This is a discussion on New, 'No Permit Necessary' laws within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Originally Posted by Fitch There is a lot to like about that. What I like the most is that someone who is in danger, or ...
U.S. Navy Veteran '65-'69
Retired Police Detective '71 - '01
NRA Life Member / SAF Member
U.S. Constitution (c) 1791, All Rights Reserved.
To add to what Hopyard said, in Texas, the Motorist Protection Act (car carry) specifically excludes gang members along with anyone committing a crime other than a minor traffic violation.
I also want to point out that AZs constitutional carry law requires you to inform any law enforcement officer that you are carrying upon any form of contact with said officer. That being said if you are a bad guy or prohibited possessor you are not going to say anything anyway which means business as usual before the law.... now if you are a law abiding citizen permit or not, you now will inform the officer legally.... that is the only change besides the carry portion without a permit. The bad guys aren't going to inform LEO much like they havent in the past. They aren't going.... wow I can carry legally now, so now I am going to carry.... they have been carrying all along.
...he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. Luke 22:36
USN/VET; NRA; GOA, jpfo.org
Life in a Jar: The Irena Sendler Project www.irenasendler.com
Vermont is the only state with 'constitutional carry' that does not have a legacy permitting system in place. I don't know what Wyoming will do, but would guess they'll do the same, just as the other states that look like they're going to pass similar provisions.
If this 'forced reciprocity' thing passes, I wonder if VT residents will get stiffed. I can see a lot of states no longer pursuing reciprocity agreements, as there won't be much of a point for them. Other state residents can just go get a permit if they need one for travel, but not VT residents.
Let me make something perfectly clear here.
To suppress the right of self protection because of OFFICER SAFETY is not only wrong, but it smacks of elitism. Lets not forget that for most of the history of this country, permits were not needed or even wanted by free thinking men.
Fact of the matter is...an officer, any officer, is supposed to assume that anyone that he stops is armed. Using the argument of officer safety to suppress what we never should have given up is wrong.
As for the background check..it proves only one thing. It proves that you were smart enough to not get caught if you did happen to do something wrong. It means that up until that point,you stayed below the radar.
Passing it does not make you a "good guy" and it sure doesn't make a person any better than the next. Going through the system of fingerprints, background checks, or even required training to a state standard does not actually prevent anyone from doing anything and is flawed logic to assume that one that passes those controls are any better than someone who has not.
There are people in this country that want to control every aspect of our lives. Controlling YOUR ability to defend yourself with a handgun is one of them. They can control the training, control the licensing fee's, control the amount of time until it is valid or not valid, they can control where they let you carry it or not carry it, it is nothing more than a control issue.
Some people are finally waking up. A free man realizes that he doesn't need permission from another man to be able to protect himself or his family, that right is a natural right, it is ingrained in most of us, it is a right given to us by the Creator, and ANY thing that hinders that right is an infringement, one that the wise men that founded this country understood and practiced.
Now that some states are waking up and realizing that very thing, the control freaks are sitting in a corner wringing their hands and crying "woe is me" because they have in fact lost some control. We are being bombarded by the news media about how terrible it is that a state legislature actually removes a hindrance, an infringement on a right to bear arms.We are being told that if we let this happen, if we let people carry a gun that haven't went through a background check to prove that they are innocent of wrongdoing, that if they haven't been fingerprinted like a common criminal or if they haven't had proper training then blood will run in the streets and things will return to the days like it was in the wild west where shoot outs happened every day at noon, which is yet another myth spread by Hollywood. We are told that society as we know it will cease to be. Its the same old crap spread by die hard liberals and stupid conservatives that don't know any better and they aren't even smart enough to come up with a different argument, they keep using the same one over and over.
The founding fathers made it clear...painfully clear to those that can read and understand English. They didn't need lawyers to tell us what the Second Amendment really meant, because at that time, there was NO question as to the intent. It hadn't been muddled up by the control freaks with an agenda. Unlike today, those men were highly educated by institutions that actually taught things that mattered. These men could read and write well, they could actually use proper grammar and compose a composition and most of all, they could actually think...much unlike the those graduating today that can barely write or even read.
I am in favor of removing government control and putting that freedom BACK in the hands of those that should have never given it up. It is a step in the right direction.
Universal Background Checks...the next step towards registration and confiscation.
AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
Like custom guns and stuff? Check this out...
Greetings all. I am new to this forum because our state, South Carolina, is in the troughs of hammering out a constitutional carry reform intended to replace ... or augment ... the CWP law that we have had in place since 1996.
As a veteran, former law enforcement officer, administrator, and firearms instructor, I am all for training, but at the same time, I'm a strict Constitutionalist who takes all of the Constitution, and in this case the 2nd Amendment, in its literal form. Right now the bill that would allow for constitutional carry is stuck in the General Assembly’s judicial committee. It is also under fire because it was watered down in a manner that it would not recognize out of state visitors right to keep and bear arms, even in the glove box of a vehicle or motel room, unless they had a CWP from their state, and even then there would have to be reciprocity between that state and South Carolina. Another problem is that 17 to 20 year old armed forces personnel would not be included. Finally, counties, municipalities and businesses could impose their own rules forbidding constitutional carry.
Within a month, I went from being a strong supporter of this bill to being totally against it. Some of you from South Carolina might be familiar with it. I am worried that if the bill sits in the judicial committee too long, the issue will be dropped and nothing will happen. Perhaps it is better to have no bill now than get stuck with a bad law later.
HotGuns, two words for you "Amen Brother"!!!
"Those who would give up essential liberties for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty or safety" -Benjamin Franklin-
NRA Endowment Life Member