, you fault the FFL's for not resisting the government and their new laws but what EXACTLY have you yourself done to actively resist the government and their laws? If your advice about the FFL's "just saying no" to the govenment is good and fair advice, why don't you yourself "just say no" to the government and do as you damn well please regarding buying, selling. CARRYING, and possessing guns?
You seem like a decent enough person and I believe you are a brother gun owner. But I also know that out of the 84 million or so gun owners in America, only about 10% or so of them (8 million or so) actually DO anything to help preserve their gun rights. Posting on an internet gun forum doesn't count for much BTW. So I have to assume when I am addressing someone I don't know about (you) that you are most likely in that 90% (about 76 million gun owners) who do little or nothing to actually help with trying to save and expand our gun rights.
If you care to answer, am I right or wrong?
What do I do? What do you do? I support Gun owners of America the only "No Compromise" gun group. I write senators, congressmen and women monthly. I donate time and money to the cause of the second amendment. I am active locally and work for change from the grass roots of township up. I write newspapers with opinions to keep the issue alive in the minds of locals. And I "don't get sucked into this CCW crap, just another license to control the weak minded.
As to the FFL dealers they are part of the problem.Any time a person takes license they are an arm of the government.
You act like you are the first person to realize that the US Constitution and many state constitutions clearly provide for gun rights of ownership and carry for individual citizens like you and I. Most gun owners already know that. But the problem is that there are millions of other citizens, thousands of politicians and dozens of anti-gun right groups that are constantly working to limit or even eliminate our gun rights.
So, without trying to make you angry or feel insulted, I still need to tell you that you need to preach to your enemies and get them to change their thoughts on the gun rights issue. Because most gun owners already agree with you but at the same time we conduct ourselves in such a way as to not get arrested.
Now, with all that said, if you know a better way or if you have a better understanding of the situation than what I described, then please educate me.
For Immediate Release: 5/10/2011
BELLEVUE, WA - The Second Amendment Foundation today filed suit in U.S. District Court in Virginia challenging the constitutionality of federal and Virginia provisions barring handgun sales to non-residents.
SAF is joined in the lawsuit by Michelle Lane, a District of Columbia resident who cannot legally purchase handguns because there are no retail firearms dealers inside the District. The Supreme Court's 2008 Heller ruling struck down the District's handgun ban, confirming that individuals have a constitutional right to possess handguns.
SAF and Lane are represented by attorney Alan Gura of Gura & Possessky, PLLC, who won both the Heller ruling and last year's Supreme Court victory in McDonald v. City of Chicago. Named as defendants are Attorney General Eric Holder and W. Steven Flaherty, superintendent of the Virginia State Police.
"This is an important issue in the era of the national instant background check," said SAF Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. "The NICS check should allow law-abiding citizens like Miss Lane to exercise their Second Amendment rights regardless their place of residence."
"Americans don't check their constitutional rights at the state line," said Gura. "And since Michelle Lane is legally entitled to possess firearms, forcing her to seek a non-existing D.C. dealer to buy a handgun is pointless when perfectly legitimate options exist minutes across the Potomac River."
"The Supreme Court has ruled that District residents have an individual right, protected by the Constitution, to have a handgun in their home," Gottlieb noted. "The high court has also ruled that the Second Amendment applies to the states. Existing state and federal statutes violate both the spirit and letter of recent court rulings and the Constitution, and our lawsuit seeks to remedy that situation."