Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 40

Thread: Nation wide conceal carry license on bloomberg

  1. #1
    Regular Member jsanchez's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    seattle
    Posts
    503

    Nation wide conceal carry license on bloomberg

    A friend emailed me this, thought I'd bring it to everyone's attention if interested.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-0...-congress.html
    Last edited by jsanchez; 09-16-2011 at 01:11 AM.

  2. #2
    Regular Member Schlepnier's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Yelm, Washington USA
    Posts
    419

    Thumbs up

    Saw it on the blaze as well...

    About freaking time. hope it passes this time, so we no longer have a patchwork of recirpical and non reciprical CPL laws.
    +thought for the day+
    ++victory needs no explanation, defeat allows none++

  3. #3
    Regular Member TechnoWeenie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,086
    feds shouldn't dictate to states how to run their own affairs.....

    Even if it is in our favor....

    Wars have been fought on the same principles.

  4. #4
    Campaign Veteran Bookman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Winston Salem, North Carolina, United States
    Posts
    1,424
    Quote Originally Posted by TechnoWeenie View Post
    feds shouldn't dictate to states how to run their own affairs.....

    Even if it is in our favor....

    Wars have been fought on the same principles.
    So what you're saying is that the McDonald case was a mistake?
    "All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke


    "I like people who stand on the Constitution... unless they're using it to wipe their feet." - Jon E Hutcherson

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Lakewood, WA
    Posts
    1,001
    My view:

    McDonald was good because it enforces the second amendment itself, and the Constitution itself applies to private citizens (Gee, who ever would have thought?). However, this national reciprocity bill forces states to change state laws to comply with a federal law that isn't actually a part of the constitution.

    Don't get me wrong, I view "concealed carry permits" as being unconstitutional. However, I think that on principle, they'd be better fought on a state-by-state basis. I don't favor a federal law that forces states to change their unconstitutional laws to comply with another unconstitutional law. Yes, it would be very convenient to be able to drive to almost any state with my Washington CPL and be legal to carry, but I simply can not feel morally correct doing so when the reason I can is based upon principle I don't agree with.
    Quote Originally Posted by SayWhat View Post

    Shooters before hooters.

  6. #6
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by .45ACPaddy View Post
    My view:

    McDonald was good because it enforces the second amendment itself, and the Constitution itself applies to private citizens (Gee, who ever would have thought?). However, this national reciprocity bill forces states to change state laws to comply with a federal law that isn't actually a part of the constitution.

    Don't get me wrong, I view "concealed carry permits" as being unconstitutional. However, I think that on principle, they'd be better fought on a state-by-state basis. I don't favor a federal law that forces states to change their unconstitutional laws to comply with another unconstitutional law. Yes, it would be very convenient to be able to drive to almost any state with my Washington CPL and be legal to carry, but I simply can not feel morally correct doing so when the reason I can is based upon principle I don't agree with.
    +1

    I think what would be better is a SCOTUS case that made "licensing" a right illegal.

    Although I agree with you and Techno on this, I don't think it would stop me from carrying in other states under that law though. I will take a right any way I can. Just don't think the Federal government should regulate it either and that this would open the door for further restrictions.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Port Orchard, Washington, USA
    Posts
    897

    My .05

    While I agree that the Feds have no right to order the states to do anything, I think it really sucks that states have the ability to undermine the Constitution that my ancestors fought for. We have the right to keep and bear arms, except in California and a couple other states. Some states are just so convoluted that it's difficult, like Oregon and some like Washington only limit the type of firearm you can own. ANY regulation, prohibition, licensing and/or restrictive laws are a violation of the heart and content of the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the USA. The whole function of the military goes against what our founding fathers wanted too. It would be very nice if I could carry loaded openly or concealed anywhere in the US without having to worry about some local, county or state law that says I can't. I am (generally) a law abiding person, peaceful and can lawfully own and carry firearms. But if I go to California to visit my mom, legally I have to make myself a victim because I'm not permitted to carry there and I can't even take my side arm because it holds more than 10 rounds. If I go to visit friends in Oregon, I have to unload it and lock it all up because local laws vary so much that simply crossing the street could put me in violation.

    How does "states rights" outweigh my rights when the Constitution was written to protect the individual from government? Why should I be forced to be defenseless against criminals who won't think twice (or once) in breaking the law and arming themselves? I think this is one area where the Fed does need to step in and enforce the rights enumerated in the Constitution. There does need to be some continuity between the states for the lawful carry (openly and concealed) of firearms.

  8. #8
    Regular Member Schlepnier's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Yelm, Washington USA
    Posts
    419

    Thumbs up

    feds shouldn't dictate to states how to run their own affairs.....

    Even if it is in our favor....

    Wars have been fought on the same principles.
    You are mistaken about this law if thats what you think it does.
    Each state has and does have the right to issue a CPL under whatever guidelines that the state sees fit according to this bill, just like a motor vehicle licence, however just like a motor vehicle licence all other states will be required to respect said licence even if they did not issue it. there is no changing of requirements of individual state laws just a recognition that all licences are valid no matter where you go.
    +thought for the day+
    ++victory needs no explanation, defeat allows none++

  9. #9
    State Researcher Bill Starks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Nortonville, KY, USA
    Posts
    4,291
    another way for the feds to get their hands on our guns..... However if getting national carry meant I could carry EVERYWHERE then I would be all over it but I can see them restricting us even more.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Levittown, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    771
    Quote Originally Posted by M1Gunr View Post
    another way for the feds to get their hands on our guns..... .

    How are you coming up with that???

  11. #11
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953
    Quote Originally Posted by M1Gunr View Post
    another way for the feds to get their hands on our guns.....
    Quote Originally Posted by mrjam2jab View Post
    How are you coming up with that???
    It's not that far a stretch. It could well be just another method for the national government to take an even tighter hold over gun regulation. First the requirement that all States honor others licenses/permits, then telling the States what those licensing requirements will be. Of course the only legal way for them to do so would be to withhold funds from the States like they do with BAC standards, Seat Belt and Helmet requirements, and Driving age limits, to name a few.

    It's the old "Nose of the camel in your tent" philosophy. First the nose and then the rest of the camel, or in my house it's the "dogs paws on the bed". First the paws while he's standing at the side of the bed and the next thing I know I'm fighting for my own corner to sleep on.
    Last edited by amlevin; 09-16-2011 at 03:59 PM.
    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

  12. #12
    Regular Member Vitaeus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Bremerton, Washington
    Posts
    593
    SCOTUS setting forth a definition of the meaning of the 2nd amendment, is different than the Federal Legislature decreeing the interaction required of the several states. The interstate Commerce clause is the most overused and abused section of the Constitution.

    Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791.

    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.

    Rights are not explained by statutes, Rights are inherent and laws acknowledge this and in this specific case are constrained from being infringed.

    in·fringe (n-frnj)
    v. in·fringed, in·fring·ing, in·fring·es
    v.tr.
    1. To transgress or exceed the limits of; violate: infringe a contract; infringe a patent.
    2. Obsolete To defeat; invalidate.

  13. #13
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Vitaeus View Post
    SCOTUS setting forth a definition of the meaning of the 2nd amendment, is different than the Federal Legislature decreeing the interaction required of the several states. The interstate Commerce clause is the most overused and abused section of the Constitution.

    Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791.

    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.

    Rights are not explained by statutes, Rights are inherent and laws acknowledge this and in this specific case are constrained from being infringed.

    in·fringe (n-frnj)
    v. in·fringed, in·fring·ing, in·fring·es
    v.tr.
    1. To transgress or exceed the limits of; violate: infringe a contract; infringe a patent.
    2. Obsolete To defeat; invalidate.
    Yet this is one way SCOTUS has gone way off track from almost the beginning they are not supposed to define the amendments only to state whether laws conflict with them. I would love to see (but doubt it would happen) them make a ruling that licensing and outlawing carrying a firearm infringes upon the the 2A. Which doesn't define our right, it is a law restricting governments from touching our natural right to bear arms.

    I think we are thinking closely along the same lines though.
    Last edited by sudden valley gunner; 09-17-2011 at 10:48 AM.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    Yet this is one way SCOTUS has gone way off track from almost the beginning they are not supposed to define the amendments only to state whether laws conflict with them. I would love to see (but doubt it would happen) them make a ruling that licensing and outlawing carrying a firearm infringes upon the the 2A. Which doesn't define our right, it is a law restricting governments from touching our natural right to bear arms.

    I think we are thinking closely along the same lines though.
    In the cases of Heller and McDonald, that had to be addressed to respond to the case specifics. Further, it isn't that SCOTUS defined an amendment, but that they paraphrased it in a way that provided for a response to the cases.


    To address the specific of this thread, recognizing that a law is invalid, as SCOTUS did in Heller and McDonald, is not a "states rights" question, it is a citizen rights response to overarching state control. This bill IS a case of the fed attempting to wrest power from the states. The Federal Government should stick to clear legislation that only respects the rights of citizens. This doesn't fit that metric.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  15. #15
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,667
    As to the constitutionality of the proposed bill, I would conclude that a bill enforcing Article IV of the Constitution ("Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States" The Supreme Court has interpreted to include a right to travel freely throughout the country. As the court said in the 1989 case of Saenz v. Roe, that includes the "right to be treated as a welcome visitor rather than an unfriendly alien when temporarily present in the second State.")

    Furthermore, section 5 of the 14th Amendment gives Congress the power to enforce the provisions of that amendment. Not only does the history of the amendment show that it was also intended to protect a right to travel, but the Supreme Court held last year in McDonald v. City of Chicago that the 14th Amendment also protects the right to keep and bear arms against state infringement. "Bear" clearly means "carry," though several courts are currently considering how far that right goes.

    In my opinion, the Congress not only has the right, but indeed it is their duty to protect our rights and those that infringe upon them. In this case many states infringe upon our right to bear arms. Remember, the 2nd Amendment is an enumerated right and therefore the 9th and 10th Amendments are put at bay and the state's have no right restricting the fundamental constitutional right to keep and bear arms without infringement.
    Live Free or Die!

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Quote Originally Posted by gogodawgs View Post
    As to the constitutionality of the proposed bill, I would conclude that a bill enforcing Article IV of the Constitution ("Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States" The Supreme Court has interpreted to include a right to travel freely throughout the country. As the court said in the 1989 case of Saenz v. Roe, that includes the "right to be treated as a welcome visitor rather than an unfriendly alien when temporarily present in the second State.")

    Furthermore, section 5 of the 14th Amendment gives Congress the power to enforce the provisions of that amendment. Not only does the history of the amendment show that it was also intended to protect a right to travel, but the Supreme Court held last year in McDonald v. City of Chicago that the 14th Amendment also protects the right to keep and bear arms against state infringement. "Bear" clearly means "carry," though several courts are currently considering how far that right goes.

    In my opinion, the Congress not only has the right, but indeed it is their duty to protect our rights and those that infringe upon them. In this case many states infringe upon our right to bear arms. Remember, the 2nd Amendment is an enumerated right and therefore the 9th and 10th Amendments are put at bay and the state's have no right restricting the fundamental constitutional right to keep and bear arms without infringement.
    Concealment has not historically been part of the 2A. According to history, AND the recent DC v Heller decision, a law governing cc on a nationwide level isn't a protection of individual Rights. The proper avenue to address this specific is in the court system of the states to the districts, to the SCOTUS if necessary, NOT by creating new federal legislation.


    Our mindset should be to support the deletion of legislation, not supporting more legislation.
    Last edited by wrightme; 09-17-2011 at 11:47 AM.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  17. #17
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,667
    Quote Originally Posted by wrightme View Post
    Concealment has not historically been part of the 2A. According to history, AND the recent DC v Heller decision, a law governing cc on a nationwide level isn't a protection of individual Rights. The proper avenue to address this specific is in the court system of the states to the districts, to the SCOTUS if necessary, NOT by creating new federal legislation.  Our mindset should be to support the deletion of legislation, not supporting more legislation.
    Concealment is historically part of the 2A as well as open carry. Are you tell us that no one ever concealed a firearm before the 2A or after 1776 to 1968? Don't fall for the misinterpretation that concealment is a regulated privilege. Concealment has been part of the history of the 2A and states have illegally regulated concealment.

    Furthermore, it would not be new legislation, it amends the GCA of 1968.

    (a) In General- Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 926C the following:
    Also, do not fall for the myth that only the Supreme Court can determine, strike down, etc.. the constitutionality of a law. Congress is an equal partner in our Republic and in fact it is their job to prevent states from infringing upon the rights enumerated in the constitution.
    Last edited by gogodawgs; 09-17-2011 at 12:00 PM.
    Live Free or Die!

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Quote Originally Posted by gogodawgs View Post
    Concealment is historically part of the 2A as well as open carry. Are you tell us that no one ever concealed a firearm before the 2A or after 1776 to 1968? Don't fall for the misinterpretation that concealment is a regulated privilege. Concealment has been part of the history of the 2A and states have illegally regulated concealment.
    Nope, I am saying that historically, concealment has been viewed as the action of criminals, and not the action of the common citizenry. And, historically, it has been legislated as such. The constitutions and laws from early on for the states also reflects this historical perspective.

    Quote Originally Posted by gogodawgs
    Furthermore, it would not be new legislation, it amends the GCA of 1968.



    Also, do not fall for the myth that only the Supreme Court can determine, strike down, etc.. the constitutionality of a law. Congress is an equal partner in our Republic and in fact it is their job to prevent states from infringing upon the rights enumerated in the constitution.
    Do you feel that I have somehow "fallen for some myth?" Further, how do you feel this new legislation will somehow "prevent states from infringing upon the rights enumerated in the constitution?" To that end, they should simply pass legislation negating teh cc permit process in each state, and negating any limits upon the bearing of arms, concealed or open. This bill does not do a bit of that.


    And, "amend existing legislation" is simply wiggle words to attempt to deny that this IS "new."
    Last edited by wrightme; 09-17-2011 at 12:05 PM.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  19. #19
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,667
    Quote Originally Posted by wrightme View Post
    Nope, I am saying that historically, concealment has been viewed as the action of criminals, and not the action of the common citizenry. And, historically, it has been legislated as such. The constitutions and laws from early on for the states also reflects this historical perspective.

    Do you feel that I have somehow "fallen for some myth?" Further, how do you feel this new legislation will somehow "prevent states from infringing upon the rights enumerated in the constitution?" To that end, they should simply pass legislation negating teh cc permit process in each state, and negating any limits upon the bearing of arms, concealed or open. This bill does not do a bit of that.


    And, "amend existing legislation" is simply wiggle words to attempt to deny that this IS "new."
    Can you cite that the "constitution and laws form early on" (for the states) reflects this perspective? Only post Civil War and the racist gun laws that were passed. Prior to this racist outburst state constitutions, state laws, etc were silent on method of carry. Only a few townships in the old 'wild' west outlawed concealed carry.

    Would you rather have this amendment of Title 18 done now or would you rather wait 20 years for a purist view that all gun laws are struck down?
    Live Free or Die!

  20. #20
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by wrightme View Post
    In the cases of Heller and McDonald, that had to be addressed to respond to the case specifics. Further, it isn't that SCOTUS defined an amendment, but that they paraphrased it in a way that provided for a response to the cases.


    To address the specific of this thread, recognizing that a law is invalid, as SCOTUS did in Heller and McDonald, is not a "states rights" question, it is a citizen rights response to overarching state control. This bill IS a case of the fed attempting to wrest power from the states. The Federal Government should stick to clear legislation that only respects the rights of citizens. This doesn't fit that metric.
    I think we are on the same page just expressing it differntly.

    Quote Originally Posted by gogodawgs View Post
    As to the constitutionality of the proposed bill, I would conclude that a bill enforcing Article IV of the Constitution ("Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States" The Supreme Court has interpreted to include a right to travel freely throughout the country. As the court said in the 1989 case of Saenz v. Roe, that includes the "right to be treated as a welcome visitor rather than an unfriendly alien when temporarily present in the second State.")

    Furthermore, section 5 of the 14th Amendment gives Congress the power to enforce the provisions of that amendment. Not only does the history of the amendment show that it was also intended to protect a right to travel, but the Supreme Court held last year in McDonald v. City of Chicago that the 14th Amendment also protects the right to keep and bear arms against state infringement. "Bear" clearly means "carry," though several courts are currently considering how far that right goes.

    In my opinion, the Congress not only has the right, but indeed it is their duty to protect our rights and those that infringe upon them. In this case many states infringe upon our right to bear arms. Remember, the 2nd Amendment is an enumerated right and therefore the 9th and 10th Amendments are put at bay and the state's have no right restricting the fundamental constitutional right to keep and bear arms without infringement.
    I will take a "right" anyway I can get it, and agree with you it's part of congress's job to insure the governments aren't infringing on our rights. What I fear is this would open the door for "interpretation" by the courts and congress for more regulation. Government has a history of gaining power and using every rational possible for justification of their increasing "regulation". You know me I am a "constitutional" guy and don't believe in more laws. Yet this one is a proper law so far in that it restricts government not the people, the original intent of federal laws.

    The other hand this bill may force SCOTUS to decide on the very issue we are talking about here. The natural right to bear arms. Just a thought.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  21. #21
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,667
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    <snip>I will take a "right" anyway I can get it, and agree with you it's part of congress's job to insure the governments aren't infringing on our rights. What I fear is this would open the door for "interpretation" by the courts and congress for more regulation. Government has a history of gaining power and using every rational possible for justification of their increasing "regulation". You know me I am a "constitutional" guy and don't believe in more laws. Yet this one is a proper law so far in that it restricts government not the people, the original intent of federal laws.

    The other hand this bill may force SCOTUS to decide on the very issue we are talking about here. The natural right to bear arms. Just a thought.
    HR 822 (please read it) does not require or even authorize any action by any federal agency. In fact, since it would amend the Gun Control Act, it would fall under a limitation within that law that authorizes "only such rules and regulations as are necessary to carry out" the GCA's provisions. No federal rules or regulations would be needed to implement H.R. 822, which simply overrides certain state laws.
    Last edited by gogodawgs; 09-17-2011 at 12:40 PM.
    Live Free or Die!

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    West Texas
    Posts
    596
    This HR822 bill sucks!
    Until we get a Constitutional Law enforcement bill that enforces ALL Constitutional Amendments on the states and provides criminal punishment to those state who infringe on those right, nothing will change!
    If this bill passes, which it wont, people will simply be arrested in the states that do not comply based on different charges.
    This bill is nothing more than a fund raising sceme for GOP elect!
    The 2nd amendment is nothing to politicians other than a way to get "Chumps" money. After they get your 2nd amendment money, they spend it on thier own agenda.

  23. #23
    Regular Member hermannr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Okanogan Highland
    Posts
    2,332
    Article IV section 1 (I know some people will argue about this) gives congress the power to require states to recognize the lawful acts of other states. It is generally called the "full faith and credit" clause. Congress does not have to do this, but they are able to.

    Yes, this is the same section that will be used when the gay marriage laws of some states are in conflict with the laws of other states and the petitions go to the supreme court.

    What most people don't see is that it also says: "Congress MAY by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof."

    This is why HR 822 is necessary to force places like NYS and NYC to accept the permits from other states. HR 822 is not the Feds taking over the permit system, HR 822 is only telling the states they must recognize other state permits as if they were their own.

    I'm sure the states of FL and UT do not like this idea...no more out of state permits necessary.

  24. #24
    Campaign Veteran Schlitz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,567
    does anyone think that states like NY will just make their carry permits complete crap. CANT CARRY LOADED IN CAR, CANT CARRY LOADED, CANT CARRY AMMO ON YOUR PERSON < Idk just stupid stuff like that? no?
    “The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.”
    [Miller vs. U.S., 230 F. Supp. 486, 489 (1956)]
    “There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of constitutional rights.”
    [Sherar vs. Cullen, 481 F2d. 946 (1973)]

  25. #25
    Campaign Veteran OlGutshotWilly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Snohomish, WA, ,
    Posts
    435
    It simply amazes me to see the rhetoric against a National Reciprocity bill on this forum. I probably shouldn't be surprised with this group however.......

    We have multiple threads on here advising people how to go get pockets full of various state concealed permits so that we might travel to other states without breaking the law. More threads on various Open Carry laws in various states so that we don't inadvertently become Felons while traveling to other states without permits.

    My drivers license is good in every state in the union, and is recognized in most foreign countries, despite the fact that training differs in most of the states and every other country.

    Personally, if a law will let me carry freely in every state I want to drive in for the price of this states CPL, I'll take it. Paying for multiple states permits can get expensive. Is it the best solution? Hell no. I don't think permits should be required at all. But I likely won't live long enough to see every state pass the necessary laws that will allow me to get in my car and drive to the four (five?) corners of the country.

    I like the reasoned arguments for HR 822 above. Much better than I could come up with. I wrote my Senators and Representative this morning, but being Obama clones, I don't expect much from them.
    THE SECOND AMENDMENT: Washington didn't use his right to free speech to defeat the British, he shot them.
    ---------------------------------------------
    Government is not reason; it is not eloquent -- it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
    --George Washington,
    first U.S. president

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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