Nationwide concealed carry: MERGED - Page 2

Nationwide concealed carry: MERGED

This is a discussion on Nationwide concealed carry: MERGED within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Originally Posted by SIXTO I dont want the New Yorks, Kali's etc. to have any say in what goes on in my life. You do ...

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 58
  1. #16
    VIP Member Array tns0038's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,163
    Quote Originally Posted by SIXTO View Post
    I dont want the New Yorks, Kali's etc. to have any say in what goes on in my life.
    You do make a valid point.

    New York liberals already control our national news, and I am sure they would love to have national control over our firearms.


  2. #17
    Member Array mrhutch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Marietta, GA
    Posts
    202
    i vote for a bill that requires all states to become "shall issue", with the individual state determining necessary requirements to meet, and all licenses be honored in all states. i do not want the federal government determining what the licensing processes will be--too many lobbyist with too much money on the wrong side to influence that process. sorry tough states, but georgia, along with several other states, have it good right now and i'd rather not see that screwed up with extra steps and expensive mandatory training.

  3. #18
    Distinguished Member Array LenS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Commiechusetts
    Posts
    1,631
    Quote Originally Posted by rainmaker View Post
    Might have a chance when the SCOTUS and the US Attorney General support the 2nd Amendment as an individual right. And, if licensing is left up to the states, as a "states rights" issue. My concern would be that the Feds would impose what they consider "reasonable" restrictions, training requirements, etc etc which could turn draconian.
    ABSOLUTELY TRUE! That is exactly what would happen.

    Quote Originally Posted by BikerRN View Post
    There is already precident for this in LEOSA.

    While LEOSA covers only LEO's it can be argued that the natural progression is to now allow non-LEO's with a CCW Permit to carry concealed weapons in all fifty states.
    LEOSA is a terrible law. Very poorly worded, leaves too much discretion to each state and police chief and only includes SOME LEOs. It was written by a union (FOP) for their members' benefit and was very poorly thought out in implementation.

    e.g.

    - Palm Beach Cty FL is about to setup a qualification process. Cost will be $150/year for retirees. Excessive!! NR Permit in FL only cost me $117/5 years.

    - MA will only qualify retirees that served their 15 years in MA. Retirees who worked in other states and were stupid enough to retire to MA will NOT be qualified to LEOSA!

    - MA will only qualify retirees who were FT Municipal POs or MA State Police. No Feds, PT POs, other levels of LEOs will be qualified in MA!

    - MA laws/regs will NOT force a chief to issue LEOSA credentials to a retiree or even active LEO. It is totally discretionary on the part of the chief. Also, said credentials (LEO status . . . this isn't the shooting qualification card) will be issued annually . . . so chief can decide he doesn't like you at any time.

    Quote Originally Posted by jongle View Post
    Some interesting results might well flow when the Supremes decide the DC gun ban case. I predict that the Court will recognize a private right to own and bear arms subject to reasonable state regulation. If the Court defines "reasonable state regulation", states like CA, where it is very difficult to get a CCW might be forced to re-examine their position. Your friendly retired lawyer thinks that interesting times lie ahead.
    The "right to bear arms" is NOT part of the current SCOTUS case! ONLY the right to possess. The outcome of SCOTUS will have no impact on current discussion . . . at least not in any positive way. I do agree that the "reasonable state regulations" are more likely to be like NY, NJ and CA than they are VT, AK, FL.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIXTO View Post
    Those are a completley different things. The closest one is driving but Driving regulations are largely the same no matter where you go, and you have a system in place to track drivers nationwide... no thanks, please dont apply that to my guns. I dont want the New Yorks, Kali's etc. to have any say in what goes on in my life.
    Agreed. Even in MA, the law does not require you to shoot a qualification score to get a permit. If there was a Fed law, it would likely require annual qualification standards, renewal courses, more restrictions on where you can carry (MA only restricts on school property . . . everyplace else is AOK), etc.

    I have no desire to check my gun to enter a public library (AZ) or police station (FL) or places that serve liquor (AZ, TX, ad nauseum).


    Quote Originally Posted by tns0038 View Post
    You do make a valid point.

    New York liberals already control our national news, and I am sure they would love to have national control over our firearms.
    Amen!

  4. #19
    Senior Member Array bobcat35's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    664
    so article 8 of the us constitution is going to be passed finally?
    "Nothing in life is so exhilarating as to be shot at without result."
    -Winston Churchill
    Every well-bred petty crook knows: the small concealable weapons always go to the far left of the place setting.
    -Inara, firefly

  5. #20
    Senior Member Array InspectorGadget's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    536
    Quote Originally Posted by LenS View Post
    The "right to bear arms" is NOT part of the current SCOTUS case! ONLY the right to possess. The outcome of SCOTUS will have no impact on current discussion . . . at least not in any positive way. I do agree that the "reasonable state regulations" are more likely to be like NY, NJ and CA than they are VT, AK, and FL.
    You are correct about this case but once the Right to Keep arms is determined to be an Individual Right, it will make an easier case of the right to bear arms. This case will probably not settle the Bear issue, it will start the ball rolling. This will set up for a case the the right to carry is a protected individual right under the constitution.[Fingers and toes crossed]

    One other effect is that once it is determined (Interpretation of Miller) that it is an individual right to keep arms consistent with military service (Pistols and Rifles) it will set up for a case against Assualt Weapons Bans to allow the civilian version of the M16/M4 (AR-15) to fall under the second ammendment protected right. The Brady Campaign against Self Defense backup argument is that it allows Flintlock Pistols and Muzzle loaded rifles not weapons in use today.

    They know they can't win an Amendment to repeal the bill of rights since "We cling to our guns and relegion because we are bitter."
    Colt 1911 New Agent, CTLaser

    You do not work for them, they work for you.
    Senators http://senate.gov/general/contact_in...nators_cfm.cfm
    Congressmen http://www.house.gov/house/MemberWWW_by_State.shtml

  6. #21
    Senior Member Array InspectorGadget's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    536
    H. R. 5782

    `Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof:

    `(1) A person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, and is carrying a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of any State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm, may carry in any State a concealed firearm in accordance with the terms of the license or permit, subject to the laws of the State in which the firearm is carried concerning specific types of locations in which firearms may not be carried.

    `(2) A person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, and is otherwise than as described in paragraph (1) entitled to carry a concealed firearm in and pursuant to the law of the State in which the person resides, may carry in any State a concealed firearm in accordance with the laws of the State in which the person resides, subject to the laws of the State in which the firearm is carried concerning specific types of locations in which firearms may not be carried.'.

    (b) Clerical Amendment- The table of sections for chapter 44 of title 18 is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 926C the following:

    `926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms.'.

    ------------------------------------

    I read this as Home state determines manner of carry, visited state determines where you are allowed. This would allow Cali to say "not allowed to carry in any public or private place without owners permission" that catch would make the law irrelevant in any given {Communist} state. Nice try but not quite good enough to make a difference. They would have to make it a Overriding national list of where you are allowed to carry, and I DO NOT want Kennedy/Obama/Feristein determining where I carry.
    Colt 1911 New Agent, CTLaser

    You do not work for them, they work for you.
    Senators http://senate.gov/general/contact_in...nators_cfm.cfm
    Congressmen http://www.house.gov/house/MemberWWW_by_State.shtml

  7. #22
    Senior Member Array SCfromNY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    1,051
    I do not see where the Federal Gov't would have anything to say about restrictions. A form of this bill has been introduced almost every year and fails.

    All this would do is allow a permit holder to carry in all states while obeying those states restrictions, NOT make a new list of restrictions. The problem is that states like NY have a very good permit allowing you to carry almost anywhere. The rub being that residents can not easily obtain them.

    Should this or a similar law pass the states that have may issue or "when we feel like it" would be forced to add restrictions that they do not now have to retrict the people who actually have CWP. Also the residents would complain because someone like myself, from SC, could carry all over NY state, obeying the rules in place now for NY permit holders and they could not easily get a permit.
    Registration: A prelude to Confiscation and Anarchy.

  8. #23
    VIP Member Array cdwolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    MS
    Posts
    2,261
    I'm happy with MS law! I think it would be a mistake to let the fed's decide when and where. Most states are doing a pretty good job!!
    I have no need or desire to visit Chicago or NY if I could carry 8 guns!
    I wish there was a 50 state permit but, I will leave that up to the states.
    GUN CONTROL= I WANT TO BE THE ONE IN CONTROL OF THE GUN

    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.

  9. #24
    Member Array 500Mag's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    West Chester, PA
    Posts
    418
    The way I read it, the bill only mandates states recognize other states licenses. It will not set forth any standards or restrictions on actual concealled carry.

    Maybe I'm missing something but I don't see how it would be different than driver's licenses. States have their own rules and regulations that you must obey while there and they have their own rules for obtaining DL's. Example, as a 16 year old I can legally drive in NJ where the age is 17 because they have to recognize my license, but I have to obey state rules such as helmet laws, etc.

    Maybe someone can give me some concrete evidence why this is bad other than "the fed gov't screws up everything it touches"...which I do agree with.
    "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."

  10. #25
    VIP Member
    Array Miggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Miami-Dade, FL
    Posts
    6,258
    I have to agree with Sixto. I rather have the system we have right now that the Federal Gov butting in and giving Anti States my information.

    For instance, Florida's standards are so low that some death-row inmates there have permits, he said.
    I never heard of this before and I could not find any news article other than the original saying that anywhere.
    You have to make the shot when fire is smoking, people are screaming, dogs are barking, kids are crying and sirens are coming.
    Randy Cain.

    Ego will kill you. Leave it at home.
    Signed: Me!

  11. #26
    Senior Moderator
    Array pgrass101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    13,489
    Quote Originally Posted by Miggy View Post
    I never heard of this before and I could not find any news article other than the original saying that anywhere.

    Miggy you know the Brady bunch has never let the lack of facts or evidence ever stop them from saying something
    “You can sway a thousand men by appealing to their prejudices quicker than you can convince one man by logic.”

    ― Robert A. Heinlein,

  12. #27
    Distinguished Member Array LenS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Commiechusetts
    Posts
    1,631
    The Bill that might get passed usually never resembles the Bill that was filed (that's why the phrase "never watch sausage or legislation being made" is so true). After the likes of Kennedy/Boxer/Feinstein/etc. get thru "amending" it, it will likely have a list of restrictions that would choke an elephant.

    Take a look at the restrictions in LEOSA for some insight:

    - LEOSA allows all qualified LEOs (including retirees) to CCW in the entire US . . . BUT it doesn't address magazine and ammo restrictions at all. No one is certain that a retiree can carry his G17 with 17 rd mags of HP ammo in NJ (as one example).

    - Why should a retired LEO with no police powers have to "qualify" under any more stringent standards than a civilian that resides in the same state?

    - Why does LEOSA not allow retirees who served honorably but retired from a department that had no pension plan, to carry under LEOSA? Why does the pension make one person "qualified" and the person without a pension "unqualified"?

    - Why didn't LEOSA MANDATE that all retirees get an ID card (left as discretionary) and must be allowed to qualify? [Amtrak Police and many other LE branches were not included in LEOSA.]

    Yup, leave it to legislators to totally screw it up. No way that they will pass a bill that will simply give reciprocity without any restrictions imposed in said bill. It just won't happen.

  13. #28
    Member Array jonesy_26's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    SE MI
    Posts
    325
    After reading through most of the posts, I still don't see how this opens the door for the Feds to do anything unsavory.

    If the Bill mandates ONLY the cooperation of states to recognize each other's license, then we should be OK. All exisiting laws remain the same, only states now have to have reciprocity. Everyone follows the rules when they are in that state. There isn't anything in there about any requirements affecting what an individual must do that have to be applied across the contry.

    The only drawback I can think of is that it is now a target for future revisions. Add-ons with Federal controls and limits would be the worry.

    I think its a good idea.

  14. #29
    Distinguished Member Array nutz4utwo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    yes
    Posts
    1,644
    Hamm:

    For instance, Florida's standards are so low that some death-row inmates there have permits, he said.
    Um....pretty sure that violates both Florida and Federal law. Nice to see such honorable reporting of "accurate" info as given by the brady bunch.
    "a reminder that no law can replace personal responsibility" - Bill Clinton 2010.

  15. #30
    Senior Member Array InspectorGadget's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    536
    In and of itself, it would really have little effect the way it is written, any given state can pass a law stating no place in the state is allowed to carry concealed for anyone. In the states that allow carry it would mean that you can carry with an out of state license which would standardise reciprocity. The only way to make it a effective law is to expand it's powers to a level we do not wan't. In other words it's just more fluff to take up a work day in congress.

    But this law should wait until at least, at least, we have an answer on Heller. For good or bad Heller will set the way the second ammendment is fought from now on. In a perfect world the issue will be laid to rest. In a liberal world the Ban will be upheld and Kennedy/Obama/Feinstein will take DC Nationwide. I expect somethingin between will be the answer but where it lands only 9 people know.
    Colt 1911 New Agent, CTLaser

    You do not work for them, they work for you.
    Senators http://senate.gov/general/contact_in...nators_cfm.cfm
    Congressmen http://www.house.gov/house/MemberWWW_by_State.shtml

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 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. Bill To Allow Concealed Carry Without Permit Passes House(merged)
    By CenterOfMass in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 128
    Last Post: February 23rd, 2010, 08:24 PM
  2. Talk about Concealed Carry... LOL Merged
    By GoldenSaber in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: August 6th, 2009, 08:25 PM
  3. Concealed Carry in National Parks provision passes! (Merged X 7)
    By Chorizo in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 156
    Last Post: May 25th, 2009, 05:08 PM
  4. Vitter To Introduce Concealed Carry Reciprocity: MERGED
    By mrreynolds in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: June 19th, 2008, 01:32 PM
  5. Right To Carry? The Battle Goes Nationwide!
    By Deke45 in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: April 7th, 2005, 12:46 AM

Search tags for this page

can residents of ms. carry side arms after may 1
,
department issued ccw carry nation wide
,
how to check progress of sc cwp renewal
,

info leos gov in loc:us

,
ma.laws for concealed weapons
,
nationwide concealed gun permit
,
palm beach county sheriff leosa qualification course
,
sc cwp renewal
,
who merged with nationwide
Click on a term to search for related topics.

» Log in

User Name:

Password:

Not a member yet?
Register Now!

» DefensiveCarry Sponsors