-
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.
-
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.
Concealed Weapons Amedment Rejected by Senate
- Thread starter T Vance
- Start date
malignity
Regular Member
imported post
It's extremely dangerous policy," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., noting that her state demands fingerprinting, federal background checks, a course of training, and verification by a local sheriff before issuing a permit to carry a concealed gun.
What a crock of :cuss:. Seriously? If I leave the state of Michigan, all of a sudden I'm more likely to commit crime in another state? Right.
It's extremely dangerous policy," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., noting that her state demands fingerprinting, federal background checks, a course of training, and verification by a local sheriff before issuing a permit to carry a concealed gun.
What a crock of :cuss:. Seriously? If I leave the state of Michigan, all of a sudden I'm more likely to commit crime in another state? Right.
hercprsound
Regular Member
imported post
if you think thats bad, you should hear what the gov? of new york had to say about us.:shock:
if you think thats bad, you should hear what the gov? of new york had to say about us.:shock:
HankT
State Researcher
imported post
T Vance wrote:
One more battle lost by the NRA! :cuss:
First, the Sotomayor debacle....now this...
For all we know, the NRA secretly supported defeat of this amendment for its own nefarious aims.
It would not surprise me in the least!
T Vance wrote:
One more battle lost by the NRA! :cuss:
First, the Sotomayor debacle....now this...
For all we know, the NRA secretly supported defeat of this amendment for its own nefarious aims.
It would not surprise me in the least!
hercprsound
Regular Member
imported post
Ok does anybody understand what will happen to the reciprocity and recognition that we had? does it still exist, or no? I have a book titled "2009 travelers guide to the firearm laws of the fifty states" by Scott kappas. in the back of this book there is a state by syate list of states that recognize permits from other states. Is this now irrelivent??
Ok does anybody understand what will happen to the reciprocity and recognition that we had? does it still exist, or no? I have a book titled "2009 travelers guide to the firearm laws of the fifty states" by Scott kappas. in the back of this book there is a state by syate list of states that recognize permits from other states. Is this now irrelivent??
SpringerXDacp
New member
imported post
hercprsound wrote:
Nothing passed, therefore nothing changes.
Welcome to OCDO Hercprsound. Please add your location under your username. Go to My Account and then to Profile.
hercprsound wrote:
Nothing passed, therefore nothing changes.
Welcome to OCDO Hercprsound. Please add your location under your username. Go to My Account and then to Profile.
hercprsound
Regular Member
imported post
SpringerXDacp wrote:
SpringerXDacp wrote:
I dont get it, If this diddnt change anything then what did it do? it seems like a big deal
hercprsound
Regular Member
imported post
I went to account then profile, but Im not sure how to get my location on here
I went to account then profile, but Im not sure how to get my location on here
drew68
Regular Member
imported post
hercprsound wrote:
hercprsound wrote:
I'd like to know what the gov of new york said.
SpringerXDacp
New member
imported post
hercprsound wrote:
For example, Iowa and Nebraska,does not recognize CPL's from Michigan and if this Bill became Law then Michigan CPL holders would be allowed to carry in those states.
The Bill was rejected and therefore will not become Law. So now, we're right where we were before the Bill was even created.
hercprsound wrote:
For example, Iowa and Nebraska,does not recognize CPL's from Michigan and if this Bill became Law then Michigan CPL holders would be allowed to carry in those states.
The Bill was rejected and therefore will not become Law. So now, we're right where we were before the Bill was even created.
UtahRSO
Regular Member
imported post
Found this aboutNew York Senator Gillibrand.
"Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand moments ago issued the following statement on the concealed carry amendment introduced by Sen. John Thune, R-South Dakota:
Senator Gillibrand should be ashamed for her statement.
Found this aboutNew York Senator Gillibrand.
"Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand moments ago issued the following statement on the concealed carry amendment introduced by Sen. John Thune, R-South Dakota:
I urge my colleagues to oppose this harmful measure and side in favor of law enforcement and state’s rights. I strongly believe that the gun laws that are right for New York are not necessarily right for South Dakota, and vice versa."
My comment: Is the reason stricter gun laws areright for New York becausepeople in South Dakota are better people and don't need the strict gun laws? Of course not!
Senator Gillibrand should be ashamed for her statement.
mikestilly
Regular Member
imported post
If you think thats bad you should have listened to Bloomberg:
"This bill is an anti-police, pro-gun-trafficker bill," Bloomberg said on the eve of the vote. "It is a bill that will make the police's job much more difficult and much more dangerous, and it will make the streets of our country -- not just big cities, it's small towns as well -- it will make them much more dangerous than they have to be."
Welcome to the socialist states of America. The comments are preposterous!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/22/AR2009072202893.html
If you think thats bad you should have listened to Bloomberg:
"This bill is an anti-police, pro-gun-trafficker bill," Bloomberg said on the eve of the vote. "It is a bill that will make the police's job much more difficult and much more dangerous, and it will make the streets of our country -- not just big cities, it's small towns as well -- it will make them much more dangerous than they have to be."
Welcome to the socialist states of America. The comments are preposterous!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/22/AR2009072202893.html
DrTodd
Michigan Moderator
imported post
Although I tepidly supported this measure, I think that people on both sides of the issue are ascribing too much importance to this. I don't think it's failure is a huge loss, just as I feel that it's passage would not have been a huge gain. Had this passed, States would have been free to change their CC laws to even more oppress their citizens who CC (and visitors w/ licenses), and would have done nothing for those in states not issuing permits.
If we can get the SC to "incorporate" the 2nd amendment to the states, I think some of the "gun control" issues that brought this forward would be decided as "unconstitutional", and we get away from the notion of giving special privileges to "some".
Although I tepidly supported this measure, I think that people on both sides of the issue are ascribing too much importance to this. I don't think it's failure is a huge loss, just as I feel that it's passage would not have been a huge gain. Had this passed, States would have been free to change their CC laws to even more oppress their citizens who CC (and visitors w/ licenses), and would have done nothing for those in states not issuing permits.
If we can get the SC to "incorporate" the 2nd amendment to the states, I think some of the "gun control" issues that brought this forward would be decided as "unconstitutional", and we get away from the notion of giving special privileges to "some".
Veritas
Regular Member
imported post
To me, the issue isn't about safety or crime blah blah blah. We all know that's a bunch of horse crap anyway.
No... for me, the issue is State's rights. Call me crazy, but I'll support voluntary reciprocity, but not federally-mandated recognition of another State's CPL laws.
Until carrying concealed is recognized as a Constitutional RIGHT, then States have the liberty of requiring permission to conceal. It violates a State's rights when another State is allowed to grant permission for folks to carry within their borders.
For the record, I believe that "keeping and bearing arms" is NOT limited to "visible arms". Keeping and bearing can be concealed, as well. Since the Constitution does not specifically forbid it, then it is our right. However, States have found a way to turn that right into a privilege. We have to fight one battle at a time... and winning a victory that violates State rights in order to proliferate a privilege that SHOULD be a right is really not any sort of victory. It simply further degrades the Constitution.
This bill should never have been introduced. No State has the right to dictate how another State regulates it's privileges. A REAL bill would seek to declare, on a FEDERAL level, that concealed carry is Constitutionally protected... this way no State can label it as a privilege, and therefore avert these inter-State squabbles.
My two cents... you can keep the change.
To me, the issue isn't about safety or crime blah blah blah. We all know that's a bunch of horse crap anyway.
No... for me, the issue is State's rights. Call me crazy, but I'll support voluntary reciprocity, but not federally-mandated recognition of another State's CPL laws.
Until carrying concealed is recognized as a Constitutional RIGHT, then States have the liberty of requiring permission to conceal. It violates a State's rights when another State is allowed to grant permission for folks to carry within their borders.
For the record, I believe that "keeping and bearing arms" is NOT limited to "visible arms". Keeping and bearing can be concealed, as well. Since the Constitution does not specifically forbid it, then it is our right. However, States have found a way to turn that right into a privilege. We have to fight one battle at a time... and winning a victory that violates State rights in order to proliferate a privilege that SHOULD be a right is really not any sort of victory. It simply further degrades the Constitution.
This bill should never have been introduced. No State has the right to dictate how another State regulates it's privileges. A REAL bill would seek to declare, on a FEDERAL level, that concealed carry is Constitutionally protected... this way no State can label it as a privilege, and therefore avert these inter-State squabbles.
My two cents... you can keep the change.
DrTodd
Michigan Moderator
imported post
Veritas wrote:
I agree 100%... only changing "concealed carry" to both cc AND Open Carry... but still, would be the best way to move beyond the bs...
Veritas wrote:
I agree 100%... only changing "concealed carry" to both cc AND Open Carry... but still, would be the best way to move beyond the bs...
Veritas
Regular Member
imported post
DrTodd wrote:
DrTodd wrote:
Yeah I sort of failed to make the distinction there: RTKBA should apply to ANY manner of carrying, concealed or open.