Concealed carry across state lines

DaveT319 · May 27, 2015

solus said:
dave, you keep stating your rights are being violated but you are not a CA resident so they don't care. the same situation exists for citizens in DC, NY, and other eastern states.

right to bear arms does not equate to concealed.

So you're saying I should open carry, since it's legal here?

What if I had my concealed carry permit here? Does that change anything?

What about the states who have recently instituted Constitutional carry, and they go to a state that doesn't have concealed carry reciprocation?

Are you saying it's acceptable for these states to violate people's rights simply because they are residents of other states?!

DaveT319 · May 27, 2015

Firearms Iinstuctor said:
That's all nice Dave but that well not stop you from becoming bubbas boy friend in the big house.

Why not? Because We The People have rolled over and accepted such nonsense. It's why Shaneen Allen was almost sent to prison in NJ. She had a concealed carry permit for her state. NJ didn't recognize it, so that made her a criminal. It's asinine, and the only thing that saved her from a trial and conviction was political pressure on the governor. And the only reason THAT happened was because she was a sympathetic figure. Any other average shmuck, and they do some hard time and lose their 2nd Amendment right simply for EXERCISING IT!

Why do we accept this?!

MAC702 · May 27, 2015

DaveT319 said:
...Why do we accept this?!

Quite simply, not enough of us care. And half of us who do have gotten tired of the intimidation and have given up.

I'm not saying that's right; just that it is.

DaveT319 · May 27, 2015

MAC702 said:
Quite simply, not enough of us care. And half of us who do have gotten tired of the intimidation and have given up.

I'm not saying that's right; just that it is.

And that's why we need to stand up and take our right back. CA, NY, NJ, & DC DO NOT have the right to take away our right to lawful self-defense just because we visit their state. If they prohibit open carry, do not recognize other permits, and refuse to give non-resident permits, it amounts to a de facto ban on our 2nd Amendment right if you aren't a resident of that state.

Why are we sitting back and accepting this infringement?

Firearms Iinstuctor · May 27, 2015

No kidding Dave your pretty much preaching to the choir here.

Some of us have been fighting this for decades I wrote my first political anti control letter back in 68

And we are winning not as fast as we would like and in some place's like CA we have taken steps back wards but we have more place that one can carry today then we have had for decades.

sudden valley gunner · May 28, 2015

Firearms Iinstuctor said:
Well we all have been waiting for the perfect court case with the perfect arguments to be taken to the supreme court so they well have to rule that the 2nd means what the 2nd means.

Maybe the OP means to accomplish just that.

Still wouldn't accomplish what the OP wants. It would then only apply to the Federal government.

I for one do not wish for an all powerful empire to deem what its provinces can or cant do. That would also be unconstitutional.

DaveT319 · May 28, 2015

sudden valley gunner said:
Still wouldn't accomplish what the OP wants. It would then only apply to the Federal government.

I for one do not wish for an all powerful empire to deem what its provinces can or cant do. That would also be unconstitutional.

How do you not get that our Constitutionally protected rights aren't allowed to be trampled upon by the states? CA can no more take away our 2nd Amendment right than they can our 1st, 4th, 5th, 14th, or any other rights. A cop in CA can't pull you over for no reason other than you have out-of-state plates, open your trunk without your permission, and charge you with whatever he finds. The people would go ape-**** if any other Constitutionally protected right were violated the way the 2nd routinely is.

It's time for us to stand up and take our right back. Tell them that we will not accept infringements any longer. Our rights are not subject to public opinion polls or the political trade winds. They are our RIGHTS, and we need to show them that we will no longer abide by unConstitutional infringements on our right.

Firearms Iinstuctor · May 28, 2015

DaveT319 said:
It's time for us to stand up and take our right back. Tell them that we will not accept infringements any longer. Our rights are not subject to public opinion polls or the political trade winds. They are our RIGHTS, and we need to show them that we will no longer abide by unConstitutional infringements on our right.

Ok Dave out line it and tell us how to do it.

We are waiting for your leadership to start the movement.

sudden valley gunner · May 28, 2015

DaveT319 said:
How do you not get that our Constitutionally protected rights aren't allowed to be trampled upon by the states? CA can no more take away our 2nd Amendment right than they can our 1st, 4th, 5th, 14th, or any other rights. A cop in CA can't pull you over for no reason other than you have out-of-state plates, open your trunk without your permission, and charge you with whatever he finds. The people would go ape-**** if any other Constitutionally protected right were violated the way the 2nd routinely is.

It's time for us to stand up and take our right back. Tell them that we will not accept infringements any longer. Our rights are not subject to public opinion polls or the political trade winds. They are our RIGHTS, and we need to show them that we will no longer abide by unConstitutional infringements on our right.

How do you not get that the constitution is a document to govern the feds not the states.

I agree its time to take back our rights.

To put them upon a faulty document that had done nothing to protect our rights and never was intended to be against the states is a bad idea. Increasing the federal power is a wrong move.

Why leave out the 9th? Our rights are not enumerated. Why leave out the 10th?

DaveT319 · May 28, 2015

I was just posting a few of the most commonly violated rights.

Doesn't apply to the states? Not likely. Otherwise cops would be violating them with absolute impunity. But if they violate your Constitutional rights, you have recourse through the courts. Not using the state constitution, but THE Constitution.

I don't know where you get this impression that the states aren't bound by the Constitution, only the feds.

DaveT319 · May 28, 2015

Firearms Iinstuctor said:
Ok Dave out line it and tell us how to do it.

We are waiting for your leadership to start the movement.

Ok, let's start by refusing to obey laws that violate our rights. We have to do it en masse or it won't work. Open carry in states where they say it's illegal. After that, concealed carry without a permit in states where they say you need one. If we all did this, they would be forced to change. But if we sit back and allow it to continue because we're afraid of the consequences, then it won't change, especially in liberal strongholds like CA and NY. They are willfully violating our rights, and we allow it because it's easier to just "go with the flow" rather than stand up for what's right.

SW40VE-OC · May 28, 2015

When you figure out how to engage the "en masse" you speak of, please link the video on here. The members of OCDO are spread all over the country. Start your campaign of refusal in your little corner of Oregon. When it grows, more people MAY be interested in what you're advocating. Otherwise, as stated previously, "you're preaching to the choir".

sudden valley gunner · May 28, 2015

DaveT319 said:
I was just posting a few of the most commonly violated rights.

Doesn't apply to the states? Not likely. Otherwise cops would be violating them with absolute impunity. But if they violate your Constitutional rights, you have recourse through the courts. Not using the state constitution, but THE Constitution.

I don't know where you get this impression that the states aren't bound bus the Constitution, only the feds.

Oh judges apply it to the states, that is an aberration of its intent.

The states are not supposed to be bound by the constitution except for the limited powers The Constititution grants the feds. Also the states were supposed to be free to leave the union. You do understand what the term "State" means?

You are very wrong State courts do indeed rely on their constitutions.

You seem to be under the impression that somehow the enumerated rights are more special than other rights. You again leave out the 9th and 10th amendment.

Maybe we should start by having you explain what you think rights are. Hint.....they can't be numbered.

nonameisgood · May 28, 2015

It might be more useful to argue full faith and credit, which is how drivers' licensing carries across borders. In this case, it is not guaranteed that you may drive on roads at all, but if residents can drive with their in-state license, you can drive with yours from out of state. Driving laws for the state in which you are driving apply. This is facilitated by a degree of unity in the requirements for licensing among the states.
The gun analogy might be applied the same for CHL. When states have reciprocity, they have recognized compatibility in the states' CHL programs. When in a state, one must observe the laws of that state, not the home state of the licensee. If the state allows only licensed residents to carry, then this principle is violated.

If a state completely forbids carry, then that is an entirely different matter.

solus · May 28, 2015

DaveT319 said:
Ok, let's start by refusing to obey laws that violate our rights. We have to do it en masse or it won't work. Open carry in states where they say it's illegal. After that, concealed carry without a permit in states where they say you need one. If we all did this, they would be forced to change. But if we sit back and allow it to continue because we're afraid of the consequences, then it won't change, especially in liberal strongholds like CA and NY. They are willfully violating our rights, and we allow it because it's easier to just "go with the flow" rather than stand up for what's right.

well a hint, dave, that scheme didn't work worth a darn in Texas did it!!! in fact the ramifications of their efforts caused quite a ripple in other states...

just not sure where this mentality of 'willfully violating our rights' you are spouting is coming from? go get arrested, put a go fund me site together, and see where it gets you...convicted of being a felon and then you won't have any worry about your 2A rights in any state whatsoever.

honestly shaking my head in wonder at you as you rant and rave to precipitate a lynching mob and know you will be the first to state...'officer i truly don't know how or why they got that riled up over the issue'???

ipse

addendum...get a dv conviction and see about your 2A rights to purchase a firearm dave or go to NM, be convicted of DUI and see about your concealed permit...

DaveT319 · May 29, 2015

sudden valley gunner said:
You seem to be under the impression that somehow the enumerated rights are more special than other rights. You again leave out the 9th and 10th amendment.

Maybe we should start by having you explain what you think rights are. Hint.....they can't be numbered.

No, I didn't "leave out" those Amendments. I simply didn't list them.

DaveT319 · May 29, 2015

solus said:
well a hint, dave, that scheme didn't work worth a darn in Texas did it!!! in fact the ramifications of their efforts caused quite a ripple in other states...

just not sure where this mentality of 'willfully violating our rights' you are spouting is coming from? go get arrested, put a go fund me site together, and see where it gets you...convicted of being a felon and then you won't have any worry about your 2A rights in any state whatsoever.

honestly shaking my head in wonder at you as you rant and rave to precipitate a lynching mob and know you will be the first to state...'officer i truly don't know how or why they got that riled up over the issue'???

ipse

addendum...get a dv conviction and see about your 2A rights to purchase a firearm dave or go to NM, be convicted of DUI and see about your concealed permit...

Being prohibited from owning firearms after serving you sentence for a crime is also an unConstitutional infringement. If the person is such a threat to society that they should be prohibited from EVER owning firearms ever again, they shouldn't be out in society. If they've served their punishment, they shouldn't continue to be punished.

Why do you seem to be hoping that I'll get arrested? Why do you seem happy to just accept these infringements?

Texas didn't do anything. They demonstrated with the little bit of freedom they still had.They were trying to prove a point in order to convince the legislature to make it legal. What they SHOULD have done is very publicly open carried modern handguns. What they SHOULD have done was show them that they will not accept them infringing on their right any longer. THAT would have been true civil disobedience.

nonameisgood · May 29, 2015

Please don't concern yourself with what Texans should have done.
Not your monkeys, not your circus.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

sudden valley gunner · May 29, 2015

DaveT319 said:
No, I didn't "leave out" those Amendments. I simply didn't list them.

You left them out twice after I mentioned it twice. Maybe because they don't fit into your idea of the constitution being a document granting the feds the power rule the states.

Grim_Night · May 29, 2015

You know, I seem to recall a USSC ruling not too long ago that stated that the US Constitution does apply to the states through the 14th amendment. Hmmm, not sure what ruling that could have been. I know it was a very important one especially to those of us that support the 2nd amendment. If only I could remember what it was. Don't help me, I know I can remember this one. It had something to do with someone named Heller? No, McDonald? Oh yeah! That's it!

McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that determined whether the Second Amendment applies to the individual states. The Court held that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" protected by the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and applies to the states. The decision cleared up the uncertainty left in the wake of District of Columbia v. Heller as to the scope of gun rights in regard to the states.

I'm fairly sure that that decision can be extended to ALL rights of the people, protected by the US Constitution, don't you think?

Concealed carry across state lines

Regular Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member