Would we want National CCW?

This is a discussion on Would we want National CCW? within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; I am a federalist, if you want to call it that. However, I can see logic in the position of those wary of federal intervention ...

Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 76

Thread: Would we want National CCW?

  1. #61
    njr
    njr is offline
    Member Array njr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Northern Illinois
    Posts
    134
    I am a federalist, if you want to call it that. However, I can see logic in the position of those wary of federal intervention against our Constitutional rights. It's a tough decision.

    The larger problem as I see it, is that the majority of the population, the most progressive parts of the population (people of color) are atomized and beaten down. There is no Labor Party, let alone a party left of Labor to represent not only our Constitutional rights but social rights that a majority of Americans support. I'm talking about universal health care, withdrawal from the role of imperial guard dog, the right to unionize, green energy and jobs, public works, etc. Absent that, the population is fractured into small businessmen and those living in rural, ex-urban and suburban areas on the one hand, and those living in urban areas, on the other. This keeps the population divided along false voting blocs on the Second Amendment and the issues above. To put it another way, as long as the Second Amendment is a stand-alone issue, or an issue associated with small government, cutting taxes, etc., the majority of those voting will not support the Second Amendment, at least in this period.
    By the forests, behind the guns/In the streets and in the houses/Between the tanks, by the roadside/At the hands of the men, of the women, of the children/In the cold, in the dark, in hunger....

    Bertolt Brecht, "To The German Soldiers In The East", stanza 9.

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #62
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,659

    Good post, one comment

    Quote Originally Posted by njr View Post
    I am a federalist, if you want to call it that. However, I can see logic in the position of those wary of federal intervention against our Constitutional rights. It's a tough decision.

    The larger problem as I see it, is that the majority of the population, the most progressive parts of the population (people of color) are atomized and beaten down. There is no Labor Party, let alone a party left of Labor to represent not only our Constitutional rights but social rights that a majority of Americans support. I'm talking about universal health care, withdrawal from the role of imperial guard dog, the right to unionize, green energy and jobs, public works, etc. Absent that, the population is fractured into small businessmen and those living in rural, ex-urban and suburban areas on the one hand, and those living in urban areas, on the other. This keeps the population divided along false voting blocs on the Second Amendment and the issues above. To put it another way, as long as the Second Amendment is a stand-alone issue, or an issue associated with small government, cutting taxes, etc., the majority of those voting will not support the Second Amendment, at least in this period.
    Good post with just one comment. There are plenty of progressives who aren't people of color. Progressives and liberals aren't the same thing. Moderate centrists today are often painted as "evil liberals," socialists, communists and worse. This is a symptom of a disease in our society--on the far right. It is not a problem of society as a whole.

    And yes, the population is divided almost 50:50 with a great many people mistakenly voting consistently against their own economic interests.

  4. #63
    Senior Member Array DPro.40's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    611
    Quote Originally Posted by ExSoldier View Post
    ALL Federal Reciprocity is bad. The Government giveth and the Government taketh away. Interstate compacts (reciprocity agreements between individual sates) have to be dismantled one at a time. That means a bigger and stronger chance for the PEOPLE to dig in and take a stand.
    I agree, As paranoid as it sounds, and I admit it does, The Feds come in and give the appearance of beng the Friends of the second amendment while it is actually a platform to take away the states ability to decide for itself if they wish to issue CCW. Once the Feds get involved, the antis take any shooting as an incident to say we were wrong and take away our ability to protect ourselves with the stroke of a pen. Back door definitely.
    Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same.
    Ronald Reagan

  5. #64
    njr
    njr is offline
    Member Array njr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Northern Illinois
    Posts
    134
    Right, as soon as I posted that, I saw that I should've inserted "and" instead of a ",".

    Speaking of "progressives", a word I generally loathe for it's associations with stalinist popular fronts and Democrat Party cooptation, there is a good book that folks might be interested in called _Deer Hunting With Jesus_ by Joe Bagaent, which talks about moving back to his native Virginia from California, class in red states and how real estate interests and big business manipulate class to turn people against their own interests, among other topics.



    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    Good post with just one comment. There are plenty of progressives who aren't people of color. Progressives and liberals aren't the same thing. Moderate centrists today are often painted as "evil liberals," socialists, communists and worse. This is a symptom of a disease in our society--on the far right. It is not a problem of society as a whole.

    And yes, the population is divided almost 50:50 with a great many people mistakenly voting consistently against their own economic interests.
    By the forests, behind the guns/In the streets and in the houses/Between the tanks, by the roadside/At the hands of the men, of the women, of the children/In the cold, in the dark, in hunger....

    Bertolt Brecht, "To The German Soldiers In The East", stanza 9.

  6. #65
    Ex Member Array Ram Rod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Fayetteville, AR
    Posts
    13,687
    Quote Originally Posted by SubNine View Post
    At first I thought it was a grand idea but then I realized maybe not. A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take it all away. I agree that it should be left up to the individual states.
    Exactly. I figure it will happen since 'they' have an evil plan in mind. This administration will tout it as a pro-gun gesture, but we should take a step back and look at Nazi Germany. The ways they'll try to take us down, and they don't think we're smart enough to see it. That alone ought to tell you something.
    I was like SubNine a couple of years ago. Now...I not only realize "maybe not", but a solid no for good reason.

  7. #66
    Ex Member Array DOGOFWAR01's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    WYOMING
    Posts
    562
    "Remember that a government big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take away everything you have."

    This quote has also been attributed to Davy Crockett and is consistent with his very-limited-government philosophy.

    In my opinion he is the best Congressman there ever has been. Research the internet for yourself.

  8. #67
    VIP Member Array ExSoldier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Coral Gables, FL
    Posts
    5,802

    Wink Actually...

    Quote Originally Posted by DOGOFWAR01 View Post
    "Remember that a government big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take away everything you have."

    This quote has also been attributed to Davy Crockett and is consistent with his very-limited-government philosophy.

    In my opinion he is the best Congressman there ever has been. Research the internet for yourself.
    No arguments on Davy Crockett except that quote is most often attributed to Barry Goldwater in 1968. That too, tracked with HIS own philosophy of a Constitutional Republic and limited government. In Crockett's day, the era of big government wasn't as much of a danger as it was in the 1960s so it would make more sense for it to be a Goldwater quote.

    I rather like this quote from Crockett: You can all go to HELL and I shall go to Texas.
    Former Army Infantry Captain; 25 yrs as an NRA Certified Instructor; Avid practitioner of the martial art: KLIK-PAO.

  9. #68
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by ExSoldier View Post
    No arguments on Davy Crockett except that quote is most often attributed to Barry Goldwater in 1968. That too, tracked with HIS own philosophy of a Constitutional Republic and limited government.
    Actually, the quote is from Gerald Ford in his address to Congress in 1974.

    It is disturbing that people throw quotes around, out of context, and still attribute them to the wrong people!

  10. #69
    Ex Member Array DOGOFWAR01's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    WYOMING
    Posts
    562
    Quote Originally Posted by ExSoldier View Post
    No arguments on Davy Crockett except that quote is most often attributed to Barry Goldwater in 1968. That too, tracked with HIS own philosophy of a Constitutional Republic and limited government. In Crockett's day, the era of big government wasn't as much of a danger as it was in the 1960s so it would make more sense for it to be a Goldwater quote.

    I rather like this quote from Crockett: You can all go to HELL and I shall go to Texas.
    Who wrote, “A government big enough to give you everything...

    1) Gerald Ford (14 July 1913 – 26 December 2006) , the 38th President of the United States.
    "A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have.
    Presidential address to a joint session of Congress (12 August 1974)
    Ford has also been quoted as having made a similar statement many years earlier, as a representative to the US Congress: "If the government is big enough to give you everything you want, it is big enough to take away everything you have."
    "If Elected, I Promise…" : Stories and Gems of Wisdom by and About Politicians (1960) p. 193"
    Source:
    Gerald Ford - Wikiquote


    2) Misattributed to Thomas Jefferson:
    "Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have ... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases.
    Commonly quoted on many websites, this quotation is actually from Gerald Ford's August 12th, 1974 address to Congress."
    Source:
    Thomas Jefferson - Wikiquote


    3) Misattributed to Barry Goldwater:
    "A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have.
    Gerald Ford in a Presidential address to a joint session of Congress (12 August 1974)
    Ford has also been quoted as having made a similar statement many years earlier, as a representative to the US Congress: "If the government is big enough to give you everything you want, it is big enough to take away everything you have."
    "If Elected, I Promise…" : Stories and Gems of Wisdom by and About Politicians (1960) p. 193
    Unsourced variants attributed to Goldwater include:
    A government that is big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take it all away.
    Remember that a government big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take away everything you have.
    This quote has also been attributed to Davy Crockett and is consistent with his very-limited-government philosophy. "
    Source:
    Barry Goldwater - Wikiquote


    4) Misattributed to Ronald Reagan:
    "A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have.
    Actually said by Gerald Ford, this is also sometimes attributed to Barry Goldwater. Paraphrased variant: A government that is big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take everything you have."
    Source:
    Ronald Reagan - Wikiquote

  11. #70
    Ex Member Array DOGOFWAR01's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    WYOMING
    Posts
    562
    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    Actually, the quote is from Gerald Ford in his address to Congress in 1974.

    It is disturbing that people throw quotes around, out of context, and still attribute them to the wrong people!
    Who wrote, “A government big enough to give you everything...

    1) Gerald Ford (14 July 1913 – 26 December 2006) , the 38th President of the United States.
    "A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have.
    Presidential address to a joint session of Congress (12 August 1974)
    Ford has also been quoted as having made a similar statement many years earlier, as a representative to the US Congress: "If the government is big enough to give you everything you want, it is big enough to take away everything you have."
    "If Elected, I Promise…" : Stories and Gems of Wisdom by and About Politicians (1960) p. 193"
    Source:
    Gerald Ford - Wikiquote


    2) Misattributed to Thomas Jefferson:
    "Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have ... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases.
    Commonly quoted on many websites, this quotation is actually from Gerald Ford's August 12th, 1974 address to Congress."
    Source:
    Thomas Jefferson - Wikiquote


    3) Misattributed to Barry Goldwater:
    "A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have.
    Gerald Ford in a Presidential address to a joint session of Congress (12 August 1974)
    Ford has also been quoted as having made a similar statement many years earlier, as a representative to the US Congress: "If the government is big enough to give you everything you want, it is big enough to take away everything you have."
    "If Elected, I Promise…" : Stories and Gems of Wisdom by and About Politicians (1960) p. 193
    Unsourced variants attributed to Goldwater include:
    A government that is big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take it all away.
    Remember that a government big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take away everything you have.
    This quote has also been attributed to Davy Crockett and is consistent with his very-limited-government philosophy. "
    Source:
    Barry Goldwater - Wikiquote

    4) Misattributed to Ronald Reagan:
    "A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have.
    Actually said by Gerald Ford, this is also sometimes attributed to Barry Goldwater. Paraphrased variant: A government that is big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take everything you have."
    Source:
    Ronald Reagan - Wikiquote

  12. #71
    VIP Member Array Thanis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    2,356
    Quote Originally Posted by Thanis View Post
    While not trusting of the end result, I'm going to go beyond the fear, and say I support reciprocity. Better legislation increasing pro-gun agenda then always fighting anti-gun bills.
    Here is a good example. Better to have anti-gun fighting then to be thinking up new limits.

    http://www.defensivecarry.com/vbulle...ml#post1230307
    NRA Member
    S&W 642 (no-lock) with .38 Spl +P 135 GR Gold GDHP
    Glock G31 & G33 with .357 Sig 125 GR. SXT Winchester Ranger

  13. #72
    Member Array nitrohead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Clarksville, TN
    Posts
    93
    I think some of you are misunderstanding this. I need to brush up, but this is how I take it. You will have your state issued ccw permit, and other states would have to honor it. With that being said, you still have to follow the laws of the state as to where, when, and how you carry. You are all talking like there's gonna be some sort of Federal ccw permit, and I have read nothing that even hints at something like that.

  14. #73
    Senior Member Array Shadowsbane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    1,051
    So, what if that State says that you can only carry concealed on property that you own. Wouldn't a law like that render the entire national carry pointless?
    Now, we must all fear evil men. But there is another kind of evil which we must fear most, and that is the indifference of good men.

    www.Lonelymountainleather.com

  15. #74
    Member Array JohnWFD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    303
    Just like health care......too much government is a bad thing.

    Let the states handle this issue
    "A free people ought to be armed." - George Washington

  16. #75
    Senior Member Array InspectorGadget's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    536
    Quote Originally Posted by Shadowsbane View Post
    So, what if that State says that you can only carry concealed on property that you own. Wouldn't a law like that render the entire national carry pointless?
    I am still looking at this I thought the states might have an out with a registration scheme, but it looks like that is taken care of with:

    "(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."
    Although a registration scheme may still be an out since it does not specifically mention the specific weapon itself only the laws of the state in which the person resides. If the State of residence laws apply to the weapon then if you are a CA resident and you are stopped in Washington State with a gun that holds 16rds, Washington can declare that you are not covered by this law and arrest you for carrying a Concealed Weapon without a license so this could cut either way. For people in states (VT, IL, WI) and US Territories that do not issue licenses at all the wording of the law does not seem to cover anyone getting a Non-Resident License from Florida since it says specifically the "State in which the person resides" instead of the "State that issues the License" Alaska issues Concealed Weapon Licenses for persons traveling out of state, VT does not. Military keeps their initial state residence regardless of where they are stationed unless they they request to change their state of residence. (I had a FL Drivers License, Florida Registration, and a FL Resident-CWL with a California address on them. Although I couldn't use the CWL in California.)

    United States Senator - John Thune
    Respecting States Rights and Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2009 (Introduced in Senate)
    S 371 IS
    111th CONGRESS
    1st Session
    S. 371
    To amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, to allow citizens who have concealed carry permits from the State in which they reside to carry concealed firearms in another State that grants concealed carry permits, if the individual complies with the laws of the State.
    IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
    February 3, 2009
    Mr. THUNE (for himself and Mr. VITTER) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
    ________________________________________
    A BILL
    To amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, to allow citizens who have concealed carry permits from the State in which they reside to carry concealed firearms in another State that grants concealed carry permits, if the individual complies with the laws of the State.
    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
    SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
    This Act may be cited as the `Respecting States Rights and Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2009'.
    SEC. 2. RECIPROCITY FOR THE CARRYING OF CERTAIN CONCEALED FIREARMS.
    (a) In General- Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 926C the following:
    `Sec. 926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms
    `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.'.
    SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.
    The amendments made by this Act shall take effect 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act.
    I still have a really bad feeling about the whole thing as far as states rights go, I am looking for their catch in the system they can use against us.

    Or more specifically in answer to SHADOWSBANE yes that is an out. And I see a lot of Blue States using it.
    Last edited by InspectorGadget; July 22nd, 2009 at 02:24 AM.
    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 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 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. National Parks and such
    By Agave in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: December 8th, 2008, 07:02 AM
  2. The First National Bank of Dad
    By ExactlyMyPoint in forum Defensive Rifles & Shotgun Discussion
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: November 30th, 2008, 08:17 AM
  3. What to do with Gun in car at National Parks???
    By shawn45 in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: August 26th, 2008, 12:54 PM
  4. National Gun Day Louisville, KY
    By BIG E in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: February 14th, 2008, 11:05 PM
  5. National Ammo Day
    By mrreynolds in forum General Firearm Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: November 14th, 2007, 06:25 PM