• 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.

National Carry Permit

PT111

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2007
Messages
2,243
Location
, South Carolina, USA
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.
 

DreQo

State Researcher
Joined
Jan 8, 2007
Messages
2,350
Location
Minnesota
imported post

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

Dutch Uncle

Campaign Veteran
Joined
May 11, 2006
Messages
1,715
Location
Virginia, USA
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.
 

bobernet

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2007
Messages
333
Location
Henderson, Nevada, USA
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.
 

PT111

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2007
Messages
2,243
Location
, South Carolina, USA
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.
 

BarryKirk

Opt-Out Members
Joined
Oct 2, 2007
Messages
59
Location
, ,
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.
 

Doug Huffman

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
9,180
Location
Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin,
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 KMA$$
 

bobernet

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2007
Messages
333
Location
Henderson, Nevada, USA
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.
 

Doug Huffman

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
9,180
Location
Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin,
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/information/XcInfoBase.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 KMA$$
 

bobernet

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2007
Messages
333
Location
Henderson, Nevada, USA
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."
 

sccrref

Regular Member
Joined
May 11, 2007
Messages
741
Location
Virginia Beach, VA, , USA
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.
 

Doug Huffman

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
9,180
Location
Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin,
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 KMA$$
 

tattedupboy

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2006
Messages
518
Location
Gary, Indiana, USA
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.
 

bobernet

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2007
Messages
333
Location
Henderson, Nevada, USA
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.
 

imperialism2024

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2007
Messages
3,047
Location
Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
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?
 

bobernet

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2007
Messages
333
Location
Henderson, Nevada, USA
imported post

imperialism2024 said:
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
 

Toymaker

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2006
Messages
175
Location
Washington, DC USA
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.
 

shooter_tx

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2007
Messages
43
Location
By God, Texas, ,
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......
 

ConditionThree

State Pioneer
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
2,231
Location
Shasta County, California, USA
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.
 
Top