Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 66

Thread: National Carry Permit

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    2,247

    Post imported post

    A lot of discussion on here about a Federal Carry permit overriding the individual states and making uniform carry regulations throughout the entire country. Given that the likelyhood of such a proposal is that it would ever be enacted, to get it passedhow much are you willing to sacrifice. Right now state laws vary from unrestricted carry to no carry so some would benefit while others would lose.

    How much would you be willing to sacrifice to have a uniform law across the land. Would you be willing to accept TN law where all carry requires a permit for the sake of being able to carry in New York City? Before promoting a national permit we need to look at what it will really mean. I doubt that the entire country will ever accept the Alaska version of gun carry.

  2. #2
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    2,350

    Post imported post

    Nope, a federal carry permit is going in the completely wrong direction. We're fighting for our rights, not privileges...

  3. #3
    Campaign Veteran Dutch Uncle's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,715

    Post imported post

    I'm not willing to sacrifice a damned thing for such a proposal. Sure, it would be nice to have uniformity in licencing and one permit that would work in every state, just like a drivers licence, but not at the cost of making it a federal program. That which the feds give, they can take away. Knowing the history of federal programs, I have reason not to trust the politicized "gifts" from Uncle Sam. Many people who like the concept of a federal CCW try to equate it with the current drivers licence system, but it isn't close to being the same. The states have agreed amongst themselves to honor each others licences, but continue to administer their licencing systems at the state level. The feds, thankfully, have almost no power over the states in this regard, at least so far. Would you really want them to arrogate that power to themselves so you would have to get a federal licence to drive? Can you imagine the mischief the central government could get away with if they could hold our drivers licences over our heads to gain compliance with some of their other programs. A person would be very naive to think this wouldn't happen. NO THANKS!

    Since FL was first, maybe their governor should call for a conference of all governors to hammer out an agreement that would lead to true reciprocity between the several states. It wouldn't happen all at once, but even if 30 of the 40 CCW states agreed on reciprocity, it wouldn't be long before other states signed on. JMHO.

  4. #4
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Henderson, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    333

    Post imported post

    Dutch Uncle +1

    We are never going to get California, New York, New Jersey. I really feel for the folks who live there, I used to, but I'm not even willing to waste my time or energy on trying to win those battles.

    I think we will have much more success pressuring state legislatures for wider reciprocity. Given the ridiculously small percentage of legal gun owners (and CCWers specifically) who are ever involved in violent crime, it's hard for anyone to make a logical argument that someone from out of state with a permit poses a huge additional risk versus a state resident.

    We already have numerous states with long reciprocity lists to use as evidence. If your state has already enacted shall-issue, then the "blood running in the streets" arguments have already been proven false.

    Nevada LEO have historically been vehemently against recognition/reciprocity of any kind, and some in our legislature even more against it. Yet, this year we were able to get limited recognition. I'm confident we can continue to grow that list.

    The Federal government is already involved in far too many areas where they have no mandate. Let's not add another.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    2,247

    Post imported post

    Dutch Uncle: I think you hit on exactly why I asked this question as I have heard many try to equate it to drivers license. Someone proposing a national permit imagines it to be equal to what they have now and doesn't realize what a mess we could be in. I am a firm believer in the 10th amendment and want the Feds out of as much as we can keep them out of. The immenent domain ruling about the taking of property for private development, as much as I hate the law, was a victory for the states. The SCOTUS ruled for the states in that case as despicable as that law is, and the same needs to be said for gun control. The decision on the DC ban on guns will not be about states rights but rather about 2A rights and the basic rights of a human in their home so this is not a conflict of statements.

  6. #6
    Opt-Out Members
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    59

    Post imported post

    What I would be in favor of is Federal Pre-emption laws that are similar to State pre-emption laws.

    This would prevent any state from passing a law that is stricter than the federal law. Of course, that would make Alaska and Vermont style carry legal in all 50 + DC.

    Not likely to happen... but one can dream.

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    An act of legislation passed by one administration is as easily rescinded by the next. The Second Amendment enumerates an inalienable Right from our Maker.

    Ignorant tinkering with 'rights' and laws is what has gotten us to our current straits - and the NRA has been at the helm of the punt of this state.

    Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. NRA *******

  8. #8
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Henderson, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    333

    Post imported post

    It would be interesting, on another thread, to see how you think the NRA is responsible for "the situation we're in."

    The NRA didn't support or pass the GCA of '68, the NRA didn't support or pass the Clinton AWB.

    What the NRA *has* done, is effectively lobby both at a national level and at a local level to defeat many new gun restrictions. The NRA is largely responsible for the CCW laws now in place.

    What has JPFO accomplished? GOA? Other than NRA bashing, and pot-stirring, I'd say nothing. Without the NRA, gun owners would be viewed as "a few hunters, or gun nut wackos" by Washington, and our concerns would be marginalized and ignored.

    Easy to criticize the work that the NRA has done as "compromises," but I don't see any of the criticizers making any effective positive changes.

    Unless you're ready to march on Washington with your AR and start a coup, I don't see what more you would expect the NRA to be doing.

    Despite the armchair commando fantasies of some who post on the Internet, gun owners on the whole are the same roll over pansies as the rest of America. Without a large lobbying organization like the NRA, our gun "rights" would look a lot more like the UK or Australia than they do.

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    I can speak with personal knowlege only of South Carolina's "Law Abiding Citizens Self-Defense Act of 1996" and our later efforts to liberalize it. The NRA and its affiliate termagants, GOSC, has only worked to advance their standing with unprincipled politicians and not to the benefit of SC legally armed citizens.

    I am familiar also with the genesis of Palmetto Exile, the local implimentation of the NRA's Project Exile.

    See Grass Roots Gun Rights South Carolina at http://www.scfirearms.org for whom I was a registered community volunteer and public speaker.

    Look into the efforts of the NRA against Grass Roots North Carolina and some of its individual members.

    I will not provide links to archives just to have them disputed. Ask your own questions and find your own answers. Perhaps a starting place would be keepandbeararms.com http://keepandbeararms.com/informati....asp?CatID=111
    http://keepandbeararms.com/NRA/

    Which part of "shall not be infringed" is not clear? Do not repeat dis-information.

    Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. NRA *******

  10. #10
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Henderson, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    333

    Post imported post

    The only thing I see is the same, tired, "all or nothing" argument that usually comes from NRA bashers.

    If the NRA supports amending a law to make it less restrictive when the "ideal" would be to repeal it, the NRA is weak... supporting gun restrictions... pandering to liberals, etc.

    Let's pretend for a second the NRA did exactly what you guys want. The NRA stops sponsoring shooting ranges, competitions, magazines, events, etc. The NRA stops supporting conservative legislators who try to work gradually toward restoring our gun rights.

    All the NRA does with its time and money is run national media ads that every current politician is a traitor, every gun law is unconstitutional, and every red-blooded American should be able to own machine guns, armor-piercing ammo, magazines of any capacity, any small arms they want. They should be able to carry those arms open or concealed anywhere at any time for any reason.

    OK, now you're happy with the NRA.

    What impact do you think that tactic will have on politics and the legal landscape in America? What percentage of the NRA's current membership will leave because they haven't yet been persuaded to that "extreme" view of the 2nd amendment (right or not)? How many of the millions of American gun owners who don't currently belong to a gun lobbying organization will join up in light of this new "in your face" tactic?

    When you can honestly answer those last 3 questions, I think it will be clear why the NRA moves gradually and within the political system rather than screaming at the top of their lungs and decrying every single action or person that is seen as "compromising."

  11. #11
    Regular Member sccrref's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Virginia Beach, VA, , USA
    Posts
    741

    Post imported post

    PT111 wrote:
    Dutch Uncle: I think you hit on exactly why I asked this question as I have heard many try to equate it to drivers license. Someone proposing a national permit imagines it to be equal to what they have now and doesn't realize what a mess we could be in. I am a firm believer in the 10th amendment and want the Feds out of as much as we can keep them out of. The immenent domain ruling about the taking of property for private development, as much as I hate the law, was a victory for the states. The SCOTUS ruled for the states in that case as despicable as that law is, and the same needs to be said for gun control. The decision on the DC ban on guns will not be about states rights but rather about 2A rights and the basic rights of a human in their home so this is not a conflict of statements.
    I do not see anywhere in the 2A that limits where you have the RTKABA other than the inferred US of A.

  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    The only thing I see is the same, tired, "all or nothing" argument that usually comes from NRA bashers.
    Broad brush and ad hominem demonizing.

    If the NRA supports amending a law to make it less restrictive when the "ideal" would be to repeal it, the NRA is weak... supporting gun restrictions... pandering to liberals, etc.
    In the case of SC's laws the NRA did not support making the law less restirctive.

    Let's pretend for a second the NRA did exactly what you guys want. The NRA stops sponsoring shooting ranges, competitions, magazines, events, etc. The NRA stops supporting conservative legislators who try to work gradually toward restoring our gun rights.
    I have no idea what this red herring/straw man is intended to accomplish.

    All the NRA does with its time and money is run national media ads that every current politician is a traitor, every gun law is unconstitutional, and every red-blooded American should be able to own machine guns, armor-piercing ammo, magazines of any capacity, any small arms they want. They should be able to carry those arms open or concealed anywhere at any time for any reason.
    This is utter irony - ignorance to make some point.

    OK, now you're happy with the NRA.
    I will never be happy with the NRA or with its cozening leftist pols.

    What impact do you think that tactic will have on politics and the legal landscape in America?
    That is your red herring to eat and not mine to answer.

    What percentage of the NRA's current membership will leave because they haven't yet been persuaded to that "extreme" view of the 2nd amendment (right or not)?
    Some, not to indulge in specious precision.

    How many of the millions of American gun owners who don't currently belong to a gun lobbying organization will join up in light of this new "in your face" tactic?
    It is not my intention to convince more 'members' to subscribe and support suits.

    When you can honestly answer those last 3 questions,
    I have though you may disagree.

    I think it will be clear why the NRA moves gradually and within the political system rather than screaming at the top of their lungs and decrying every single action or person that is seen as "compromising."
    Hmm, gradualism, incrementalism and compromise are well known tactics that were, in one case, defeated and will be again. Extremism in defense of freedom is not a vice.

    The last word is yours, I will not respond.

    Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. NRA *******









  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Toledo, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    245

    Post imported post

    I have a national carry "permit." It was ratified in 1791.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Gary, Indiana, USA
    Posts
    518

    Post imported post

    Demarest wrote:
    I have a national carry "permit." It was ratified in 1791.
    No, you don't have a national carry "permit." You have a national carry "right." Big difference. The fact that there are people's republics among us that don't honor it does not make it any less of a right.

  15. #15
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Henderson, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    333

    Post imported post

    Doug Huffman wrote:
    Extremism in defense of freedom is not a vice.
    You're right. It is not.

    But, neither is it productive. There are an awful lot of people in America carrying open and concealed weapons without facing imprisonment because they were willing to walk away with something rather than nothing.

    Until the time that you (and a WHOLE lot of others) are ready to start the second American revolution, absolutism is getting you nowhere fast.

    As for grandiose dreams of the next "uprising," read a little about the Civil War and how well that went. Good luck trying something similar today where you won't get even a fraction of the participation that the Confederacy had.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    3,047

    Post imported post

    To reply to the original topic, since the NRA discussion is very tired, I'd oppose a National Carry Permit for several reasons:

    1) The federal (i.e. national) government has no power to issue such a permit. If it's not in Article 1, Section 8, or Article 2, Section 2 (for the executive), the federal government has no power to do it. While these days that means pretty much nothing, it would just be another nail in the coffin of the constitution... the irony being that the founding fathers intended for guns to be used to protect the Constitution.

    2) The permit "requirements" would need to include those of DPRNY, DPRNJ, DPRCA, DPRHI, and others. It would be impossible for a person to get one.

    3) That being said, there needs to be a paradigm shift regarding OC and CC. I believe it would be safe to say that our founding fathers intended citizens of this country to open carry. That's why there is no "permit" system discussed in the founding documents. Now, as for CC, I can see an argument that I'm not entirely sure I disagree with for requiring background-checked permits for the purpose of concealed carrying, as there are very few legitimate reasons for carrying a concealed handgun when open carry is widely accepted and legal without a permit.

    4) However, since anyone or any group in power is very tempted to corruptly use power, I would also oppose efforts to grant "permits" to carry concealed on the basis that it is a step toward more infringement and abuse of governmental power.

    5) Also, I'll admit that I read "bear" as meaning to carry in plain sight on one's person, but not necessarily to hide it on one's person. But because there's a doubt in my mind as to the meaning, and because there are too many gray areas between open and concealed carry, I would be forced to interpret it as allowing unlicensed carry in either mode.

    6) Shouldn't states already honor all other states' permits to carry concealed through Article 4, Section 1, the "full faith and credit" clause?

  17. #17
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Henderson, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    333

    Post imported post

    Quote Originally Posted by imperialism2024
    6) Shouldn't states already honor all other states' permits to carry concealed through Article 4, Section 1, the "full faith and credit" clause?
    The problem is that there are already a ton of areas where this is not the case. Whether it's because it truly doesn't apply or because we've just decided to ignore the Constitution (as the Fed has wrt Dept of Education, etc) I don't know.

    Specifically, I'm thinking of things like:

    State Bar for lawyers
    Teaching certificates
    Contractor licenses
    etc, etc

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Washington, DC USA
    Posts
    175

    Post imported post

    I'm all for national carry but a federal carry permit or federal law would be a huge mistake. It would be too centralized and of coursevulnerable to being overturned/manipulated by an anti-gun congress or administration.

    What the Feds can do is assist or encouragethe statesto gettogether and recognize one another's permits maybe under Full Faith And Credit.

    You can be assured that California, Illinois, New Jersey and Washington, DC would be among the ones who refuse to go along with anything.




  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    By God, Texas, ,
    Posts
    43

    Post imported post

    On a slightly different note, it would be interesting to at least float the idea a little, to see what kind of response we get from the national LEO organizations.

    You know, the same ones who told us they'd have our backs after a couple good years once they got their nationwide CCW......

  20. #20
    State Pioneer ConditionThree's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Shasta County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,231

    Post imported post

    Demarest wrote:
    I have a national carry "permit." It was ratified in 1791.
    Agreed. Im also not interested in entertaining the subject of allowing our legislators to attempt to define what is and what isnt appropriate forms of carry on an issue that was settled and cannonized in our Bill of Rights two hundred years ago. The idea of 'nationalized' carry laws is contrary to the Constitution.... Not just the issue of 2A,... but the issue of States Rights as well.

    This in my opinion is a dangerous proposition - in much the same way a new 'Constitutional' convention would be. Every special interest group would be lobbying for their own protections and individualized rights, even when they are in conflict with another groups interests. Likewise, every State would be attempting to influence the outcome of a nationalized carry law. In short, it is not appropriate for the people of California to tell the people of Alaska just what is or isnt okay for Alaskans.

    I would be most satisfied with the absence of permits and licenses to do what is a natural and inalienable right.
    New to OPEN CARRY in California? Click and read this first...

    NA MALE SUBJ ON FOOT, LS NB 3 AGO HAD A HOLSTERED HANDGUN ON HIS RIGHT HIP. WAS NOT BRANDISHING THE WEAPON, BUT RP FOUND SUSPICIOUS.
    CL SUBJ IN COMPLIANCE WITH LAW


    Support the 2A in California - Shop Amazon for any item and up to 15% of all purchases go back to the Calguns Foundation. Enter through either of the following links
    www.calgunsfoundation.org/amazon
    www.shop42a.com

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA, ,
    Posts
    1,244

    Post imported post

    I'm putting a very long reply here. The reply is to a post made here:http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/view_to...mp;forum_id=54

    TEX1N wrote: [/b]

    I've heard (the states rights)argument against national reciprocity from a few people. I'm also a states' rights guy, but I also support a national reciprocity bill. Mainly because I believe the RKBA is a natural right recognized by the federal constitution. Therefore, I don't have any problem with the feds taking steps (no matter how small) to force the states to recognize that right (even if it's only part of that right).
    My concern on national reciprocity is three-fold

    1 - My biggest concern is that I do not want the federal government to have the precedent to regulate stuff like this. The wonderful thing about federalism is that if you happen to live in a sucky state like Illinois, you can easily hop on over to another state. If we set the precedent that the Federal government can regulate the carrying of guns, it's only a matter of time before McCarthy, Kennedy, et al decide to regulate it the OTHER way. And once there'sa bad national law on carrying, it'll really suck.

    I realize that just because they don't regulate it yet doesn't mean that the gun grabbers couldn't do it ANYWAY, but I think having such a sweeping requirement that all states have to allow carry by their citizens would (a) unite the non-shall-issue states together to lobby Congress to regulate carrying, which - since it was now nationalized -would effect ALL of us, not just thepoor sapswho live in states likeIllinois and (b) make it easier to justify nationalrestrictions on carrying in the future.

    Summary: I don't trust the feds. Keep them as far away from my gun rights as possible. I feel as if I have no control over what they do...like they have no ears for what the people want. Unlike a state legislature, which can be convinced with grassroots efforts, the Congress is like a wild animal...best just to stay out of its way.

    2 - On a more principled note, I do not believe that the power to force states to recognize carry permits can be found anywhere in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. Carrying a gun is not interstate commerce. I think the federal safe passage law is as far as the feds should go.

    We (are supposed to)live in a country of sovereign states loosely knitted together by a federal government for the limited purposes of commerce and common defense. I like it that way (or like the idea of it being that way). I'm not willing to give up on the Constitution just yet.

    3 - As far as the 2nd Amendment authorizing the bearing of arms as an argument for federal intervention, as you know, The Bill of Rights does not GIVE power to the federal government to do anything. It merely states the things the federal government cannot do. So using the 2nd Amendment as a justification for government action doesn't work. To look for what the federal government is allowed to do, article I section 8 has an exaustive list and I don't see allowing the carry of weapons there (see #2 above).

    Further, although states are definitely infringing on our god-given rights to RKBA, they should be sued individually, since they are infringing on the right. The Federal government is not in the equation unless they are the ones infringing on the right (As in the Heller case).

    TEX1N wrote:

    (A national carry law)would take a little of the power to regulate firearms from the other states and give it back to the people, where it belongs.
    I really don't see how taking power away from a more local government that's actually closer to the people and giving it to the distantfederal government implies that the people have more power. The states that infringe on RKBA have done so because their people want them to. I don't think "the people" have the right to regulate my right of self-defense anyway. That's why it's a right.

    TEX1N wrote:

    The main problem I have with your argument, against the national reciprocity because of states' rights, is that it implies a collective right to keep and bear arms, and not an individual right.
    Hmmmm...well, I definitely don't believe there's any such thing as"collective right" (it's a contradiction in terms), so let me try to understand how you came to that conclusion.

    Are you saying that by saying states can regulate RKBA, that the right is not an individual one, but merely a right vested in certain collections of citizens who live within the borders of certain states? That's a good point!

    It's not that I don't believe individuals have this right. It's that I don't think the federal constitution vests the power in the federal government to interfere with the affairs of sovereign states and tell them what rights to protect. States thatinfringe on rights should be sued individually under the state and federal constitutions.

    Keep in mind that there's no federal requirement that states recognize each others' drivers licenses. They did it completely on their own. I'd like to work at this from the state level.


  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Chambersburg, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    252

    Post imported post

    I dont like the idea of a permit to drive MY car on roads I payed for so I woudl never support something similair for my right to carry in my home state.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Northern VA, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    842

    Post imported post

    ama-gi, thanks for the reply. I understand where you are coming from, but I'm probably going to have to disagree with you for now...although this is probably one area where I could be swayed!

  24. #24
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    , Alabama, USA
    Posts
    935

    Post imported post

    bobernet wrote:
    It would be interesting, on another thread, to see how you think the NRA is responsible for "the situation we're in."

    The NRA didn't support or pass the GCA of '68, the NRA didn't support or pass the Clinton AWB.

    You need to do some research....seriously, you do....IIRC, it was Feinstein that introduced the bill and NRA DID give money to help get it passed.....see below

    What the NRA *has* done, is effectively lobby both at a national level and at a local level to defeat many new gun restrictions. The NRA is largely responsible for the CCW laws now in place.

    Horse ****!....again, you need to do some research....hell, just read some of the NRA's own publications....

    What has JPFO accomplished? GOA? Other than NRA bashing, and pot-stirring, I'd say nothing. Without the NRA, gun owners would be viewed as "a few hunters, or gun nut wackos" by Washington, and our concerns would be marginalized and ignored.

    Easy to criticize the work that the NRA has done as "compromises," but I don't see any of the criticizers making any effective positive changes.

    Unless you're ready to march on Washington with your AR and start a coup, I don't see what more you would expect the NRA to be doing.

    You really don't "get it" do you....it is a RIGHT...period...there should be no compromise

    Despite the armchair commando fantasies of some who post on the Internet, NRA worshipers on the whole are the same roll over pansies as the rest of America. Without a large lobbying organization like the NRA, our gun "rights" would look a lot more like the UK or Australia than they do.
    You REALLY need to get your facts straight.........

    "The National Rifle Association has been in support of workable, enforceable gun control legislation since its very inception in 1871."
    —NRA Executive Vice President Franklin L. Orth
    NRA's American Rifleman Magazine, March 1968, P. 22

    "The NRA supported The National Firearms Act of 1934 which taxes and requires registration of such firearms as machine guns, sawed-off rifles and sawed-off shotguns. ... NRA support of Federal gun legislation did not stop with the earlier Dodd bills. It currently backs several Senate and House bills which, through amendment, would put new teeth into the National and Federal Firearms Acts." —American Rifleman, March 1968, P. 22


    Originally, HB 1247 would have repealed the requirement to obtain a permit before carrying a handgun concealed in a vehicle for self-defense. But surprisingly, David Conway, lobbyist for NRA affiliated South Dakota Shooting Sports Association, opposed this pro-gun bill in committee, stating that he had a problem with repealing the permit requirement.


    NRA has been giving money to Senator Max Baucus (D-MT). According to the Website that tracks all of the candidate and donor financial information available from the Federal Elections Commission (FEC), (See http://www.tray.com/fecinfo/.) both Baucus and NRA-PVF (Political Victory Fund - the name of the NRA political action committee) FEC reports show that the NRA on 06/26/01 gave the Baucus re-election campaign a $3,950.00 contribution.
    Most of you will remember that Max Baucus built his political career on steady and sworn promises to NEVER vote for any gun control. Then, in 1994, and at the special request of his then-buddy, Bill Clinton, Baucus betrayed his longstanding promises to Montana voters and became the single swing vote on pass/fail procedural votes on both the Brady Bill and the Feinstein semi-auto and magazine ban bill.

    Look here... http://keepandbeararms.com/informati....asp?CatID=175 ...to see more about how the NRA has "protected" our RIGHTS....
    You are entitled to your opinion of course but, you need to "put up or shut up"...ie, provide cites for your contentions.

    The NRA should be demanding recognition of our RIGHTS instead of......
    Negotiating Rights Away.....simple as that


    <Rant off>


    As for a national CC "law"....HELL NO... keep the feds out of our rights. I say let the states continue as they are with regards to CC and let the Fed force states to recognize our 2A RIGHT...ie, every state would have to allow OC without any "permission slip" (private property of others excepted of course).




  25. #25
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    , Indiana, USA
    Posts
    1,606

    Post imported post

    thorsmitersaw wrote:
    I dont like the idea of a permit to drive MY car on roads I payed for so I woudl never support something similair for my right to carry in my home state.
    You aren't the only person here who pays for roads, infact the portion of money you paid into the system for roads, probably wouldn't buy you a mile of road to drive that car of yours on... My point being, that all of us pay to use the roads, and unless you can think of a better way to regulate safety on the roads, I think the current system will do. I don't agree with it completely either but to deregulate this type of privelege would create a lot of trouble.


    Secondly, if I had to come up with some type of sacrifice (had to) for a federal carry permit... that would appease both sides...

    It would probably be something like Indiana's gun laws, I am pretty happy with the gun laws as they exist currently in Indiana, and if they stayed like this for another 10 years I wouldn't complain. With the one exception that domestic violence convictions and certain felonies could be reversed after a period of time and you could indeed carry legally again...

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •