Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: Please answer me this one

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Chugiak, Alaska, USA
    Posts
    54

    Post imported post

    why isnt there a national law concerning CCW permits?

    the reciprocity is a joke, I live in alaska, which Honors EVERY STATE as far as CCW permits are concerned.

    now lets take WV for example, which i am visiting very shortly.

    WV does not issue CCW to non-residents, but has reciprocity with a few states. that in itself is a joke. now my real question.

    whats the difference between issuing a non-resident permit, and someone getting a "shall issue" permit from a state that WV has reciprocity with?

    Im thinking that may be the route i go, sucks, i have to find a loophole to circumvent a retarded law in the first place, but why arent more people involved in having a national ccw standard?

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Alabama, ,
    Posts
    1,338

    Post imported post

    The big difference is you need to move to the shall issue state.
    Just get a non-resident permit from a state they recognise, and
    pray BHO doesn't make a federal CC, or only political cronies will get them
    at all.

  3. #3
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lebanon, VA
    Posts
    676

    Post imported post

    Alaska is eligible for reciprocity with West Virginia. PM sent.
    James M. "Jim" Mullins, Jr., Esq.
    Admitted to practice in West Virginia and Florida.

    Founder, Past President, Treasurer, and General Counsel, West Virginia Citizens Defense League, Inc.
    Life Member, NRA

  4. #4
    Regular Member Smurfologist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Springfield by way of Chicago, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    536

    Post imported post

    NavyLT wrote:
    Rabid SA-XD wrote:
    why isnt there a national law concerning CCW permits?

    the reciprocity is a joke, I live in alaska, which Honors EVERY STATE as far as CCW permits are concerned.

    now lets take WV for example, which i am visiting very shortly.

    WV does not issue CCW to non-residents, but has reciprocity with a few states. that in itself is a joke. now my real question.

    whats the difference between issuing a non-resident permit, and someone getting a "shall issue" permit from a state that WV has reciprocity with?

    Im thinking that may be the route i go, sucks, i have to find a loophole to circumvent a retarded law in the first place, but why arent more people involved in having a national ccw standard?
    Would you rather have a few states be a pain in the rear to a partial population of the US or would you rather have the Federal government be a pain in the rear to 100% of the US population?

    If the US government regulated CCW many people who enjoy the benefitis of living in free states would lose those benefits.
    Why do you think that would be the case especially since the SC ruling in the Heller case (I am not debating; I just don't understand your angle)?

    2nd Amendment........Use it.......Or, lose it!!:X
    The 2nd Amendment... brought to you by Beretta and the number 1791!!

  5. #5
    Regular Member Smurfologist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Springfield by way of Chicago, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    536

    Post imported post

    NavyLT wrote:
    Smurfologist wrote:
    NavyLT wrote:
    Would you rather have a few states be a pain in the rear to a partial population of the US or would you rather have the Federal government be a pain in the rear to 100% of the US population?

    If the US government regulated CCW many people who enjoy the benefitis of living in free states would lose those benefits.
    Why do you think that would be the case especially since the SC ruling in the Heller case (I am not debating; I just don't understand your angle)?

    2nd Amendment........Use it.......Or, lose it!!:X
    Heller only loosened up the tightest gun control laws in the country. But, to my knowledge, and I might be wrong, doesn't DC still have some of the tightest gun control laws even after Heller?
    I believe DC does have strict gun laws (still). But, IMHO, they are not as bad as the gun laws in the city of Chicago where there is an out right ban on handguns that has been in place since 1982.

    Maybe I am wrong, but, I would think that a US Government regulated Conceal Carry Weapon program would, at the very least, support the affirmation of the US Constitution which includes the 2nd Amendment (I would only hope). What's happening in DC is just wrong becausethey definitely do not have"common sense" gun laws, such as the one where you can't have a "ready to fire" handgun unless a perp has essentially come in your home, and, you are in imminent danger (then you can make a "ready to fire" weapon). You will be dead by then!!It is a joke!!

    2nd Amendment.......Use it.......Or, lose it!!:X
    The 2nd Amendment... brought to you by Beretta and the number 1791!!

  6. #6
    Regular Member Smurfologist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Springfield by way of Chicago, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    536

    Post imported post

    NavyLT wrote:
    Smurfologist wrote:
    NavyLT wrote:
    Smurfologist wrote:
    NavyLT wrote:
    Would you rather have a few states be a pain in the rear to a partial population of the US or would you rather have the Federal government be a pain in the rear to 100% of the US population?

    If the US government regulated CCW many people who enjoy the benefitis of living in free states would lose those benefits.
    Why do you think that would be the case especially since the SC ruling in the Heller case (I am not debating; I just don't understand your angle)?

    2nd Amendment........Use it.......Or, lose it!!:X
    Heller only loosened up the tightest gun control laws in the country. But, to my knowledge, and I might be wrong, doesn't DC still have some of the tightest gun control laws even after Heller?
    I believe DC does have strict gun laws (still). But, IMHO, they are not as bad as the gun laws in the city of Chicago where there is an out right ban on handguns that has been in place since 1982.

    Maybe I am wrong, but, I would think that a US Government regulated Conceal Carry Weapon program would, at the very least, support the affirmation of the US Constitution which includes the 2nd Amendment (I would only hope). What's happening in DC is just wrong becausethey definitely do not have"common sense" gun laws, such as the one where you can't have a "ready to fire" handgun unless a perp has essentially come in your home, and, you are in imminent danger (then you can make a "ready to fire" weapon). You will be dead by then!!It is a joke!!

    2nd Amendment.......Use it.......Or, lose it!!:X
    And it is the US Government who makes the DC laws.
    Are you sure? I thought it was the DC Council Board Members.......I don't keep up with DC politics at all, so I am not sure.

    I would hate to think that I joined the Marine Corps to protect and uphold the Constitution of the United States, and, the US Government would totally disregard "the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Just my two cents.

    2nd Amendment.......Use it.......Or, lose it!!:X
    The 2nd Amendment... brought to you by Beretta and the number 1791!!

  7. #7
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    Rabid SA-XD wrote:
    SNIP but why arent more people involved in having a national ccw standard?
    1. I won't support it. The federal government has hogged so much power to itself and used it with such tryrannical excess that it has become a latter day Ozymandias. I'm not willing to giveit the power to regulate morethings that are constitutionally in the states' realm. Notfor the personal convenience related to a permit.

    Onceregulation is turned over to them, regulation is turned over to them. And there is very little guarantee we will get the regulation we want. In fact, history shows we will getrights infringing regulation sooner or later.

    Alaska and Vermont are much closer to the ideal. I do feel it inappropriatethat their citizens should suffer for the anti-rights attitudes of the rest of the Union.

    I would rather see Alaska and Vermont havea system where theircitizens can apply for backround checks and so forth for a CCW clean-handscertificate.

    2. It would be helpful ifthread titles included some information on what the thread is about.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  8. #8
    Regular Member Smurfologist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Springfield by way of Chicago, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    536

    Post imported post

    Citizen wrote:
    Rabid SA-XD wrote:
    SNIP but why arent more people involved in having a national ccw standard?
    1. I won't support it. The federal government has hogged so much power to itself and used it with such tryrannical excess that it has become a latter day Ozymandias. I'm not willing to giveit the power to regulate morethings that are constitutionally in the states' realm. Notfor the personal convenience related to a permit.

    Onceregulation is turned over to them, regulation is turned over to them. And there is very little guarantee we will get the regulation we want. In fact, history shows we will getrights infringing regulation sooner or later.

    Alaska and Vermont are much closer to the ideal. I do feel it inappropriatethat their citizens should suffer for the anti-rights attitudes of the rest of the Union.

    I would rather see Alaska and Vermont havea system where theircitizens can apply for background checks and so forth for a CCW clean-handscertificate.

    2. It would be helpful ifthread titles included some information on what the thread is about.
    Citizen, you have shined more light on this subject. I guess I didn't look at it that way; Iget itnow.

    I do have a question: What did you meanwhen you said that you would rather see Alaska and Vermont havea system where theircitizens can apply for background checks and so forth for a CCW clean-handscertificate?

    2nd Amendment.........Use it........Or, lose it!!:X
    The 2nd Amendment... brought to you by Beretta and the number 1791!!

  9. #9
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    Smurfologist wrote:
    Citizen wrote:
    Rabid SA-XD wrote:
    SNIP but why arent more people involved in having a national ccw standard?
    SNIP 1. I won't support it.
    Citizen, you have shined more light on this subject. I guess I didn't look at it that way; Iget itnow.

    I do have a question: What did you meanwhen you said that you would rather see Alaska and Vermont havea system where theircitizens can apply for background checks and so forth for a CCW clean-handscertificate?

    2nd Amendment.........Use it........Or, lose it!!:X
    Thank you for the compliment.

    Here is what I meant.

    It would be a regression for the citizens of Alaska and Vermont to have a permit or license system. Permits and licenses = revocable privilege and all that.

    But they could have asystem with the same backround checking and so forth as other states do for CCW permits. If the backround check turns up nothing, a certificate is issued to him exclusively for the purpose of facilitating reciprocity in the state he wants to get non-resident CCW. The certificate would NOT be a license or permit. Simply a certificate stating the backround checking, firearm training, and so forth have been verified to be in place, results consistent with the requirements of the statewhere he wants to get a non-resident permit.

    Personally, I would wantto include in anyceritficate-system authorizing legislation a strong reaffirmation of the RKBA, that permits and licenses areclearly anunacceptable violation of the RKBA, and thatthe certificates are ONLY for reciprocity.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  10. #10
    Regular Member Smurfologist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Springfield by way of Chicago, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    536

    Post imported post

    Citizen wrote:
    Smurfologist wrote:
    Citizen wrote:
    Rabid SA-XD wrote:
    SNIP but why arent more people involved in having a national ccw standard?
    SNIP 1. I won't support it.
    Citizen, you have shined more light on this subject. I guess I didn't look at it that way; Iget itnow.

    I do have a question: What did you meanwhen you said that you would rather see Alaska and Vermont havea system where theircitizens can apply for background checks and so forth for a CCW clean-handscertificate?

    2nd Amendment.........Use it........Or, lose it!!:X
    Thank you for the compliment.

    Here is what I meant.

    It would be a regression for the citizens of Alaska and Vermont to have a permit or license system. Permits and licenses = revocable privilege and all that.

    But they could have asystem with the same backround checking and so forth as other states do for CCW permits. If the backround check turns up nothing, a certificate is issued to him exclusively for the purpose of facilitating reciprocity in the state he wants to get non-resident CCW. The certificate would NOT be a license or permit. Simply a certificate stating the backround checking, firearm training, and so forth have been verified to be in place, results consistent with the requirements of the statewhere he wants to get a non-resident permit.

    Personally, I would wantto include in anyceritficate-system authorizing legislation a strong reaffirmation of the RKBA, that permits and licenses areclearly anunacceptable violation of the RKBA, and thatthe certificates are ONLY for reciprocity.
    You are quite welcome!! That makes so much sense; I was lost and now I'm found (smile).......Hopefully, the State Reps will come around (I won't hold my breath).

    2nd Amendment.........Use it.........Or, lose it!!:X
    The 2nd Amendment... brought to you by Beretta and the number 1791!!

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Huntsville, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    255

    Post imported post

    Smurfologist wrote:
    [SNIP]
    Are you sure? I thought it was the DC Council Board Members.......I don't keep up with DC politics at all, so I am not sure.
    [/SNIP]
    +1. The DC City Council makes the laws for DC (Home Rule Act of 1973).

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distric..._Home_Rule_Act

    That said, they more or less do so at the pleasure of the Congress. Congress retains the right to "exercise exclusive legislation" over DC as they see fit. (US Constitution, Article 1, Section 8). Sometimes just the threat of Federal Legislation is enough to get the DC City Council to have a change of mind. If you want to watch a spirited debate on CSPAN watch the Delegate from DC (Elanor Holmes) anytime the House Debates Federal Legislation directed at the District. I would hate to be on her bad list...

    http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Consti...rica#Section_8

    "To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be...."

    The DC City Gov't IMHO is one of the most corrupt and mismanaged city Governments in the entire United States.

  12. #12
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    soloban wrote:
    SNIP "To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be...."

    The DC City Gov't IMHO is one of the most corrupt and mismanaged city Governments in the entire United States.
    It just dawned on me.

    The part of the quote that I red-bolded is what could be called a "clue."

    Seems to me that ten miles square is an awfully big chunk of land to set aside for a small, limited government. How many cities at that time were smaller than that? Not just in Framing-era America, but in Europe as well?
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  13. #13
    Regular Member Smurfologist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Springfield by way of Chicago, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    536

    Post imported post

    soloban wrote:
    Smurfologist wrote:
    [SNIP]
    Are you sure? I thought it was the DC Council Board Members.......I don't keep up with DC politics at all, so I am not sure.
    [/SNIP]
    +1. The DC City Council makes the laws for DC (Home Rule Act of 1973).

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_Home_Rule_Act

    That said, they more or less do so at the pleasure of the Congress. Congress retains the right to "exercise exclusive legislation" over DC as they see fit. (US Constitution, Article 1, Section 8). Sometimes just the threat of Federal Legislation is enough to get the DC City Council to have a change of mind. If you want to watch a spirited debate on CSPAN watch the Delegate from DC (Elanor Holmes) anytime the House Debates Federal Legislation directed at the District. I would hate to be on her bad list...

    http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_States_of_America#Secti on_8


    "To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be...."

    The DC City Gov't IMHO is one of the most corrupt and mismanaged city Governments in the entire United States.
    Even more corrupt than the city of Chicago?!?

    2nd Amendment.........Use it..........Or, lose it!!:X
    The 2nd Amendment... brought to you by Beretta and the number 1791!!

Posting Permissions

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