Defensive Carry banner

1 - 20 of 156 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
313 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 · (Edited)
Hello all. I am very new here but time is of the essence so I am not delaying in posting this urgent call to all who want to see a national conceal and carry as well as having invaliable new tools available to make our streets safer, our gun purchases easier as well as offer law enforcement a new tool to make there jobs easier and safer.

What I am talking about, if you don't already know is the Vitter/ Cornyn ammendment for national conceal and carry. In essence this would make every state accept your conceal and carry and open a whole new world to all the above mentioned things.

I want to start by re-iterating what happened with all the recent senate voting so here it is:

First of all I want to Thank and give Congratulations to all who got on the phones and called their senators to make them know we were not going to stand by and let our 2nd ammendment rights be trampled by unconstitutional anarchy.

Here is where we are at for those that do not know:

The Toomney/Schumer bill got 54/46 vote.

The Feinstein Ban bill got 40/60 and the magazine ban 46/54

The hopefull side:

The Vitter/Coryn universal Conceal and Carry amendment got 57/43 that is just 3 short of passing and is now considered "must pass legislation".

I have offered a change in theammendment to offer a universal ID system for not only CCP holders, but also Convicted felons.

This work in progress, I feel, is the key to winning this debate once and for all:

This is the begining of an outline that, once finished will be faxed to my state senators and representatives by my CLEO who, along with 100% of all citizens and FFl holders are behind, so here it goes. Be sure to have your input heard and I will need your help to spread this to EVERY person that will listen! Law enforcement is the key to this winning and i think i have found a tool to help them. We need JUST THREE VOTES, that is the motto here, JUST THREE VOTES!! So if your senator did not vote for this ammendment make your voice heard because it will come up again!

Vitter/Coryn amendment changes​

Abstract: In this guideline you will find an outline to give a legal basis for a national conceal and carry ammendment that would serve to address a number of issues of complainst and obvious shortcomings of the current Firearms sales and purchasing laws as well as address private and Gun show purchases and offer new tools for law enforcement to quickly and easily identify persons or suspects as convicted felons not in possession of their 2nd ammendment liberties so as to create a safer and more timely identification process. Aid civlians to more accurately conduct legal firearms transactions in the public segment. It will also serve to establish certain constitutional rights and bolster the 2nd ammendment from any further infringment as well as set accountability measures for any law enforcement, government agency or individuals conducting violations of civil liberties of those in possission of 2nd ammendments rights.

This gudline will contain the following recomendations and system structures to achieve this goal. The Goals of this ammendment guideline are as follows:
1)Establish a system of reporting and monitoring that is more accurate, up to date and easier to use than the current NICS system as well as providing asccess for private sellers of firearms to use, as an optional measure, so as to aid in maintaining legal transactions between private parties in public and private transactions.

2)Establish basic and expounded rights under current CCP law and uphold the constitutionality there of.

3)Establish a basic education system for CCP holders of two distinct catagories: a)Standardized training and b)Expanded training for CCP holders to purchase and posses NFA restricted items that are currently available for Police and Military use by streemlining the NFA application process for CCP holders desiring to possess NFA restricted firearms and devices given adequate additional training and certification by allowing each states DFL to authorize purchasing and possession there of.

4)Establish a system of identifying reporting and maintainance for convicted felons as well as all other non felon citizens as outlined under current laws.

5) Establish a system of reparations to felons not in posession of second ammendment rights so as to decrease the waiting period found under current state and federal laws and to add funds to the new system in the form of "incientivised" payments into the system.

6)Establish accountabilty and penalty structures for public, law enforcement and government officials, regardless of office or rank, found violating civilian 2nd ammendments rights.

Requirements of legislation
1) There should be a universal minimum training assesment based on a colaborated input from individual states and law enforcment so as to establish a least comon denominator in terms of training and testing of CCP applicants. This training would be considered entry level law enforcement training and to a lesser extent, fire arm handling and safety. Set a universal CCP apllication fee every 5yrs as is the practice in many states currently.

2) A system of Identification of said CCP holders, as an option, to maintain one individual state ID, such as a drivers liscence, to which a special, non-visible, unless viewed under a UV light, would idnetify a CCP holder to law enforcement or other necessary entities such as Firearms dealers or ayone engaged in the trade or sell of firearms.

3) A system of Identification of felons not able to purchase, own or possess firearms, as a mandatory mark, to maintain one individual state ID, such as a drivers liscence, to which a special, non-visible, unless viewed under a UV light, would idnetify a felon to law enforcement or other necessary entities such as Firearms dealers or ayone engaged in the trade or sell of firearms. This indentification would be so mandated after a Judge issued stay on the ndividuals revocation of 2nd ammendment right, under current and enforced law. This would require a yearly fee to obtain a state ID or Drivers license with said indentification for a period of no more than 5yrs, at a cost of equivelence to an established universal CCP fee.

4)Any and all violators of civil liberties pertaining to the sales, transport, possession or use, there of legaly obtained and possessed firerearms is prohibited regardless of agency, incividual, office or rank. Violators of 2nd ammendment right will be held as "volitile aggressors" and subjected to fines and imprisonment as aggrevated combatances of a now standardized and fully regulated malitia as stated under the constitution.

Benefits and results of system implimentation

1) It will make unilateral system of CCP holders to carry a concealed weapon in ANY state, free from ANY kind of prosecution and infringement there of. States such as NY and IL would HAVE to accept out of state CCP holders and their rights to C & C. It would, in effect, establish a basic civil enforcement system , or "malitia" in uncertain terms as that of a civilian police, not on any payroll or under the command of any given state or local agency, yet regulated under current "citizen arrest laws". This would also allow CCP holders, as is current law, the right to obtain a handgun without a waiting period, in any state.

2) Allow the pruchase of firearms, and the transport there-of, un-impeded, accross and into state jourisdiction free from any back ground checks or further paperwork asside form a simple form that would have the CCP holders ID and the date of purchase as well as other petrtinant, non serial descriptive information. In otherwords, you could go to a gun show in ANY state and purchase a firearm in that state and transport it back home withoutany fear of prosecution or harasment.

3) Give the the replacement system of NICS the needed financial resources for fast and accurate up to date information more closely tied to DMV records for more accurate and timely updates.

4) Introduce a reparation system on those whom the NICS was created because of. Felons would in essence have to "pay there share" of a system they, by their actions mandate and we, as law abiding citizens are subjected to in the form of Background checks and waiting periods.
5)Give irrvocable rights under the 2nd ammendment to those in legal possesion of firearms under the Bill of Rights.

After further consultations, it has been decided a change to the NICS system is needed so as to streemline process for FFLs and state agencies. Each state would need to have under it's own Dept of Justice, a entity called a "Dept of Firearm licensing" or (DFL). It would be linked to the DMV and the federal Dept. of Justice. Those would be the new reporting and information gathering system of each state. Since the overwelming consus from FFL's I have spoke to are in the resoundingly possitive for this measure, the general consensus has been that a single form for all firearm purchases is needed. All have agreed a more streemlined paperwork (one form, less questions) system is needed and that FFL's should still be required to do some form of calling in or verification of the up to dateness of the card holders cradentials presented at the time of firearms purchasing. They also agree that private parties should not be required to use the system but allowed to at their discression. The system should also use both Drivers licensing and social securty as well as private questioning (currently used to varify the legality of the individuals right to own and possess a firearm under current proceedure) before a "N 2 L" status is added and would require the states to immeidately send information the the DFL to further eliminate "false Negatives" in the system as all have had some instences where after clarification an individual was able to pruchase said firearms. This is already the course taken when a denial is given through the current NICS system. It should, however, be pre-emptive, rather than post-emptive.

The N 2 L (Non 2nd Legal) stamps would also be applied to any illegal allien (I don't understand how they should have a right to a drivers license since they shouldn't be here anyway, but what ever) as this is a current rquirement and a question not once but twice on NICS applications. Also, those of "serious mental defect" showing, through multiple consultations, perhaps by mulitple coctors so as to decrease the likelyness of frivilous suites, give judgement that, at that time, the individuals are a eminent threat to themselves or the public. A court order would still be required. The fee for felons would be optional, the watermark, mandatory. The optional fee would be a "fee" to, after 5yrs, allow non-violent or those deemed mentaly fit, could then have their 2nd ammendment rights reinstated ahead of the current 7yr wait. A judge would also have to sign this order.


In order to prevent over abuse by states that would not be fond of this legislation and in an attempt to thwart misuse of police & political power the following would be added: The law would require that only a judge from the state of issuance of said CCP can sign the order to remove any CCP's holder and it must be in the presence of the CCP holder or a representative (lawer or power of attorny or both) of the CCP holder in question. Also, an accountability clause would have very strict guidlines for punsihment for violations of these rights. Up to and including fines, inprisonment and, on mass levels, declaration & possible prossecution of treason if the infractions occurred durring the commission of anyone in the process of upholding the constitutional rights of others of any kind.

Also, an additional training program for law enforcement training in the neiborhood of 40-80hrs, focusing soley on firearms training and civil liberty awareness, would allow CCP holders the right to purchase, own, and posses NFA restricted Arms without additional taxes or "fees" along with no need for any CLEO signing off or to be informed. This includes silencers, automatic weapons and all items listed as "other" under current NFA regulations.

In addition, gun powder and bullets would be included in the N 2 L descriptions. This would also eliminate the possibility that felons, illegals or out of country "terrorists" would not be able to purchase any kind of "explosive substances".

Private gun sellers would also be able to use this tool, with the purchase of a simple light, that gives off UV spectrum light. It would go to bolster the legality and safety from prosecution of those engaged in private slaes of firearms in private and in gun shows. The seller would simply, for his own protection from preosecution, record the DL number, a date and have both parties sign. No information regarding the type of firearms or serial numbers is required. Only a statement that the DL was checked for a N 2 L stamp.

Thank you for reading this and I hope I have your support but I want feedback and action so this can become a reallity for us all.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
36,326 Posts
And what about the states' rights question, in terms of dictating training/testing minimums (for example)?

Or, what about the fact that the Second Amendment already applies to all states? From a certain perspective, this new statutory layer would further infringe upon the 2A.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
313 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
And what about the states' rights question, in terms of dictating training/testing minimums (for example)?

Or, what about the fact that the Second Amendment already applies to all states? From a certain perspective, this new statutory layer would further infringe upon the 2A.
That is where the least common denominator is involved. Under this regulation it would be up to the states to decide on the basic level accepted. They can have a higher standard, but must accept a "given standard" within their state. I understand the issue as having a FL training certificate myself I can go to any state and apply for a CCP. Others from another state to florida, can not. This is really the primary hurdle that would need to be panned out.

As to the states, they can not deny 2nd ammendment rights, to anyone as is seen in Illinois and now in NY. The Supreme court has upheld that ALL states must allow C&C but it didn't say anything about from another state, but it is a logical conclusion. It is not against the 2nd but yet goes to make sure states are not in violation there of. Statatory law is one thing, constituional upholding is quite another.

Also that is why I found the clause for accountability is necessary. It will make certain that anything viewed as the removal of arms is a clear violation of the constitution and there will be consequences for doing so. Where there are censequences stated, there is an affirmation of guilt by the persuant parties.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,589 Posts
Can you post a link the the current text of this proposed legislation? I would like to read it before I decide on what I think I should do.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
313 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
Can you post a link the the current text of this proposed legislation? I would like to read it before I decide on what I think I should do.
Here is the link to the senate page for the vitter/coryn vote and it can be followed from there. I am not in possession of this exact wording as I stated prior, it is a piece in works, I have to submit a completed outline first, show overwhelming support by some key individuals, then the Senators can begin the construct of the changes to the ammendment. That is where it is at right now. We have bout a month i was told by my senators office so we have time but we can not sit on our hands.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/L...ote_cfm.cfm?congress=113&session=1&vote=00100

Since it is already a current draft it can be changed and revoted on... that's the process' structure, so that is what I am doing. trying to make it so we get that 3, WE NEED JUST 3!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,971 Posts
...I do not want and will not support ANY national carry permit...these should be issued by the individual states in response to the votes and wishes of their citizens...I am not for making the federal government overseer of my 2A rights in this way...not even with national reciprocity as the carrot...we need to keep the feds out of our carry permits completely...

...if a national (Federally issued) carry permit system or reciprocity statute is put in place, it can be rescinded, leaving us without one...
...if we give something into the federal government's keeping and control, it WILL come back and bite us...history proves that...

...I would like to see the amount of work and effort that's going into this misguided campaign be used for better purpose...

...as it is now, Tx has reciprocity with LA, however, when I go into LA, I must comply with their rules and obey their forbidden places, procedures for notifying, etc...to go with a federal program would remove from the states their ability to tailor their concealed carry laws to suit their citizens...and open up all control to the feds...

...I don't want that federal camel's nose in my CHL tent...don't even want it tied out in my yard...
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,589 Posts
SA 719. Mr. CORNYN (for himself, Mr. VITTER, and Ms. COLLINS) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill S. 649, to ensure that all individuals who should be prohibited from buying a firearm are listed in the national instant criminal background check system and require a background check for every firearm sale, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. __X. CONSTITUTIONAL CONCEALED CARRY RECIPROCITY ACT OF 2013.

(a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the ``Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2013''.

(b) Reciprocity for the Carrying of Certain Concealed Firearms.--

(1) IN GENERAL.--Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 926C the following:``§926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms

``(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof to the contrary--

``(1) an individual who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, and who is carrying a government-issued photographic identification document and a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of a State and which permits the individual to carry a concealed firearm, may possess or carry a concealed handgun (other than a machinegun or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce in any State other than the State of residence of the individual that--

``(A) has a statue that allows residents of the State to obtain licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms; or

``(B) does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms by residents of the State for lawful purposes; and

``(2) an individual who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, and who is carrying a government-issued photographic identification document and is entitled and not prohibited from carrying a concealed firearm in the State in which the individual resides otherwise than as described in paragraph (1), may possess or carry a concealed handgun (other than a machinegun or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce in any State other than the State of residence of the individual that--

``(A) has a statute that allows residents of the State to obtain licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms; or

``(B) does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms by residents of the State for lawful purposes.

``(b) Conditions and Limitations.--The possession or carrying of a concealed handgun in a State under this section shall be subject to the same conditions and limitations, except as to eligibility to possess or carry, imposed by or under Federal or State law or the law of a political subdivision of a State, that apply to the possession or carrying of a concealed handgun by residents of the State or political subdivision who are licensed by the State or political subdivision to do so, or not prohibited by the State from doing so.

``(c) Unrestricted License or Permit.--In a State that allows the issuing authority for licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms to impose restrictions on the carrying of firearms by individual holders of such licenses or permits, an individual carrying a concealed handgun under this section shall be permitted to carry a concealed handgun according to the same terms authorized by an unrestricted license of or permit issued to a resident of the State.

``(d) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be construed to preempt any provision of State law with respect to the issuance of licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms.''.

(2) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.--The table of sections for chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 926C the following:

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

(3) SEVERABILITY.--Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, if any provision of this section, or any amendment made by this section, or the application of such provision or amendment to any person or circumstance is held to be unconstitutional, this section and amendments made by this section and the application of such provision or amendment to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby.

(4) EFFECTIVE DATE.--The amendments made by this section shall take effect 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
313 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
...I do not want and will not support ANY national carry permit...these should be issued by the individual states in response to the votes and wishes of their citizens...I am not for making the federal government overseer of my 2A rights in this way...not even with national reciprocity as the carrot...we need to keep the feds out of our carry permits completely...

...if a national (Federally issued) carry permit system or reciprocity statute is put in place, it can be rescinded, leaving us without one...
...if we give something into the federal government's keeping and control, it WILL come back and bite us...history proves that...

...I would like to see the amount of work and effort that's going into this misguided campaign be used for better purpose...
It is not federaly issued, only constitutionaly mandated. Each state has to issue and maintain the issuance. The only role of the Feds is the reporting portion which it already does. The Constitution is the same as it was but it has a broader language so infractions there of are not allowed.

Anything that is deemed constitutional as written, can not be changed by contradictory means so as it's contradictoryness implies unconstitutionality.

to tak it a step further you point to exactly what Minnesota faces. They have a "Permit to Purchase" which I strongly oppose because now we see the underpinings of those types of laws in the form of "Oh see, it wasn't needed, now we can take it away" mentality.

I am with you brother, I would never support a right to purchase, only a "mandatory right there-in as stated, and shall not be infringed, EVER!"
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,971 Posts
...all right, if it is not federally issued, but federally controlled...and that's the same problem

...concealed carry permits do not need to concern the federal branch at all...making it much less likely that a liberally appointed Supreme Court will ever get the chance to strike the permits down...

...concealed carry permits have worked quite well, keeping them at the state level...reciprocity will not matter if the feds get their hooks into them and find a way to control them...nothing good will come from inviting them into the concealed carry permit works...
It is not federaly issued, only constituionaly mandated. Each state has to issue and maintain the issuance. The Constitution is the same as it was but it has a broader language so infractions there of are not allowed.
...twenty years ago, I would ahve been comforted by your statements of constitutional direction...with so many out to "interpret" and rewrite our US Constitution, I prefer and have much more confidence keeping my CHL under the State Constitution...it's much less likely to be tampered with...

...anything the Federal Government gives you, is going to cost you more than the millions of dollars it will take to set it up and administer it...the list of programs they've ruined grows longer by the day...


...please excuse my haste to reply to your post...I neglected to welcome you to our forum...which you just joined today...please tell us a bit about yourself, what you do for a living, and so forth...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
313 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
...all right, if it is not federally issued, but federally controlled...and that's the same problem

...concealed carry permits do not need to concern the federal branch at all...making it much less likely that a liberally appointed Supreme Court will ever get the chance to strike the permits down...

...concealed carry permits have worked quite well, keeping them at the state level...reciprocity will not matter if the feds get their hooks into them and find a way to control them...nothing good will come from inviting them into the concealed carry permit works...
But it is not up to the supreme court the way I would have it. It would require a state court, not federal, to remove a CCP. It gives full power to the states court system, none other. They are the first and last deffense.

I am in full agreement with you that we should be very cuatios when giving ANY power to the Feds, which i do not want EVER!
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
13,164 Posts
I can easily understand what PEF posted but frankly I'm struggling with some parts of the text in post 1.

The old saying, Keep it simple" would apply. The language in the Cornyn Amendment seems straight forward
and simple.

I assume the language in post 1 is the OP's personal proposal and not submitted legislation. If the latter, it will
run into trouble on several grounds.

Either way, 3 votes short is a defeat nowadays, as the other side has repeatedly learned.

Oh, and this, "1) There should be a universal minimum training assesment based on a colaborated input from individual states and law enforcment so as to establish a least comon denominator in terms of training and testing of CCP applicants. This training would be considered entry level law enforcement training and to a lesser extent, fire arm handling and safety. Set a universal CCP apllication fee every 5yrs as is the practice in many states currently..." along with some of the other proposals will sink
the ship.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
313 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
I can easily understand what PEF posted but frankly I'm struggling with some parts of the text in post 1.

The old saying, Keep it simple" would apply. The language in the Cornyn Amendment seems straight forward
and simple.

I assume the language in post 1 is the OP's personal proposal and not submitted legislation. If the latter, it will
run into trouble on several grounds.

Either way, 3 votes short is a defeat nowadays, as the other side has repeatedly learned.

Oh, and this, "1) There should be a universal minimum training assesment based on a colaborated input from individual states and law enforcment so as to establish a least comon denominator in terms of training and testing of CCP applicants. This training would be considered entry level law enforcement training and to a lesser extent, fire arm handling and safety. Set a universal CCP apllication fee every 5yrs as is the practice in many states currently...: along with some of the other proposals will sink
the ship.
Good point.

If you read some of the states CC permits that is basicly their jist of CCP holders are already considered "sub law inforcement". As such we have a obligation to uphold the civil liberties of others. I was using their language in this portion you brought up. It is not a new concept, only a reinforcement there of.

They will have to agree on a least accepted traing if a reciprocity is to be attained. That is also the basis for this section of explanation.

I am not sure how much we will be able to get in but I do not want to leave anything out otherwise it will bite you in the arse.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,456 Posts
Vitter is our senator, he's very pro-gun as far as I can tell.

I haven't read all of the details of this amendment, but let's say I retired as a LEO and with departmental issued ID etc. Under the LEOSA, I could CC in all 50 states, but there are some restrictions in each state. The retiree is given a state-issued ID, qualifies yearly locally, and under LEOSA has the right (by federal law) to CC in all 50 states. Would this amendment be similar?

BTW Landrieu is our other senator, she's coming up for re-election in 2014, I hear there is an obvious groundswell to fire her on this cycle. She's only barely gotten by in the previous elections. If any of ya'll have friends or family living in Louisiana, by all means encourage them to vote against her next election. I think her major opponent will be Bill Cassidy, a physician who is currently a US Representative in the Baton Rouge area. I believe he is very pro-gun and will make a good senator.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,726 Posts
Good point.

If you read some of the states CC permits that is basicly their jist of CCP holders are already considered "sub law inforcement". As such we have a obligation to uphold the civil liberties of others. I was using their language in this portion you brought up. It is not a new concept, only a reinforcement there of.

They will have to agree on a least accepted traing if a reciprocity is to be attained. That is also the basis for this section of explanation.

I am not sure how much we will be able to get in but I do not want to leave anything out otherwise it will bite you in the arse.
I know I'm missing something, but then I am a little hard-headed sometimes. I have read and re-read the 2nd amendment and I have been unable to find any wording that requires training as a condition for it's application.

How does this amendment deal with Constitutional Carry states? If the Federal government is able to mandate training of any kind, or level, then they are able, at any time, to elevate the training requirements to the point that they cannot be met. I rather expect something like this is what is going to come out of the Illinois Legislature when they finally get around to complyng with the Supreme Court.

I would not support this amendment and will encourage both my Senators to vote against it, especially since Georgia does not have any training requirements at this time.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
7,033 Posts
I think not. I will pass on any Federal regulation or laws. I also whole heartedly am opposed to this and will never ever ever ever ever change my mind on this issue:

3)Establish a basic education system for CCP holders of two distinct catagories: a)Standardized training and b)Expanded training for CCP holders to purchase and posses NFA restricted items that are currently available for Police and Military use by streemlining the NFA application process for CCP holders desiring to possess NFA restricted firearms and devices given adequate additional training and certification by allowing each states DFL to authorize purchasing and possession there of.
I am sorry, but no way will I ever endorse a Federaly controlled education system for gun owners. I don't want the Federal government to even be involved in our schools.


Did I address your post?

EDIT: On one hand you say it is Constitutional rights you want but then you are making laws so we can exercise that right and even add on what are in my mind infringements or requirements to carry a lawfully owned weapon.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
313 Posts
Discussion Starter · #17 ·
Vitter is our senator, he's very pro-gun as far as I can tell.

I haven't read all of the details of this amendment, but let's say I retired as a LEO and with departmental issued ID etc. Under the LEOSA, I could CC in all 50 states, but there are some restrictions in each state. The retiree is given a state-issued ID, qualifies yearly locally, and under LEOSA has the right (by federal law) to CC in all 50 states. Would this amendment be similar?

BTW Landrieu is our other senator, she's coming up for re-election in 2014, I hear there is an obvious groundswell to fire her on this cycle. She's only barely gotten by in the previous elections. If any of ya'll have friends or family living in Louisiana, by all means encourage them to vote against her next election. I think her major opponent will be Bill Cassidy, a physician who is currently a US Representative in the Baton Rouge area. I believe he is very pro-gun and will make a good senator.
You bring up a good point. Much of what I am saying is already in the states power, nothing new to add to take away at a later date. I will hopefully begiven a chance to have delegation with the writing senators along with my senator who supported this ammendment, Ron Johnson.

I would like eveyrone to know the key here is to have the water marks on felons licenses.

Maybe it will be an optional thing but here is what I do know: If law enforcement has a tool that the moment they step up toa car and have a persons ID in their hand, they know who they are dealing with. They know then adn there and can take control of the situation as they see fit. they will use the reasons they pulled them over along with their assessment of the situation to make an informed decision as to what level of awareness and caustion they need to have in the situation for their own preservation. They do not have to wait to go back to the car and wait for dispatch to get back to them on the license holders status, they will know then and there at first contact.

Also, consider law enforcement in rural areas where contact with dispatch is spotty, at best, or completely unobtainable. they will already be in the know without bases help or input. This is especialy usefull, as I said in the post, in that officers who see people that are from out of state or ones they just don't know, they have a leg up on the situation at the "point of contact".

Also, what if a person doesn't produce a license and they are acting a bit funny, now knowing that that person doesn't want them to know they are fellon gives them one more clue to whom they may be dealing with. Potentially saving their life.

The other part of the N 2 L stamps is also for those of us under attack for private and "illegal" gun sales. Many people think you have to go to a gun dealer to buy a gun. This is propogated through the media as a straw deal when they have no idea what it really means. This is a tool I want so I am free of prosecution incase someone does turn out to be a felon. I am protected this way, and you would be too. it doesn't violate their civil liberties, but only informs me of the ones they do not posess. Nothing more, nothing less.

We have to have a tool so the other side can't say "this is just for gun nuts to have more guns everywhere" when the fact would be Law enforcement would be the biggest benefactor here. More C&C accross the contry is the affirmative action of the peoples malitia, in a soft yet serving manner. We will be, by our identification mark, a supporter of law enforcement, not an opposer. And with their support the other side can not say "No", otherwise they show their true colors as only wanting Gun Cntrol and the right to take it away from us. Then we can call a spade a spade at that point.

This way they would have exactly what they are "Saying" they want, but on our terms and in what would be in our best interest. law inforcement support of this is the best way to get what we want and protect ourselves from further deterioration of the constitution.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
313 Posts
Discussion Starter · #18 ·
I think not. I will pass on any Federal regulation or laws. I also whole heartedly am opposed to this and will never ever ever ever ever change my mind on this issue:



I am sorry, but no way will I ever endorse a Federaly controlled education system for gun owners. I don't want the Federal government to even be involved in our schools.


Did I address your post?
Yes and thank you. I am in full agreement. I do not support a federaly controled education either!

That is why I said the states have to agree to it. It is already a talking point among law enforcment. Wisconsin has the highest level of Police training and any officer from Wisconsin can go to any state he chooses and more than likely get a job, because of the extra requirements of this state. Someone from another state coming here, not so much. I am saying they just need to agree on what it is they need to in order to have this reciprocity.

Drivers licensing is the same way. It is mandated as a requirement but the states can make their own trianing given agreed guidelines. That is how you can drive through any state you want and not get hassled, because the Feds say that each state has to except the others credentials as adequate. That is nothing new here, just a continuence there of. That is why I see it needs to be tied to drivers licensing, the mandate already exists, I'm not altering anything that already exists, just re-inforcing it in a broader sense.

I hope I have addressed your post.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
313 Posts
Discussion Starter · #19 ·
I know I'm missing something, but then I am a little hard-headed sometimes. I have read and re-read the 2nd amendment and I have been unable to find any wording that requires training as a condition for it's application.

How does this amendment deal with Constitutional Carry states? If the Federal government is able to mandate training of any kind, or level, then they are able, at any time, to elevate the training requirements to the point that they cannot be met. I rather expect something like this is what is going to come out of the Illinois Legislature when they finally get around to complyng with the Supreme Court.

I would not support this amendment and will encourage both my Senators to vote against it, especially since Georgia does not have any training requirements at this time.
I'll say it again, I will not be for any Federal input on the matter, only that the states have to reach reciprocity, period.

You are correct, but to conceal, there is a course requirment. If not then your state may be one of the reasons other states don't want you to conceal in theirs. they don't know your level of training or civil liberties awareness. I do not know if concealment on person is leagal without permit in your state. Here you can be arrested for a pocket knife and a judge has to get you off.

This is not talking about simple purchase rights. That goes unchanged. This is just for conceal and carry reciprocity.

I open carry, that is a right not requiring anything! I do it so to HE!! with anyone who doesn't like it!

To HE!! with anything coming out of Illinois!
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
7,033 Posts
Yes and thank you. I am in full agreement. I do not support a federaly controled education either!

That is why I said the states have to agree to it. It is already a talking point among law enforcment. Wisconsin has the highest level of Police training and any officer from Wisconsin can go to any state he chooses and more than likely get a job, because of the extra requirements of this state. Someone from another state coming here, not so much. I am saying they just need to agree on what it is they need to in order to have this reciprocity.

Drivers licensing is the same way. It is mandated as a requirement but the states can make their own trianing given agreed guidelines. That is how you can drive through any state you want and not get hassled, because the Feds say that each state has to except the others credentials as adequate. That is nothing new here, just a continuence there of. That is why I see it needs to be tied to drivers licensing, the mandate already exists, I'm not altering anything that already exists, just re-inforcing it in a broader sense.

I hope I have addressed your post.
No, sorry, but it is terrible legislation:
1) There should be a universal minimum training assesment based on a colaborated input from individual states and law enforcment so as to establish a least comon denominator in terms of training and testing of CCP applicants. This training would be considered entry level law enforcement training and to a lesser extent, fire arm handling and safety. Set a universal CCP apllication fee every 5yrs as is the practice in many states currently.
A training assesment to exercise a right? You know you are screwing states that do not have their heads up their 4th point of contact like NH. Things seem to work very well there and in other states without training.

Set a fee? This is federal legialation you are talking about. I don't care how you state that it is upon agreement of that states. It is FEDERAL. You are advocating a fee to carry which suppose to be a right. This fee is being set by Federal law or legislation under this proposal.

Drivers liascening has zero, nilch, nada, to do with any discussion about what suppose to be a Constitutional right to carry. I wish the mods would put a filter on the words "drivers liscense" when used in the same sentence as "gun rights". It is a filthy word LOL.....
 
1 - 20 of 156 Posts
Top