• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Senate to Vote Next Week on Concealed Carry Reciprocity and other Gun Amendments

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
Bear in mind that many of us use "RKBA" as a shorthand for being able to legally possess a gun. I fully acknowledge the difference between the true RKBA and the permitted privilege addressed by this bill. But I'm more than verbose enough without substituting many words about permits for "RKBA".

When one discusses laws one must be fully aware of the fact that words mean what they mean. Throwing around "RKBA" willy-nilly merely confuses the issue. How much more verbose is it to say "federally imposed exemption to the state law against carrying a concealed handgun"?

Question. How much of your opposition to the bill is based on the concerns you've expressed thus far about it setting a precedence that let's congress force States to infringe RKBA, and how much is based on the fact that the bill deals with permits to carry, rather than unencumbered RKBA?

Charles

So you are saying that all this law does is address a federally imposed exemption from the state crime of carrying a concealed handgun? Finally?

"nencumbered RKBA"? Where? When? And when did I suggest that this bill would "force States to infringe RKBA"? I have, apparently, been laboring under the misapprehension that the bill would allow the federal government to impose conditions on the States and that the federal government has a history of not to be trusted when it does that in any area.

As far as P4P, it's been known that I consider them an onerous and odious bane, and that I am wiling to sell my soul in order to gain the convenience they offer. The fact that I do not use the permission slip very often has nothing to do with anything.

stay safe.
 

The Truth

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2014
Messages
1,972
Location
Henrico
Then why are you supporting the bill? Seems to me the way to get rid of permission slips is to stop supporting them.

stay safe.

Not only do I NOT support the bill, I do not and will not ever possess a permission slip for a natural right. Not sure where you got the idea that I support the bill. Where did I say that? I even made a comment about disbanding the ATF!
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
Not only do I NOT support the bill, I do not and will not ever possess a permission slip for a natural right. Not sure where you got the idea that I support the bill. Where did I say that? I even made a comment about disbanding the ATF!

Mea culpa. Got you and someone else confused.

stay safe.
 

The Truth

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2014
Messages
1,972
Location
Henrico
I give you Latin and you respond with Portugese?

Whatever.

stay saf.

I couldn't remember the Latin phrase I needed. You'll take the Portugese and you'll like it!

Perhaps this is better...

nil verum omnia licita
 
Last edited:

J_dazzle23

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2013
Messages
643
This law seems like a small win at the expense of a big, drawn out win.

I'd rather see states one by one go to constitutional carry rather than have more federal control on the books.
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
I couldn't remember the Latin phrase I needed. You'll take the Portugese and you'll like it!

Perhaps this is better...

nil verum omnia licita

a) Yes, dear.

b) nihil, not nil.

c) You dropped a comma. Yes, we know the Romans did not have punctuation but you are writing Latin, not Roman.:p

stay safe.
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
Two thoughts.

1-The federal gun owners protection act that protects traveling through hostile States with guns stored hasn't hurt us and hasn't been used as some kind of precedence to impose bad laws on the States.

2-While the SCOTUS has recognized only a very limited individual right to keep and bear arms, why would we not want Congress to recognize and protect a broader aspect of this?

I'm the first to admit that permits are not rights.

But any study of our history shows that recognition of rights tends to evolve over time. The 13th amendment ended slavery, but didn't create true equality. Jim Crow and Separate but Equal were the legally imposed standard in much of the nation for a century. The Lawrence decision didn't create a right for homosexuals to get marriage benefits.

How exactly, does congress preventing States from locking up those who do have permits (or who live in Constitutional Carry States), hurt us?

Is it just unhappiness that those without permits don't get the same protection right away?

Do we really have so few here who recognize the clear history of incrementalism successfully advancing our cause the last 20 years? Thirty years ago, we were supposed to be charging toward a gun-free nation like England by now. Hunting was in decline and with it most other shooting sports. Then shall issue permits ushered in the modern era of effective self-defense for the masses. It spawned an entire industry of concealed carry guns and holsters, guns for women's smaller hands.

And now we've had several States move beyond shall issue permits to constitutional carry with others considering it.

With the exception of Vermont, has any State adopted constitutional carry without first having shall issue permits?

So, other than concerns about "precedence" being used to justify federally imposed bad gun laws on States, is there any actual damage done by this bill that anyone can articulate?

Charles
 
Last edited:

J_dazzle23

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2013
Messages
643
And now we've had several States move beyond shall issue permits to constitutional carry with others considering it.



Charles

Charles- I just would rather the federal government keep their heads out of it, and have all the states do exactly what I'm quoting individually.

I'm picking my favorite scenario. The current one isn't as favorable to me. shall issue has spread to most states since florida. This has also happened with gay rights. Why can't constitutional carry?


I'm not necessarily against the vote- I just see options I may like more.
 
Last edited:

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
Charles- I just would rather the federal government keep their heads out of it, and have all the states do exactly what I'm quoting individually.

I can see that point of view. I generally prefer to keep the feds out as well.

But when it comes to enumerated rights, I believe one job of the feds (post 14th amendment) is to provide some minimum level of protection. Now, before skid starts yelling again, I concede that a federal mandate not to prosecute those with permits from other States who carry a gun is not what we here consider "rights". The homosexuals might well argue that simply not being prosecuted for private intimacy was not rights either, but the Lawrence decision is proving to be a very important step for them.

I believe the feds should enforce nationwide constitutional carry.

But in the spirit of instrumentalism, I'm happy to take nationwide respect for my permit (or a DL from a constitutional carry State) as a first step.

Does anyone really have problems with the feds (the courts or congress) requiring a minimum level of respect for freedom of religion, the press, rights to an attorney, etc? So why any heartburn if the feds (courts or congress) require some minimum level of respect for our practical ability to an effective self-defense in the form of legally carrying a firearm?

Charles
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
I couldn't remember the Latin phrase I needed. You'll take the Portugese and you'll like it!

Hey, all I have to say in response to that is, suspendisse aliquet tortor in urna porta, ut blandit lectus aliquam. Nam interdum lacus eros, sed ullamcorper libero pellentesque et. Donec fringilla nunc vel purus luctus, et ultrices odio scelerisque. Vivamus euismod quam et metus bibendum ornare. Ut molestie in ante sed cursus. Fusce sed tortor ornare, placerat justo id, pulvinar purus. Ut tempor felis id luctus vestibulum. Pellentesque habitant morbi tristique senectus et netus et malesuada fames ac turpis egestas. Nullam rhoncus odio nec pellentesque porta. Praesent iaculis pretium luctus.

And I ain't saying one bit more. :)
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
Hey, all I have to say in response to that is,

Displaying bananas torturer in the urn of the gate, so that the bed of some blandit. For sometimes, lakes, eros, but ullamcorper-free, and kids. Until now, either pure ecological mourning, and avenging hate crime. Performance than the fear of us live and to drink in your computer. But before the employee in order that the running. Clinical torturer, but to adorn, real estate just id, pulvinar pure. In order that Sudan is mourning the porch. Gaming inhabit the sad old age and disease, and the advising hunger and the ugly need netus. The gate of Zen no hatred nor kids. It's targeted price of mourning.

And I ain't saying one bit more. :)

I completely agree.

Anybody want to guess what it was before he put it into some web translator widget?

stay safe.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
I completely agree.

Anybody want to guess what it was before he put it into some web translator widget?

stay safe
Guessing is the easy part, but it is safe to say it had nothing to do with Concealed Carry Reciprocity and other Gun Amendments :p
 
Top