.

Federal Conceled Carry Permit

us55840us55840 Member Posts: 31,188 ✭✭✭✭
Wouldn't it be nice?? A Federal Permit valid in all 50 states would make it so much nicer - and safer!!
But alas, the firearm abolitionists would never allow Congress to pass such a law for such a permit. ALTHOUGH, it's legal to burn the flag and use the 'f' word on TV.
What a state of affairs we are in.
"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or exercise their revolutionary right to overthrow it." Abraham Lincoln

Comments

  • tr foxtr fox Member Posts: 13,856
    edited November -1
    Sometimes you can solve a difficult problem if you break it down into smaller parts or "steps". If we all pushed for a federal nationwide concealed carry law for the already existing handicapped CCW carriers for all states, that would be a degree of success in the right direction.

    Reason being that since they already have their state issued CCW the federal legiselators could not ignore that right. Plus it is very, very difficult for ANY legislator to vote AGAINST additional rights that might save a handicapped persons life. Then once you get a national CCW for the handicapped, it would be relatively easy to push to expand that right to include the elderly or people who had only a minor "handicap" such as mild asthma, etc., etc. With this idea we would at least have our foot in the door for getting a national CCW law for everyone.

    Quote "Somehow government decided that the Constitutional Bill of Rights has become the Bill of "Suggested" Rights and are to be rationed to the citizens as the power elite sees fit"
  • shootstrightshootstright Member Posts: 342 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    The carry permit is a backdoor form of registration .
    The second amendment says we have the right to bear arms.
    The constitution grants reciprocity but They say it doesn't apply to gun permits .
    ______________________________________________________

    A well armed society is the best form of homeland security.

    Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

    A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.
    Make yourselves sheep, and the wolves will eat you.


    NRA write your Rep. will save a stamp
    http://www.capwiz.com/nra/home/
    GOA
    http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm
  • 3gunner3gunner Member Posts: 489 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Even if Congress passed such a law for a federal permit, each state would still have the ability to add to or stengthen that law to there desire. And that includes making CCW unlawful. A state can always add to a federal law, but never take away from a federal law. Federal law will always have the minimum standard.
  • BlasterBlaster Member Posts: 3 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Just do the next best thing get a Florida permit. You dont have to live in Florida to apply. If you are a veteran you can use your DD-214 as proof of training. Check out the Florida website go to Dept. of Ag.
  • salzosalzo Member Posts: 6,837
    edited November -1
    unconstitutional.

    "Waiting tables is what you know, making cheese is what I know-lets stick with what we know!"
    -Jimmy the cheese man
  • WoundedWolfWoundedWolf Member Posts: 1,658 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    The handicap CCW would violate the equal-protection clause of the 1st Amendment. Basically you can't give a priviledge to one component of the population and deny it for the rest, that is why it is basically an all or nothing issue (although politicians have no problem with felons and cops being denied/granted these priviledges).

    California won't even recognize the Federal Basic Firearms Safety Certificate for handgun purchases anymore. I seriously doubt they would recognize any Federal CCW permit, as they ignore every other state's CCW.

    "Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest." -Gandhi
  • tr foxtr fox Member Posts: 13,856
    edited November -1
    Most everything that has been posted in reply to my post about sneaking in the back door by getting a federal country wide CCW permit only for the handicapped is true and correct. But any new idea can be picked apart or valid criticism can be thrown at it. But bottom line, if we got such a nationwide permit for only the handicapped, it would be more than we have now. Plus it would provide a door that we could now force open which would provide a sound argument for providing a nationwide CCW permit for more and more people to where, hopefully, so many people would be qualified for a nationwide concealed carry permit that it would seem foolish to deny that right to everyone.

    Please try to think of ways this could work, and not ways it can fail. Because I have never seen this particular idea offered before and we desperately need new ideas or we are going to lose.

    Quote "Somehow government decided that the Constitutional Bill of Rights has become the Bill of "Suggested" Rights and are to be rationed to the citizens as the power elite sees fit"
  • WoundedWolfWoundedWolf Member Posts: 1,658 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    As far as the CCW issue, I have had an idea for a while. When someone is denied a CCW from their local law enforcement agency, they should send a letter to that agency that clearly states that the agency will be held liable for any injury or death that occurs that could have been prevented if that person had been carrying a concealed weapon.

    Unfortunately, we would have to wait for somebody to get injured, raped, or killed before a civil lawsuit could be filed. But if enough people sent these letters (and enough lawsuits were filed and settled) then maybe we could scare enough agencies into complying with existing CCW law.

    After all, even in California, it is legal to get a CCW if you have a valid reason, its just that most agencies have decided that no reason is ever valid.

    Maybe turning their own fear of liability back on them is enough to scare them? Fight fire with fire, right?

    "Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest." -Gandhi
  • tr foxtr fox Member Posts: 13,856
    edited November -1
    WoundedWolf: I very much buy into your logic and have often thought of similar ideas. I am not sure how to get the people in power to aknowledge you and your idea to the point to where it would be a kind of obligation on them. Great thinking but not sure of how to practice it.

    Quote "Somehow government decided that the Constitutional Bill of Rights has become the Bill of "Suggested" Rights and are to be rationed to the citizens as the power elite sees fit"
  • 3gunner3gunner Member Posts: 489 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    If they don't won't you to carry a concealed weapon, then don't. Strap that baby on in plain view and go where you want to (check your local laws). Heck, most business' in my area have posted those "no concealed weapons allowed" signs anyway. If you are out running some errands you'll spend more time taking the gun off and on than anything else. Can you imagine if every gun owner wore their weapon in plain view everyday. They just might start giving away those CCW permits.

    My uncle has worn his S&W 38 for years. Always in plain view. Since those new city folk have started to move in he has received some strange looks. Seems some of the newcomers were offended. Enough that the local Sheriff gave him a call and asked him to come down and apply for a CCW. My uncle replied, "No thanks, I've already got my permit; it's call the 2nd Amendment; and those before me have already paid for it."

    What are the laws like in some of your States. Can you go about wearing a firearm as long as it is in plain view and not concealed?
  • tr foxtr fox Member Posts: 13,856
    edited November -1
    3gunner: I respect and admire your uncle for wearing his .38 in plain view. I wish thousands of people would do the same. I live in KS on the border of MO. Both the KS and MO constitution cleary give the citizens the right to carry openly (KS constitution doesn't restrict concealed carry like MO does). However, the politicians and police in both states have decided the state bill of rights is only a "suggested" bill of rights and most towns and cities have passed laws forbidding carrying ANY gun (on person, in car, etc) unless it is unloaded and not easily gotten to. I cannot understand why I cannot gain any local support to challange this situation. I have tried for years for no one seems to care.

    Quote "Somehow government decided that the Constitutional Bill of Rights has become the Bill of "Suggested" Rights and are to be rationed to the citizens as the power elite sees fit"
  • WoundedWolfWoundedWolf Member Posts: 1,658 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Great comment, 3gunner.

    As I understand it, here in California it is legal to open carry in unincorporated areas (although it may change from county to county). So theoretically your handgun must be boxed and locked once you enter city limits. I'm not sure if an open carry means that it can be loaded though, maybe somebody more knowledgable about the California rat's nest of gun laws can comment.

    Given that fact, it would be pretty risky to open carry around here (even outside city limits) without having a dozen people pull out their cell phones and call 911.

    I admit, I once did this to a guy (before I knew about gun laws). He was walking down a city street with an unconcealed shotgun and looked kind of shady. The cops stopped him and then let him go. I think he was taking the shotgun to the pawn shop. Looking back, I feel kind of bad because it was my own ignorance. Then again, maybe he was gonna walk into KFC and start blowing people away, but that is probably just my residual liberal brainwashing talking.

    Happy Shooting!

    "Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest." -Gandhi
  • pickenuppickenup Member, Moderator Posts: 22,341 ******
    edited November -1
    Unfortunately it has been ruled on in court, that the police have NO responsibility, when it come to protecting the "individual" only the populous as a whole. Maybe challenging that ruling would be beneficial?


    The gene pool needs chlorine.
  • tr foxtr fox Member Posts: 13,856
    edited November -1
    pickenup: it is quite possible that challenging that rule could be beneficial. If it was ruled that the police have the duty and obligation to protect each and every citizen they might jump at the chance to let each and every lawful citizen have and carry guns to make the job of protecting them part of the responibility of the citizens.

    Quote "Somehow government decided that the Constitutional Bill of Rights has become the Bill of "Suggested" Rights and are to be rationed to the citizens as the power elite sees fit"
  • brimickribrimickri Member Posts: 31 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    I live on the Vermont/New Hampshire border, on the Vermont side. When I look out my back door, I'm looking at my neighbor in New Hampshire just across the river. New Hampshire requires CCW, but may soon be appealed, Vermont does not have a CCW, but I cannot carry into New Hampshire without going to the New Hampshire State Police and applying for a non-resident CCW. On the other hand, if you have a CCW from New Hampshire, you can carry in Vermont, does this make sense?? Anyway, Vermont is something like 48th lowest state for gun violence.
  • brimickribrimickri Member Posts: 31 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    By the way, the CCW appeal in New Hampshire, which will let any law abiding citizen carry without a permit, has passed the House and is expected to pass the Senate soon. I'll post the results, when the politicians decide.
  • pickenuppickenup Member, Moderator Posts: 22,341 ******
    edited November -1
    brimickri,
    Please do.

    The gene pool needs chlorine.
  • .222.222 Member Posts: 5 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    in the state of california, it is totally legal, in the city AND count to c arry an UNCONCEALED FIREARM. the catch o tat phrase is that while it is legal to do so, it is ILLEGAL to have any amunition on your person for said weapon (kind of defeats the pourpose doesnt it?)

    also, i would suggest that anyone i n california seeking a CCW permit MOVE TO A COUNTY THAT WILL READLY ISSUE ONE after the completion of the califor iaDOJ and federal FBI fingerprint/background check. most counties will NOT ISSUE one for ANY REASON, unless of course your an off duty law enforcment officer, a judge,retired peace officer, or a personal close friend of the chief/sheriff. as a gun dealer i am asked the questions that have been posted here all of the time.

    i can also tell you that there will NEVER BE a federal CCW. there was some controversy some time back because there were several people with a "federal permit" who were actually honorary us marshalls. if i remeber corectly, they can no longer carry, and theres no such thing anymore as an honorary marshall.

    i can tell you that i know that butte county is just about the easiest to obtain a permit in california. the sheriff is VERY pro-gun, and VERY right to cvarry, and is SHALL ISSUE.

    if you want a permit in california, even with good cause, be prepaired to wait 6-12 months,depending on what the crime rate is at the time. recently, i knew someone who had waitied for 8 months for there permit to arrive, and when he called and asked what was happening with it, he was told that it was still in the stack with about 500 people ahead of him.CCW's take low priority to standard fingerprint checks and actual criminally envolked stuff.

    also, if you have ever been arrested for ANYTHING, had a trafic ticket, or stubed your big toe, youll also have to wait for a 'disposition report" from the arresting agencies.

    NOW, the UP side to all of that is this:

    once you have your california permit, its esentually god forever. you do have to go thru all of the reissue bs, which includes a 4 hour class ( no written test or anything..you just sit and listen, then shoot)and pay a small fee. no waiting for doj,ect.

    if you are LUCKY enough to actualy be issued one ( there are actually LESS THAN 40,000 PERMITS IN THE ENTIRE STATE), MAKE SURE you always keep up on it, and keep it active. if you let it lapse before actually enewing it, youll have to go thru all the bs again!
  • WoundedWolfWoundedWolf Member Posts: 1,658 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    I would suggest double-checking the local ordinances before attempting to open-carry in any California city or county. You may be technically right, but open-carrying an unloaded firearm in a public place is the quickest way to end up on the business end of a peace officer's LOADED firearm. They assume yours is loaded, until they confirm otherwise.

    Also, I have heard of people being charged with BRANDISHING A FIREARM AT A PEACE OFFICER simply for open-carrying in public. The law merely states that carrying a firearm in a "threatening" manner in front of a peace officer is enough to be arrested for this misdemeanor, which comes with a 10 year ban on firearms ownership. "Threatening" can be interpreted many ways.

    -WW

    "History will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest." -Gandhi
  • us55840us55840 Member Posts: 31,188 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    [:)]
    Glad to spark some sensible debate. It is fortunate for some that the CCW permits in some states are legal in other states due to recprocity (sp) agreements. [:D][:D][:D]

    However, DC or kalifornia will probably never be within the list due to the sick politicians and some (majority) of the sick people that allow those politicians to remain in office.[V][V]

    Just damn glad I don't and never will live there. In fact, I don't belive I will ever visit kalifornia again.[:D][:D][:D]
    "This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or exercise their revolutionary right to overthrow it." Abraham Lincoln
  • scutascuta Member Posts: 1,086 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    So are you folks telling I shouldn't even bother applying for my CCW here in Kali?

    Isn't that kinda like not showing up for the big game cause the other team is supposed to be unstoppable?



    If you must burn our flag, please wrap yourself in it first.

    "If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun." The Dalai Lama
  • WoundedWolfWoundedWolf Member Posts: 1,658 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    I say go for it, if you can. I've heard of people that can't even get an application. They go to the police dept and they tell them that the sheriff is in charge, then sheriff's dept tells them to go back to chief of police, and so on. Just a big run-around. What can you do, file a complaint?

    It really depends on where you live. If you are in an urbanized county then you can probably forget it. But if you can get one then they are gold.

    "History will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest." -Gandhi
  • pickenuppickenup Member, Moderator Posts: 22,341 ******
    edited November -1
    You will NOT get one if you don't try. That's for sure. I would go for it, what have you got to loose? All they can say is......no, or not give you the app. like WW said.

    The gene pool needs chlorine.
  • mballaimballai Member Posts: 1,280 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Well it looks like police officers and retired ones will have the right to carry concealed in any state pretty soon. The handful of states that have been holding off CCW or just saying no to civilians from other states are going to find it increasingly impractical to just say no. It costs more for states to rail against the right to bear arms than it would be to allow it.

    Having CCW--even if few choose to use it, is the only viable protection a citizen has outside of the home. Amazing that someone can be armed to the teeth in the safest place where you are unlikely to be attacked--and utterly defenseless a mere few feet away where you are truly open season.

    Three Precious Metals: Gold, silver and lead
  • dsmithdsmith Member Posts: 902 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Equal protection??? Only Indians runnig casinos? Slavery reperations? Political Correctness in general? The first amendment is in even worse shape than I thought.

    quote:Originally posted by WoundedWolf
    The handicap CCW would violate the equal-protection clause of the 1st Amendment. Basically you can't give a priviledge to one component of the population and deny it for the rest, that is why it is basically an all or nothing issue (although politicians have no problem with felons and cops being denied/granted these priviledges).

    California won't even recognize the Federal Basic Firearms Safety Certificate for handgun purchases anymore. I seriously doubt they would recognize any Federal CCW permit, as they ignore every other state's CCW.

    "Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest." -Gandhi
  • tr foxtr fox Member Posts: 13,856
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by mballai



    quote:
    Amazing that someone can be armed to the teeth in the safest place where you are unlikely to be attacked--and utterly defenseless a mere few feet away where you are truly open season.


    Man, I LIKE that kinda logic. I'm going to use it in future arguments.

    Quote "Somehow government decided that the Constitutional Bill of Rights has become the Bill of "Suggested" Rights and are to be rationed to the citizens as the power elite sees fit"
  • Salvage33Salvage33 Member Posts: 1,182 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Here's an idea that's been percolating around in my gray matter for some time now....

    With all the states that DO issue CCW permits, and the many states that honor permits from other states, who is to say that the tide isn't already turning, and in essence, if you hold a CCW permit from a state like Florida, whose licenses are recognized in several other states, that we aren't already nearing a "national" license already?

    My state, Louisiana, just passed a law that states that 'any state that honors our CCW permit will, by reciprocity, have persons with permits from those states shall be honored in Louisiana.'

    Would have to double check with www.packing.org to see just how many states honor Florida permits, but Florida permits for out of state residents are not hard to get. It isn't as simple as getting a C&R FFL, but almost.

    Just my two and one-half cents worth on the subject.

    John




    A friend will post your bail. A good friend will be sitting next to you in the cell saying, "man that was fun!"
  • tr foxtr fox Member Posts: 13,856
    edited November -1
    John, how can I get me one of them there FLA out of state carry permits (and one for my daughter) so we can at least carry concealed when we cross over into MO from KS.

    Quote "Somehow government decided that the Constitutional Bill of Rights has become the Bill of "Suggested" Rights and are to be rationed to the citizens as the power elite sees fit"
  • pickenuppickenup Member, Moderator Posts: 22,341 ******
    edited November -1
  • WoundedWolfWoundedWolf Member Posts: 1,658 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    After reading this thread a few times, I was thinking about the Fed CCW issue and I know a lot folks are really into this and have already done a lot of research and footwork on this. Heck, there are several websites dedicated just to this issue, and I'm sure folks have thought and done a lot more than me...

    But anyway, I was just thinking that the Florida CCW seems to have become a favorite because they grant to non-residents and don't require an application in person, and they have quite a bit of reciprocity among the other states. So maybe these reciprocal states should just create a joint licensing system. That may be a way to move toward a National CCW. I mean the Powerball lottery covers a bunch of states, why couldn't these states create an interstate CCW that is good in all of them?

    My theory is that you will always have a few holdouts, like Kalifornia, Massachussets, New York, etc. These states will probably never allow reciprocity. But if you could get 30 or 40 states together in a joint system, and start advertising how the system makes it easy for law enforcement and it has been able to fund upgrading instant check databases and all that, then there could be a lot of political pressure put on the hold out states to join the system.

    If you apply the same logic to this as they do to giving illegal aliens driver's licenses (not that I agree at all with that) then the message would be, "We want every gun owner to have a CCW because then we know who they are and we can insure that they are responsible citizens". Now, I don't agree at all with that statement because the same argument is used for national gun registration, but I figure my name is probably already in so many government databases that at least I might as well get a CCW license out of it.

    -WW

    "...That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state."

    -The Debates in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Virginia, on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution. June 27, 1788.
  • 527nrhpd527nrhpd Member Posts: 4 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    It may be of no concern to many here, but President Bush did finally sign into law the national exemption from local concealed carry ordinances for active and honorably retired police officers. This bill died many a death until the very recent past, when the NRA and the Fraternal Order of Police were able to slam it through. It is a matter of time, in my opinion, before the NRA gets the FOP on board to promote the national concealed carry weapons holder exemption.

    I've been a police officer for almost 10 years, and have had no problems ever with armed persons when they were licensed, though I was nearly killed by an armed robber with a stolen gun. While criminals will always get guns, licensing makes it a little harder on them, because they risk getting caught stealing guns before they can use them.

    Anyone who cries that licensing is unconstitutional is ridiculous. How could the Founding Fathers have known that we would have so many people with mental illness or violent tendencies. Licensing is not a panacea to prevent all unlawful gun use, obviously, but I'd rather have it than not. As a police officer, I can trust that concealed carry weapons licensees are safe to be around when they are armed, in almost all cases.

    Otherwise, how am I supposed to know for what reason a person is carrying a weapon? You might ask, why is that my business, or why can't I take the time to just ask? Number 1, people are often way too tense around police officers and do stupid things. Second, it is my business, because I deserve the right to go home at night, and if you are even the least bit threatening while holding a firearm in my presence, your life just ended because I am going to err on the side of my life and caution, not yours. The licensing process provides some manner of training and testing and filtering to prevent some people who do not deserve them from possessing firearms.

    Do you REALLY want the guy you hate the most and trust the least having firearms? That is what you are asking for if you demand and get a rollback of all licensing laws and obtain total freedom to bear arms. You or someone you know will end up shot by a lunatic or a criminal who then had unfettered access to guns legally. At least make the criminals still have to work to get the guns for God's sake. If you don't still think that some licensing is a good idea, then you might need to be checked into the nearest mental facility yourself. I can think of hundreds of people too sick or too violent to be trusted with guns, and I know you do too.

    Do not be so blind as to ignore the fact that the Constitution might not have the restrict implicitly stated in it that there are some people (criminals and mentally incompetent people) who should not own firearms, we know it to be right and just that they are barred from having a gun. Just the same, you as a responsible gun owner can suffer the injustice of the licensing process in states such as Texas and Florida where citizens' rights have been supported. In states like California and New York, I feel for you, because your rights have been trampled there. The give an inch they'll take a mile has to stop somewhere, but what I can't fathom is that anyone would babble that licensing is unconstitutional. That is pure lunacy.

    CG
  • tr foxtr fox Member Posts: 13,856
    edited November -1
    527nrhpd: In general I have to agree with much of what you say. Really. But just to play "point/counterpoint", just for fun as I am not trying to prove you wrong or to win an argument.

    I believe this country, unlike most all other countries, was founded upon the idea of maximum power and freedom for the citizens, minimum power and freedom for government. Now, with this said, I still don't want the few weird, crazy or violent people I know having unrestricted access to weapons. So it would seem that I would have to be in favor, in this case, of some limiting of freedom for everyone to own guns. Otherwise, how will there even be an effort to keep guns out of the hands of those people I just mentioned? But anytime the citizens are given maximum freedom there will usually be some innocent people suffer. Freedom of speech will allow hate and lies to be spread and has and will cause violence, injury and some deaths. Freedom of movement will allow criminals to be much harder to indentify and locate. Freedom of association will allow gang members to lawfully work together; Work together until they actually do something wrong. Freedom to be left alone by the law until someone actually does something that arouses lawful suspicion means that criminals can make a lot of progress towards their criminal goals before they are caught.

    And when lawful citizens carry and own guns, there WILL BE some deadly accidents and even some intended shootings. But just as with the unwanted side-effects of a cancer drug that is saving lives, the freedom to own and carry weapons for the average citizen should also have a good side in that there should be fewer defenseless citizens harmed by criminals and more citizens lives saved by them being able to defend themselves when there is no one (police, etc) there to do it for them.

    But I still lean towards maximum freedom for citizens knowing that such freedom will cause some unwanted harm for innocent people.

    So, even though as earlier stated, I have a lot (not total) of agreement with your stated position, I would be interested in any response you care to post.

    Quote "Somehow government decided that the Constitutional Bill of Rights has become the Bill of "Suggested" Rights and are to be rationed to the citizens as the power elite sees fit"
  • pickenuppickenup Member, Moderator Posts: 22,341 ******
    edited November -1
    527nrhpd,
    Using your logic, Vermont (where, if you can legally own a gun, you can carry it "concealed" and NO permit AT ALL is required) should be swimming in blood. Some quick stats (from 2000) that I pulled up, shows that Vermont streets are NOT running with blood. AND are considerably lower, in firearm related deaths, than other states. I wonder why?

    Deaths per 1000 people.
    VT = 9.2
    States with NO CCW
    NB = 10.1
    KS = 11.2
    MO = 13.5
    NM = 16.7
    Wash DC = 28.7
    States with (shall issue) CCW
    OR = 11.3
    WY = 12.1
    AZ = 16.3
    MS = 16.9
    NV = 18.1
    State with (may issue) CCW
    CA = 9.2
    AL = 17.5

    Granted there are numbers both higher and lower (well, not higher that DC) but this seems to throw a monkey wrench in your argument about who should, and who shouldn't be allowed to carry a gun. While I agree with you, that I know people that should not be allowed to put a gun in their hands. Why do the statistics PROVE that it is not a problem?

    The way it is nowadays, EVERYONE who purchases a firearm legally, has NO CHOICE, but to go through a background check. Once this has been completed, they should be allowed to carry it. The criminals, by definition, are not going to abide by ANY laws. What I can not understand, is the mentality of people who think that "more laws" are going to stop criminals. Laws are mainly for "prosecution" purposes, and does very little (if any) good for the "prevention" of any crime.

    As far as the constitution goes. While I agree that times have changed since it was written, but strictly "constitutionally speaking" what part of "The right to keep and BEAR arms shall NOT be INFRINGED" is hard to understand? ANY law that INFRINGES upon the right to BEAR arms, is undeniably unconstitutional. Of course, that is on the federal level, your state constitutions may vary, as was originally intended.

    I would have to question the sanity/intelligence of anyone that says that "whoever believes in the constitution, is loony and should be locked up in a mental institution." Sorry to inform you, but your PERSONAL OPINION does not change the constitution, any more than my OPINION would.

    The gene pool needs chlorine.
  • tr foxtr fox Member Posts: 13,856
    edited November -1
    DANG, PICKENUP, well said! Well said indeed.

    Quote "Somehow government decided that the Constitutional Bill of Rights has become the Bill of "Suggested" Rights and are to be rationed to the citizens as the power elite sees fit"
  • OklahomaboundOklahomabound Member Posts: 829 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    "unconstitutional.

    "Waiting tables is what you know, making cheese is what I know-lets stick with what we know!"
    -Jimmy the cheese man"

    Everything that I want/like to do is either illegal, immoral, fattening, or ......

    976371019-1.jpg "Know the true value of time; snatch, seize, and enjoy every moment of it." Lord Chesterfield
  • mixontourmixontour Member Posts: 39 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by 3gunner
    If they don't won't you to carry a concealed weapon, then don't. Strap that baby on in plain view and go where you want to (check your local laws). Heck, most business' in my area have posted those "no concealed weapons allowed" signs anyway. If you are out running some errands you'll spend more time taking the gun off and on than anything else. Can you imagine if every gun owner wore their weapon in plain view everyday. They just might start giving away those CCW permits.

    My uncle has worn his S&W 38 for years. Always in plain view. Since those new city folk have started to move in he has received some strange looks. Seems some of the newcomers were offended. Enough that the local Sheriff gave him a call and asked him to come down and apply for a CCW. My uncle replied, "No thanks, I've already got my permit; it's call the 2nd Amendment; and those before me have already paid for it."

    What are the laws like in some of your States. Can you go about wearing a firearm as long as it is in plain view and not concealed?



    New York City has seperate laws from the state. There is actually two different licenses just to have a gun in your dwelling. One is a target license, th other a dwelling license. The target license you cannot use at home, but you can carry it freely to and from the range(locked in a box, of course). The other license you must apply for transportation of said firearm with local police precinct, but only up to two times per year. On top of that, to apply for a license, you have to lay down close to $500 just for applying. If you get denied, you lose all of that money as 'Application Fees'. It sounds less like a gun law and more extortion.

    "War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature, and has no chance of being free unless made or kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
  • mixontourmixontour Member Posts: 39 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by 527nrhpd

    I've been a police officer for almost 10 years, and have had no problems ever with armed persons when they were licensed, though I was nearly killed by an armed robber with a stolen gun. While criminals will always get guns, licensing makes it a little harder on them, because they risk getting caught stealing guns before they can use them.

    Anyone who cries that licensing is unconstitutional is ridiculous.

    CG



    I think we're hitting on an idea here, why don't we treat CCW or open carry more like a driver's license? Where you get the 'safety' course and tested, with a range test. Then you can drive any car, err...carry any gun anywhere in the fifty states.

    "War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature, and has no chance of being free unless made or kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
Sign In or Register to comment.