• 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 requirements for carrying concealed

NHCGRPR45

Regular Member
Joined
May 30, 2010
Messages
1,131
Location
Chesterfield Township, MI
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:

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
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.
 

CenTex

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 20, 2010
Messages
276
Location
,,
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:

xmanhockey7

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2010
Messages
1,195
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.
 

DrTodd

Michigan Moderator
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,272
Location
Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
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.
 

StingMP9

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2010
Messages
99
Location
Madison Hts-Carry M&P9mm CPL/NRA mem, Michigan, US
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:

NHCGRPR45

Regular Member
Joined
May 30, 2010
Messages
1,131
Location
Chesterfield Township, MI
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:

DrTodd

Michigan Moderator
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,272
Location
Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
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:

rotorhead

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2010
Messages
862
Location
FL
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? :banghead:

:D
 
Last edited:
Top