New Gun Rights Initiative/Referendum? How do you respond if asked to sit in the bar?

[rightwinglibertarian]

Please no National Reciprocity Act - what the government gives, the government can take away.

Better that states agree to accept permits, much as they do driving licenses now........but the feds are looking to change that too:
http://blog.caranddriver.com/the-feds-want-to-replace-your-drivers-license-with-a-national-id-card/

They can't take away a right you've always had and always will. Unless you submit to it and of course you'd let them.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Please no National Reciprocity Act - what the government gives, the government can take away.

Better that states agree to accept permits, much as they do driving licenses now........but the feds are looking to change that too:
http://blog.caranddriver.com/the-feds-want-to-replace-your-drivers-license-with-a-national-id-card/

And, one thing you will notice about the current National Reciprocity bills - they do not protect the rights of the people via either the 2nd Amendment or the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution. All of the National Reciprocity bills are based on establishing the Federal government's (false) authority to regulate concealed carry permits via the much and widely abused Interstate Commerce Clause.

Two plus ones.

 

[utbagpiper]

Please no National Reciprocity Act - what the government gives, the government can take away.

I have to question this line of thinking.

We don't have national reciprocity now. So if we got it for say 10 years and then congress repealed the law, how would we be worse off than we are now?

Are you suggesting that if congress passed a national reciprocity act they could then, and only then, turn around and pass laws against States recognizing out-of-State permits? The provisions of the federal GFSZ law already do this for large patches of land within the several States. For example, Utah recognizes all permits issued nationwide. Our State GFSZ law includes only the buildings and grounds themselves. But under federal law, the GFSZ includes the grounds and then 1000 feet as the crow flies from the edge of school grounds. Further, under that federal GFSZ law, the non-Utah permit that Utah happily accepts to conceal carry into a bar while having a drink is meaningless for otherwise lawful possession of a gun on a public street, 999 feet away from the school.

I simply do not see where national reciprocity gives the feds any powers they don't already have and haven't already used.

What protects our RKBA and inter-State recognition is not some "precedence". It is raw political power. And forcing Cali, NJ, NYC, Chicago, and the other people's republics to respect our rights to some increased degree is likely to increase our political power as residents of those States demand the ability to carry guns on equal footing with non-resident visitors.

Better that states agree to accept permits, much as they do driving licenses now........

Actually, better for the feds to do their job under the 2nd and 14th amendment and protect our constitutionally enumerated, natural rights to RKBA against State level infringement, similar to how the feds passed legislation to prevent government sponsored racial discrimination.

We'd never suggest that individual States be free to ignore the 1st amendment by banning unpopular newspapers. We should not accept that they remain free to completely ban RKBA.

Accepting non-resident permits is not the ideal solution. But it is a step in the right direction.

Charles

 

[utbagpiper]

And, one thing you will notice about the current National Reciprocity bills - they do not protect the rights of the people via either the 2nd Amendment or the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution. All of the National Reciprocity bills are based on establishing the Federal government's (false) authority to regulate concealed carry permits via the much and widely abused Interstate Commerce Clause.

I would not want to see State issued permits to carry considered to be a proper respect for the 2nd amendment. Neither do I see that a permit to carry falls under full faith and credit any more than a business license.

Ideally, congress would protect our RKBA via invocation of the 2nd and 14th amendments to require every State to respect permit-free Constitutional carry.

But politics is the art of the possible. And an InterState Commerce clause requirement to respect out-of-State permits to carry, is a good, pragmatic step in the right direction, even if we might consider constitutionally imperfect.

State issued permits to carry are offensive to a true understanding of the 2nd amendment and most States' RKBA constitutional provisions. But they have been a pragmatic stepping stone toward a half dozen States now respecting constitutional carry. They have also enabled millions of LACs to defend themselves lawfully.

Incrementalism works for us just as readily as it has been used against us...if we are prudent enough to use it, rather than letting the perfect be the enemy of the good enough.

Charles

 

[Freedom1Man]

I would not want to see State issued permits to carry considered to be a proper respect for the 2nd amendment. Neither do I see that a permit to carry falls under full faith and credit any more than a business license.

Ideally, congress would protect our RKBA via invocation of the 2nd and 14th amendments to require every State to respect permit-free Constitutional carry.

But politics is the art of the possible. And an InterState Commerce clause requirement to respect out-of-State permits to carry, is a good, pragmatic step in the right direction, even if we might consider constitutionally imperfect.

State issued permits to carry are offensive to a true understanding of the 2nd amendment and most States' RKBA constitutional provisions. But they have been a pragmatic stepping stone toward a half dozen States now respecting constitutional carry. They have also enabled millions of LACs to defend themselves lawfully.

Incrementalism works for us just as readily as it has been used against us...if we are prudent enough to use it, rather than letting the perfect be the enemy of the good enough.

Charles

Well Chuck,
What about your driver license then?

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Well Chuck,
What about your driver license then?

Real ID act.....has its supporter too.

Tyranny marches on and on and on....

 

[solus]

Well Chuck,
What about your driver license then?

actually solved quite a lot of problems across the country and to the best of my knowledge, every state requires an in vehicle driving test as well as some sort of traffic road laws test before issuing a licence to operate a motor vehicle, thus providing some semblance of uniformity. thus drivers across the country have the same semblance of operational training and knowledge of basic traffic laws to function on the roads across the county...

as acknowledged the DL is also our countries identification card...sigh...

OC purists leave the post now...
now an interesting concept surfaces...numerous states who issue conceal licences also withdraw their reciprocity carry permissions across the country based solely on their perception of a lack of training ~ live shooting training exercises requirement before some state issues the individual a licence to carry concealed.
hummm perhaps, nawwwwlll too controversial to even mention...

ipse

 

[gogodawgs]

I've had this happen several times while OC'ing and CC'ing.
I simply say, "I prefer to sit on the restaraunt side, thank you. "
I keep it simple. Only one time I've had a hostess insist I sit on the bar side. I informed her firearms aren't allowed in the portion of the establishment deemed off limits to minors by the LCB.
It took her a moment to realize I was telling her I was armed. It was amusing as I was OC'ing that day.

I am pretty low key as well and you have stated it well.

I prefer to sit in a booth, on the aisle side, facing the front door. As I walk in I take note of all emergency exits.

 

[mnrobitaille]

snip......

OC purists leave the post now...
now an interesting concept surfaces...numerous states who issue conceal licences also withdraw their reciprocity carry permissions across the country based solely on their perception of a lack of training ~ live shooting training exercises requirement before some state issues the individual a licence to carry concealed.
hummm perhaps, nawwwwlll too controversial to even mention...

ipse

Therein lies part of the problem, some states are "Shall issue" while others are "May issue". Some states require training while others do not. The regulations concerning CCP vary from state to state. At least OCing is very simple (depending on state/local regulations), compared to CCing.

A good example are the differences between Washington & Oregon, Washington allows those states with reciprocity to carry here, yet Oregon only recognizes their own yet there are several states that allow Oregon residents to carry (Washington not one of them). So if a Washington resident wants to carry in Oregon, they can only OC locked & loaded, but must unload if in a vehicle unless they have the Oregon Non-Resident permit. (Oregon requires completion of a training course & a certificate stating such & as a non-resident you must write a letter stating why you are requesting the CCP).

 

[travr6]

Tell them you are a recovering alcoholic. Lol

 

[mnrobitaille]

Where is the requirement in Oregon law to unload the gun inside a vehicle?

The state itself may not require you unload while OCing in a vehicle, but municipalities may require it depending on their definitions on what a "public place" is.

According to handgunlaw.us, basically you're better off getting the Oregon CCP to carry anywhere.