What do you think of "Vermont-style" carry laws?

What do you think of "Vermont-style" carry laws?

This is a discussion on What do you think of "Vermont-style" carry laws? within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; That is, what do you think of a system that allows any law-abiding citizen to carry a gun if he has no disqualifying convictions or ...

View Poll Results: "Vermont-style" gun laws allow any law-abiding person to carry. Do you support this?

Voters
376. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, I do. A free, law-abiding person should be presumed to be trustworthy enough to carry a gun.

    338 89.89%
  • No, I don't. I feel that anyone who wants to carry a gun should have to prove his competence to a government agency, to assure public safety.

    38 10.11%
Page 1 of 8 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 119

Thread: What do you think of "Vermont-style" carry laws?

  1. #1
    VIP Member Array peacefuljeffrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    south Florida
    Posts
    3,168

    What do you think of "Vermont-style" carry laws?

    That is, what do you think of a system that allows any law-abiding citizen to carry a gun if he has no disqualifying convictions or disabilities in his personal history?

    Vermont is well-known for having the most liberal of gun laws, and yet among the lowest firearms crime rate in the nation.

    In the other thread that dealt with "should this person be carrying?" there seemed to be a lot of support for mandatory training, testing and licensure. It was a lot more than I expected, and so I came to suspect that support for "Vermont-style" laws would be correspondingly low.

    So let's see how it shakes out. I'll start off by voting "Yes."


  2. #2
    Member Array joffe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    165
    Vermont and Alaska are the only two states to take the Second Amendment seriously. The Bill of Rights is not a granting of rights, government cannot grant rights, only privileges. The Bill of Rights merely recognizes the natural rights inherent in all men -- the right to self-ownership, to do as you please and live your own life as long as you do not hinder any other man's right to live theirs. The Founders decided that the Bill of Rights would be needed in order to remind future generations what America is all about.

    Government carry permits do not stop crime, government-mandated training does not make someone responsible and the lack of it definitely won't suddenly turn every gun owner into some irresponsible maniac. If someone wants to commit a crime, they'll carry a gun. Heck, if someone wants to defend themselves they'll carry a gun. Refer to the pizza boy in Occupied Territory Milwaukee who has had to defend his life no less than three times.

    Government carry permits are unconstitutional. I don't like that term. The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the land. To put it more bluntly, carry permits are Supremely illegal.

    For those who believe the frail old document should be trashed, (I definitely hope they're not here, what are they doing here?) there are utilitarian arguments. The states with no licenses and the states with rubber stamp licenses (like in New Hampshire where there is no fingerprinting or training requirement) have the lowest violent crime rates in the country.

  3. #3
    VIP Member Array PatrioticRick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Rigby, Idaho
    Posts
    5,142
    I have a right to carry a gun, not the right to have a permit to carry a gun.
    Μολὼν λαβέ

    USN 78-82/USAF 82-93 Medically Retired
    Desert Shield/Desert Storm
    DAV Life Member
    NRA Life Member

  4. #4
    Senior Member Array Herknav's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Waypoint 0
    Posts
    986
    Having lived in Alaska, I see no issues with it. (Unless, of course, you're in the Army. Then, MG Jacoby revokes that right.)

    Edited to add: It appears the new USARAK/CC is MG Layfield. He kept the policy. I find point number one particularly odious. http://www.usarak.army.mil/policies/PUBS-ACROBAT/USARAK_Policies/CGCOFS%20POLICY%20STATEMENT%2020.pdf
    Last edited by Herknav; October 16th, 2007 at 06:36 AM. Reason: New Information

  5. #5
    Ex Member Array FN1910's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    1,235
    Even Vermont has restrictions on the carry of guns. Should they be removed? If you are going to apply even one restriction such as age, mental ability, ex-felon then where do you draw the line? It is just that some have the line drawn at different places. If you are going to take 2A literally then there should be no restrictions at all.

  6. #6
    Senior Member Array press1280's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    WV
    Posts
    750
    I believe as a practical matter yes,there has to be a line drawn when it comes to violent ex-felons(who probably shouldn't be out on the street,but that's another matter) or someone utterly incompetent (a child for instance or someone deranged who again shouldn't be on the street anyways).
    However, as the 2nd amendment is written,the Vermont law would seem to apply. The people living back then brought up their kids and trained them automatically how to properly use a firearm,so training wasn't an issue.
    Of course you have stupid people who probably shouldn't have a firearm,there are also stupid people who probably shouldn't vote either.

  7. #7
    Member Array Geno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    SE Kansas, USA
    Posts
    261
    I voted NO because I believe that a minimum proficency test of knowledge and skill should be passed, much the same as a vehicle drivers licinse for minimum proficency be passed.

    If I wanted to buy a vehicle and drive it on my own place and keep it on my own place only I do not believe that I should have to have a DL. When I or anyone else takes that vehicle out for use on the public roads, I think that they should be licensed. Same with carry guns.

  8. #8
    Distinguished Member Array Bob The Great's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Slidell, LA
    Posts
    1,688
    I have no problem with VT/AK style carry. I do think that it would be prudent to include some gun safety education in standard school curriculums to raise general awareness, but the actual right to carry should not be dependent on training or licensing.

    The only exceptions are those who have voluntarily waived their rights (and not just 2A rights) by becoming criminals and those who are mentally unable to understand their rights (which should be defined very strictly, btw).
    "A well-educated electorate, being necessary to the continuance of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed."
    Is this hard to understand? Then why does it get unintelligible to some people when 5 little words are changed?

  9. #9
    VIP Member
    Array kentuckycarry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    kentucky
    Posts
    2,219
    It was tough , but I had to vote no. When the 2nd Ammendment was written there were no crowded malls and Walmarts. Someone at that time couldn't shoot off 12 rounds in seconds. The safety of others has to be taken into condsideration. I don't feel my rights would be trampled on at all by taking a safety course and proving I can atleast handle the gun. I still get the right to carry a gun to protect me and my family and all is better off.

  10. #10
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    27,335
    The reality is, everyone is responsible for their actions at all times. Choose to commit an anti-social act? Society should hold you accountable for that act, in all its shame and glory. That covers everything from five-fingered shopping to murder sprees, and everything in between. There is no safety manual for life and living, other than how we're raised and one's own common sense. There's no test for religion, though religious fervor has turned out to be one of the single most dangerous things humankind has ever devised. While a complicated "dance" such as driving a 3000 lb car in public requires learning of a few common rules, there isn't anything about a basic firearm that should require a manual of arms in order to operate it.

    The only point I would make is that when someone does take a course for personal benefit and learning, but does not pass the requirements of that course, one should not get the sheepskin indicating one passed. That goes for an education from a university. That should also go for something as simple as a firearms safety/competency course. One would think failure to demonstrate competency combined with a failure of actual usage in public would combine to be enough of a "prod" for most folks to acquire additional training. Given the alternatives, IMO that should be sufficient.

    As for training at all, I don't really agree the government should be charged with (effectively) determining who may and may not defend themselves, or when. I wish there were a way to weed out the truly incompetent and be able to instill all the right lessons prior to use, but not at the expense of oppression or despotism on the part of my peers in my own government.
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, SAF, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  11. #11
    Senior Member Array mzmtg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Acworth, GA
    Posts
    502
    Quote Originally Posted by robere View Post
    I don't feel my rights would be trampled on at all by taking a safety course and proving I can atleast handle the gun.
    Would you mind being forced to take some political education classes before you are allowed to vote?

    Would you mind being forced to take a few writing classes before you are allowed to publish any of your own work?

    Would you mind being forced to take a class about religion before you are allowed to go to church?

  12. #12
    VIP Member
    Array OPFOR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Nomad
    Posts
    4,713
    All animals are equal, but those animals that the government has seen fit to "certify" are more equal than others?
    A man fires a rifle for many years, and he goes to war. And afterward he turns the rifle in at the armory, and he believes he's finished with the rifle. But no matter what else he might do with his hands - love a woman, build a house, change his son's diaper - his hands remember the rifle.

  13. #13
    Ex Member Array FN1910's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    1,235
    there isn't anything about a basic firearm that should require a manual of arms in order to operate it.
    Then why do manufacturers include a users manual?

    We argue about all of the BOR and what the Founding Father intentions were yet according to our standards they were the biggest violaters of all. We argue about the right to keep and bear arms yet the Founding Fathers only considered a certain class of people to have those rights. Thomas Jefferson wrote in a recommendation for the Virginia constitution, "No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms within his own lands or tenements". Here clearly Jefferson did not include all people. The Founding Fathers chose to ban the carry of firearms from such groups as slaves, immigrants and even Roman Catholics.

    George Washington was a primary proponent of the individual rights of property owners and advocated the defending of those property rights. As a primary recruitment tool for soldiers he promised land as a reward and gave vast amounts of land to his soldiers at the end of the Revolutionary War as payment for a job well done.

    The analogy of a drivers license to a gun permit cannot be totally rejected no matter how much you want to argue the permit vs. right issue. The use of cars, guns, airplanes and business all must be regulated as a matter of the public good. Our only argument is how much they must be regulated. If you want to argue that 2A includes your right of ownership and use of a M1 Abrams tank or an Atomic Bomb then go ahead. If you argue for anything less then you have already admitted that there are restrictions on 2A and then only how far those restrictions go.

  14. #14
    Senior Member Array Duisburg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Duisburg, Germany
    Posts
    754
    i am moving there soon and look forward to Federalism where I can be a national citizen and not have to jump through loops :D
    I am sworn to protect the Constitution of the U.S.A. from all threats both foreign and domestic.

  15. #15
    Ex Member Array FN1910's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    1,235
    Quote Originally Posted by mzmtg View Post
    Would you mind being forced to take some political education classes before you are allowed to vote?
    Most people already do that in about the fourth or fith grade. In high school they usually offer classes in what used to be called Civics but now many call it current events.
    I have no problem with requiring it.

    Would you mind being forced to take a few writing classes before you are allowed to publish any of your own work?
    Going to be very hard to write a book if you can't read and write or at least have a ghost writer. I have read a few books that it really was questionable if the author knew how to read or write. Government usally offers those classes for free.

    Would you mind being forced to take a class about religion before you are allowed to go to church?
    Little misleading question here as most churches have Sunday School to learn about religion and the main purpose of churches is to teach. Add to that most churches have classes for new members.

Page 1 of 8 12345 ... LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

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

Similar Threads

  1. Tennessee - "Carry At Work" Laws?
    By SpringerXD in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: March 3rd, 2011, 09:48 PM
  2. Vermont l: Maslack recently proposed a bill to register "non-gun-owners"
    By mi2az in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: March 21st, 2010, 05:18 PM
  3. What is "Mexican Style" carry?
    By Jeffrey1235 in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: September 20th, 2009, 11:55 AM
  4. Has anyone heard about "Vermont Tactical".
    By sp2022 in forum Defensive Carry & Tactical Training
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: July 27th, 2009, 02:42 PM
  5. "Israeli" style concealed carry shirts....
    By TheGreatGonzo in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 67
    Last Post: October 10th, 2007, 01:37 PM

Search tags for this page

arguments against vermont style ccw
,
mg layfield alaska gun
,
tennessee vermont style carrying law
,
vermont concealed carry victim
,
vermont lets ex-felons carry weapon
,

vermont style carry

,
vermont style carry laws
,

vermont style concealed carry

,
vermont style right to carry
,
what is vermont style carry?
,
why aren't more states doing vermont style concealed carry
,
www.diplamo carry.com
Click on a term to search for related topics.