Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: National requirements for carrying concealed

  1. #1
    Michigan Moderator DrTodd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    3,337

    National requirements for carrying concealed

    Although I don't think this has a chance of passing, it bears watching.
    http://yubanet.com/usa/Boxer-to-Intr...ct-of-2011.php
    Giving up our liberties for safety is the one sure way to let the violent among us win.

    "Though defensive violence will always be a 'sad necessity' in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men." -Saint Augustine

    Disclaimer I am not a lawyer! Please do not consider anything you read from me to be legal advice.

  2. #2
    Regular Member NHCGRPR45's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Chesterfield Township, MI
    Posts
    1,137
    While I am all for a National Concealed Carry Law, this particular piece of trash bill just dosen't cut the mustard.

    I would love to have it happen something like this.

    Citizen wants a CPL and is not a dangerous criminal, i.e. rapist murderer, assorted whack job.

    Citizen goes to local CPL "place" SOS Clerks office.... Applies name background check finger prints similar to what we have now BUT!!!! NO FEES CHARGED! Oh and no more blue paper license. A nice DL type license.

    Citizen gets license = Carry ANYWHERE IN THE U.S.A. Includeing all protectorates and territories!!!!!!!!!!!!! i.e. U.S. Virgin Islands. Each state takes care of the intial license and renewals. No need to send the applicants license off to some 3 letter GOV agency. Its all done with get this people,,,,, its a new system of inter-linking computers. We call it The WORLD WIDE WEB!!! Since this system is largely already in place, shouldn't be to difficult to pull off and the "techies" could make it pretty secure. Or get a 3 letter GOV agency to make it safe! I know radical ideas here.

    My system has the compromise built right in, the license part. Everything else your born with. So as long as your in America.....and American by whatever legal means your good,,with your "license" ya the compromise part..After a few years we can get that removed. Get back the 1776 in our lives.
    Last edited by NHCGRPR45; 01-24-2011 at 11:55 PM.
    But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. Declaration of Independence July 4, 1776

    Michigan Concealed Pistol Instructor. Cost 80.00 With advanced techniques included free. PM for more information!

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    A2 is simpler and cheaper.

  4. #4
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,604
    National reciprocity/recognition like with driving licenses makes a LOT more sense.

    States rights - keep the federal government out of it!

    I do not need no steekin' national permit - don't want no steekin' national permit.

    What I really want is nationwide acceptance of Constitutional Carry - that is shall not be infringed as it should be.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training. Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  5. #5
    Regular Member CenTex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    ,,
    Posts
    276
    Quote Originally Posted by NHCGRPR45 View Post
    While I am all for a National Concealed Carry Law, this particular piece of trash bill just dosen't cut the mustard.
    Disagree...more federal control over states.

    I would love to have it happen something like this.

    Citizen wants a CPL and is not a dangerous criminal, i.e. rapist murderer, assorted whack job.

    Citizen goes to local CPL "place" SOS Clerks office.... Applies name background check finger prints similar to what we have now BUT!!!! NO FEES CHARGED! Oh and no more blue paper license. A nice DL type license.
    Disagree:
    1) law-abiding citizen should be allowed to carry concealed without any permits/licenses.
    2) No finger printing of law-abiding citizens

    Citizen gets license = Carry ANYWHERE IN THE U.S.A. Includeing all protectorates and territories!!!!!!!!!!!!! i.e. U.S. Virgin Islands. Each state takes care of the intial license and renewals. No need to send the applicants license off to some 3 letter GOV agency. Its all done with get this people,,,,, its a new system of inter-linking computers. We call it The WORLD WIDE WEB!!! Since this system is largely already in place, shouldn't be to difficult to pull off and the "techies" could make it pretty secure. Or get a 3 letter GOV agency to make it safe!
    Disagree:
    1) There should be no charges for Constitutional Carry. It makes it a privilege...not a right.
    2) WWW=Big Brother having another way to put the screws to law-abiding citizens.

    I know radical ideas here.
    Agree! Too radical to be Constitutional.

    My system has the compromise built right in, the license part. Everything else your born with. So as long as your in America.....and American by whatever legal means your good,,with your "license" ya the compromise part..After a few years we can get that removed. Get back the 1776 in our lives.
    Disagree:
    1) Compromise waters down our Constitutional rights.
    2) You never give anything to the government. They never want to give it back.

    Note: You are entitled to your opinion. Everyone has a right to be wrong. Being wrong, however, can cost you your freedoms.
    Last edited by CenTex; 01-25-2011 at 12:11 AM.
    The words of a tyrant: I never entertain opposing opinions. I am always right.

    Socialism is just another dirty word for totalitarianism.

    "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined." -Patrick Henry

  6. #6
    Regular Member xmanhockey7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Portage, MI
    Posts
    1,490
    This idiot (I'm using idiot lightly) would want to make all states as restrictive as California. She honestly thinks that making it restrictive for citizens to carry would have stopped that incident from happening. To quote a bumper sticker I saw today........."Liberal....noun: Someone who is so openminded their brain has fallen out." Good way to describe those gun control nuts.

  7. #7
    Michigan Moderator DrTodd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    3,337
    I think she sees the writing on the wall and thinks this is way to still get what she wants. She knows that California is going to be forced to issue licenses... probably much the same way that other states do. I think she is trying to keep California from becoming a "shall issue" state.
    Giving up our liberties for safety is the one sure way to let the violent among us win.

    "Though defensive violence will always be a 'sad necessity' in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men." -Saint Augustine

    Disclaimer I am not a lawyer! Please do not consider anything you read from me to be legal advice.

  8. #8
    Regular Member StingMP9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Madison Hts-Carry M&P9mm CPL/NRA mem, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    101
    Quote Originally Posted by NHCGRPR45 View Post
    No need to send the applicants license off to some 3 letter GOV agency.... Or get a 3 letter GOV agency to make it safe!

    Get back the 1776 in our lives.
    Give these guys some credit for once [edit... credit due to being a really big agency, that's all]. Aren't you referring to the 5 letter agency BATFE or are you putting your trust in some other abusive Executive branch agency? I know most of us still refer to our federal friends as the ATF but that is archaic these days. And historically, we didn't have these rights until after 1791 when the Bill of Rights was written and finally ratified December 15. There's a reason Evil Creamsicle put that date on a Tshirt last May.
    Last edited by StingMP9; 01-25-2011 at 03:44 PM.

  9. #9
    Regular Member NHCGRPR45's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Chesterfield Township, MI
    Posts
    1,137
    Quote Originally Posted by StingMP9 View Post
    Give these guys some credit for once [edit... credit due to being a really big agency, that's all]. Aren't you referring to the 5 letter agency BATFE or are you putting your trust in some other abusive Executive branch agency? I know most of us still refer to our federal friends as the ATF but that is archaic these days. And historically, we didn't have these rights until after 1791 when the Bill of Rights was written and finally ratified December 15. There's a reason Evil Creamsicle put that date on a Tshirt last May.
    I actually got that number from dougwg.

    And my "plan" such as it is, was intentionally over simplistic.

    But heres an idea.

    How about a shall issue National License? No cost? And for simplicity's sake use MI system of License approval? Again minus all fees.

    Citizen wants to or does travel very often, instead of getting the normal state license he gets the national license that is still issued by the state and has all the same requirements/benefits but allows him to go coast to coast worry free? Something like a drivers license. You don't have to worry about what driver license you have when you travel state to state, why should you worry about a CPL license? Which has more background checks done than a DL.

    Ideas? And again the above is just an idea by me. I think putting some ideas out there can't hurt.
    Last edited by NHCGRPR45; 01-25-2011 at 04:21 PM.
    But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. Declaration of Independence July 4, 1776

    Michigan Concealed Pistol Instructor. Cost 80.00 With advanced techniques included free. PM for more information!

  10. #10
    Michigan Moderator DrTodd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    3,337
    Quote Originally Posted by NHCGRPR45 View Post
    I actually got that number from dougwg.

    And my "plan" such as it is, was intentionally over simplistic.

    But heres an idea.

    How about a shall issue National License? No cost? And for simplicity's sake use MI system of License approval? Again minus all fees.

    Citizen wants to or does travel very often, instead of getting the normal state license he gets the national license that is still issued by the state and has all the same requirements/benefits but allows him to go coast to coast worry free? Something like a drivers license. You don't have to worry about what driver license you have when you travel state to state, why should you worry about a CPL license? Which has more background checks done than a DL.

    Ideas? And again the above is just an idea by me. I think putting some ideas out there can't hurt.
    As an intermediary step, I always thought that perhaps the Feds should allow unrestricted concealed carry in any state to those state permits that qualify as a Brady background check exemption. Although not perfect, this would provide carry to those states' permits who do a check before issued. But then again, if we cross the line where states can be forced to allow carry, they can also be forced to disallow carry and the power given the feds would NEVER be removed once given.

    http://www.atf.gov/firearms/brady-law/permit-chart.html
    Last edited by DrTodd; 01-25-2011 at 04:53 PM.
    Giving up our liberties for safety is the one sure way to let the violent among us win.

    "Though defensive violence will always be a 'sad necessity' in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men." -Saint Augustine

    Disclaimer I am not a lawyer! Please do not consider anything you read from me to be legal advice.

  11. #11
    Regular Member rotorhead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    FL
    Posts
    862
    Pssst...we already have a "national requirement" for concealed carry.

    I quote:

    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
    Notice how it doesn't expand on itself to include anything like...

    "...except for concealed carrying of handguns, which shall be left up to individual states so they can charge idiotic fees for "permits" and classes, create state-wide data bases which can be used in the event their governor decides to declare a state of emergency and sends uniformed goons to their houses to take the guns we know they have now, and so they can create enough confusion surrounding something so simple that the citizens of the country simply give up the fight and accept things like permits as the norm...thereby infringing on the rights we already acknowledged here in this second amendment to our Constitution because we get this strange feeling deep inside that some states or political parties may decide to infringe upon this right sometime in the future..."

    The Constitution is actually very specific as to what the federal government can do, and what they felt would be better left to the states. In comparison, the federal government was highly restricted in scope compared to the states, yet they still felt it was important enough to include a little ditty in there as it applied to gun ownership.

    Doesn't anyone find that even a little telling?

    The Constitution is clear on the matter: There were somethings that were felt to be important enough to be spelled out in it's body so that future leaders would never take advantage of the citizens in certain ways. Gun ownership, and the bearing of those guns, were things they felt should not be infringed upon.

    How are we now arguing and debating over something so simple?

    Last edited by rotorhead; 01-25-2011 at 06:05 PM.

Posting Permissions

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