Defensive Carry banner
1 - 20 of 47 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
46 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Manchin-Toomey deal could allow gun owners, sellers to carry, sell across state lines | Fox News

"Though many states have laws on buying firearms and concealed-carry permits, the federal provision, if adopted, could trump state laws.

The amendment states the gun owner must have been granted the permit within the past five years. However, a handful of states routinely grant lifetime permits."

In another article : Schumer Defends, Cuomo Attacks Manchin-Toomey Background Deal | New York Daily News

"The compromise, for example, would allow people with concealed carry licenses in one state to carry their gun in a state without concealed carry laws while traveling."

Seems ambiigious at this point what this means in practice? Does it just mean we can cross state lines concealed as long as we are just in our car? Or does it mean we can roam around concealed in other states? I don't know the language of this bill or how they define "traveling" Anybody with a better insight on this bill?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,848 Posts
The issue of all permits being valid in all states was struck from the deal, according to the second article cited above. And I see no such language in the bill text.

The only mention of concealed carry (or just carry) permits deals with an FFL processing the transfer between two non-licensees. If the FFL takes possession of the firearm, and the receiving party has a permit, then NICS check is not needed, as I read the text. There's some other qualifications to this, so that it will end up probably being ignored or irrelevant and full NICS will be done anyway.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,761 Posts
Font Photography Photo caption
 
  • Like
Reactions: OD* and oneshot

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,955 Posts
I can already roam around concealed in about 40 states now. There is absolutely nothing good in the Toomey Bill especially now that Reid hooked amendments to it. If it passes we are sunk. Dont be fooled again by any of this malarkey.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,283 Posts
DO NOT allow the Feds to overtake State issues on firearms legislation. It seems great, and I know some states are really bad (NY, NJ, CT, CA, CO to name a few) right now on 2A rights, however, do not allow the Feds to set yet another 'Interstate Commerce Clause = catch all of you' with this one.

Fight to the end. Do not compromise! Do not be fooled! In 2014 we vote again!

.....The possible GOP amendments, described by aides and lobbyists, include one requiring states to recognize permits for carrying concealed weapons issued by other states. Many gun control advocates oppose the idea vehemently because some states' standards for issuing the permits are considered weak, and such a provision, if approved, might cause some to rethink support for the overall bill.

.....Gun Owners of America, a gun rights group, used the same criticism against Coburn's idea Friday.

"It basically sets the stage for a universal gun registry," said Mike Hammond, the group's legal counsel.


http://cnsnews.com/news/article/gop-senator-would-broaden-gun-checks-no-records
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,955 Posts
The safest and most sane response to any gun law or regulation. Anything but repealing as much or all of what is already in place regulating guns is a not so polite, very loud, very serious NOOOOOOO. We stick to that eventually we might just get our rights back. Anything short of that we never will.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
9,432 Posts
Don't be distracted by small facets of this legislation. If you look for "positives" you are the sucker at the table.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
562 Posts
Looking for the "bright side" in new gun legislation is kind of like looking for the "bright side" in being mugged. You may only get your arm broken instead of your head, but either way you lost some of your money and got hurt! The best defense is unrelenting resistance, not compromise.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
24,511 Posts
In a separate development Wednesday, Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) announced the National Rifle Association will support a modified version of a proposal to create federal gun trafficking law against straw purchases of guns by legal buyers for people who are barred from purchase. Straw purchases are now subject only to states laws.
I have to wonder where they come up with this BS. Making a false statement on the BATFE form 4473 is a Federal Offense, punishable by 10 years or $250,000.00 fine or both. Of course they don't prosecute for it, which is evident by their own statistic.

It is a federal crime for felons and other prohibited gun purchasers to attempt to buy a gun. The (U.S.) Department of Justice, however, has not been prosecuting people who fail background checks at licensed gun dealers, leaving them free to buy from unlicensed sellers who don’t conduct checks – including largely anonymous Internet sales."

The statement continued with a reference to one Department of Justice agency, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and Explosives (ATF), claiming:

"In 2009, the Federal Bureau of Investigation referred more than 71,000 such cases to ATF, but U.S. attorneys ultimately prosecuted only 77 of them."
PolitiFact Wisconsin | U.S. files criminal charges in fraction of gun denial cases, Mayors Against Illegal Guns says
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,628 Posts
Wake up call you are being had big time.
This is a shell game, we will give you this but you have to go along with this.
So you give in, as soon as the ink is dry, you are stuck with your part of the deal, but NY and a bunch of other State say NO and there will be nothing you can do to enforce it.
But you will fall for it . It sounds reasonable and we can all agree .
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,199 Posts
From almost ( 99.9% ) all the new laws enacted in the recent past ( actually back to the NY Sullivan act ) and all those proposed for the future none of them are geared at the problem of CRIMINAL use of firearms.

They are meant to restrict in any number of ways the ownership and use of firearms by law abiding citizens.

Remember that criminals perform criminal acts and break the law by the very nature of their criminal activities.

OMO.

bosco
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
444 Posts
I do not want the Federal Government involved in CCW permits at all. If they can grant all States CCW; then they can regulate it; then they can revoke it. It is just another strategy to establish precedents of law over the control of CCW nationwide.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,582 Posts
Paraphrasing an oft-repeated quote from an unknown student at Texas A&M: To look for the "bright side" in new gun legislation is to believe that it is possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
36,326 Posts
Federal concealed carry all 50 statess provision in bill?
It's still lipstick on a pig. It's gun control, no matter what sexy little enticements are tossed in. I'm sure such things are put in there to attempt to appease those who see it for what it is: severe gun control, particularly when Reid et al get done with their round of amendments, alterations and monkeyshines.

It is what it is. It is not what the liberty-haters are claiming it to be, despite such enticements.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
4 Posts
CWP

It's still lipstick on a pig. It's gun control, no matter what sexy little enticements are tossed in. I'm sure such things are put in there to attempt to appease those who see it for what it is: severe gun control, particularly when Reid et al get done with their round of amendments, alterations and monkeyshines.

It is what it is. It is not what the liberty-haters are claiming it to be, despite such enticements.
Hear me out, but I think a federal CWP should exist on some level.
1. I think the law should state that it would just be an add on to current state CWPs by making one get a license in one's home state and two non-resident licenses.
This would mean that states are still able to give and negotiate CWPs and their reciprocity with other states.
2. Weed out people that just don't need one so make it a may issue.
I don't need to carry out side of Idaho with maybe the exception of Oregon and Washington nor do, let's say, 99.99% of people. However there are some people do need to be able to cross a state line with out fear of arrest such as body guards, bondsmen or even truckers.
3. Further weed out people by making it a business expense and not a bragging right by making the fee an investment not a thing that people can say "look what I have".
If the fee to get a federal CWP was say, just tossing this out, $4k would you or your neighbor get one? Not likely, but a bail bondsman or body guard would get one just so they know they could do their job without fear and be able to advertise that they can (with other licenses) work in any state.
4. Make proficiency a requirement such as mandating classes, tests and listing guns one plans on having (type not serial number) so if you qualify with a 9mm you can carry a 9mm.
It gets touchy here but I would say pacify the hard left with two weeks training and qualifying test since most people with qualify with what they plan to carry also the test should be free for one backup.

Everything I have said is debatable and I am willing to refine my requirements, but on some level a federal CWP should exist.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
36,326 Posts
Hear me out, but I think a federal CWP should exist on some level.

1. I think the law should state that it would just be an add on to current state CWPs by making one get a license in one's home state and two non-resident licenses.
This would mean that states are still able to give and negotiate CWPs and their reciprocity with other states.
Who's to say one state or ten is a justifiable limit to be placing on people? Then what happens when a perfectly upstanding person decides to head to a different state, but gets blocked/denied by such limitations? By what right/authority, such limitations on one's right to carry arms?


2. Weed out people that just don't need one so make it a may issue.
You know, the concept of may-issue has been done in many states. In some, unbelievable as it sounds, protection of self and loved ones against predation is not considered a justifiable "need." Hell, WHAT ELSE could be more justifiable? It's lunacy, to say that protection of people's lives doesn't qualify as justifiability. In short, it's the whole point of being defensively armed.


3. Further weed out people by making it a business expense and not a bragging right by making the fee an investment not a thing that people can say "look what I have".
If the fee to get a federal CWP was say, just tossing this out, $4k would you or your neighbor get one? Not likely, but a bail bondsman or body guard would get one just so they know they could do their job without fear and be able to advertise that they can (with other licenses) work in any state.
And so many of those most in need due to location / socio-economic status end up being the ones who cannot afford such an infringement.


4. Make proficiency a requirement such as mandating classes, tests and listing guns one plans on having (type not serial number) so if you qualify with a 9mm you can carry a 9mm.
It gets touchy here but I would say pacify the hard left with two weeks training and qualifying test.
Proficiency, prior to exercising a right of defending one's life? Denied, merely because it's with arms, because a fearful few hired staff have determined proficiency and need justifies denial of rights?

That's like first demanding proficiency in thought, reasoning, language and writing skills prior to being authorized to speak. That just makes no sense, given the right of a person to do the things protected by the 1A. It makes just as little sense (none) to similarly vet people prior to exercising their right to arms if they so choose. In either case, it's a self-correcting problem: deliberate or criminal malfeasance with respect to those things (speaking, as in slander/libel; or murder/robbery) should be incentive enough for those who care to be "good" to do so. In neither case, does waggling our prohibitionist fingers at people stop the criminals from ignoring such misuse of the rights. But that is no reason to unconstitutionally limit and infringe upon everyone's rights simply because a few deliberate abusers (criminals) of the right exist.


Seems clear (to me, at least) that about the only real debatable thing is: why in the world we allow anyone to justify that "shall not be infringed" means something else entirely, to the point of infringing upon all people out of abject fear of what a negligible percentage of people might do. How we can continue these tweaks instead of true reform to what it needs to be is beyond me.

With the 1A, we've got a good system in place: no infringements whatsoever; yet, holding people accountable for the damage they do to others via misuse (slander, libel laws).

With the 2A, we've got a horrible farce in place that some call a "system": infringements galore; courts full of judges who back the anti-gunner agenda despite the unconstitutionality of any infringements; and a revolving-door, turnstile approach to "crime" control that takes a back seat to whatever flavor-of-the-month infringement and "tweak" can be shoved down citizens' throats next month, in place of going after all criminals heavily and holding them fully accountable for their actions.

Any federal-level (or any other level) licensing scheme (along with every other infringement, really) is just that: a mechanism to determine who shall and shall not be allowed to exercise their right to defend themselves effectively via arms, and what penalties are going to be assessed against those for certain aspects of possession, ownership, carry method, carry location, quantity, capacity or whatever else.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
13,164 Posts
As usual, many participants here are our own worst enemy.
 
1 - 20 of 47 Posts
Top