Contact your representative now for ccw

Or, better yet, let the states come to this on their own.
Click to expand...
Many have, some may, and others never will without a heavy back-handing. I don't believe the idea of congress passing laws to require adherence to the constitution is outside their purview. If we get two branches on board, the third, executive branch will be compelled to acquiesce.
 
Hardcase, I COMPLETELY agree about Jackson Lee! Also it was stated there were 89 victims to the shooting. How did THAT go unnoticed or unchallenged?
 
I guess everyone on the premises was a victim of gun violence.
If that's how firearm statistics are routinely used, holy cow.
 
As far as I can tell the arguments come down to this (valid or not):

For the opponents:
1. Violent criminals have easy access to concealed weapons permits
2. States' rights are inviolable
3. Guns kill people
4. Think of the children

For the proponents:
1. Only law abiding citizens have access to concealed weapons permits
2. States are free to control concealed carry
3. There's only one Second Amendment
4. Think of the children

Also, after watching today's proceedings, I suspect that if all Americans spent an afternoon watching a day of debate in Congress, they'd draw the conclusions that their representatives stand around and don't do much for their pay and that they can't follow simple directions. It's been a while since I watched CSPAN and I guess that I forgot.
 
Then there are these folks:

I do not mind the Federal Government involved in my daily life and the CCW aspect of it

OR

I DO mind the Federal Government involved in my daily life and the CCW aspect of it


Where YOU stand is a personal decision
 
Personally, I'd much rather have the Federal Government honor CCW permits on 'federal' property. I can carry my firearm inside my local police station, not the post office..etc? And that post office is within the Boundaries of my State.

I'd much rather rid ourselves of the thousands of unconstitutional federal gun laws. Remember when the States ratified the Constitution..., they asked for a 'Bill of rights' first. This was the guarantee against FEDERAL laws.

Inviting the Wolf over for yet another bite should scare the hell out of ya.

Our CCW process is very simple here, will it be this way if FEDZILLA has their
way? Will they take away the CCW holders exceptions from needless checks?

Where are the Founding fathers when we need them?? What would they do? They'd must likely say that protecting ones self is a natural right and cannot be regulated by anyone, let alone the very governments that were supposed to protect our rights.

And you can't "vote with your feet" if we keep nationalizing everything under the sun. Voting with your feet is what made our form of government so good. Well, back when it was the Republic of old..
 
Last edited:
I heard Hank Johnson say that too...

I just rolled my eyes.

I'm so used to the crazy "statistics" they throw out, it doesn't faze me anymore...

Like when they quote the number of "shooting victims" - criminals shot by law enforcement are included in the statistics :rolleyes:
 
ask any LEO if they think it is a bad idea that LEOSA passed

and to think that many men and women served their entire careers without the ability to cross state lines OR even carry in their home state
 
Another question.

Why can't states reconize other state's CC Permits like they do other States driver's licenses?

How is either unconstitutional?
 
If this bill passes SCOTUS will be useless in gun rights cases in my opinion.
Click to expand...
That's what worries me: that this could diminish merit for a constitutional challenge on the issue. We really need SCOTUS to rule on a "right to carry."

Did Hank Johnson just say there were 89 victims here?
Click to expand...
Hank Johnson also thought that Guam would capsize. Georgians are not proud of him.

Carolyn McCarthy is, predictably, having a metaphorical aneurysm over the whole thing:

I just finished telling my colleagues on the House floor what so many of you have told me -- H.R. 822 is despicable and needs to be stopped. It is a shameless attempt by the NRA to force states to recognize out-of-state conceal carry permits, even for criminals and the mentally ill.

I need your help to keep the message going. There's still time to stand up to the gun lobby and the Tea Party before the vote happens. Please join me and take action immediately.
Click to expand...
 
There is a certain disadvantage to being on the defense.

For decades in Illinois we mobilized to kill one anti-gun bill after another, always on the verge of facing even more restrictions, the dreaded gun registrations, and the abolishment of gun dealers and ranges.

We'd stop one horrific bill and while we were taking a breather the gun control lobby was already implementing their next plan.

It all changed when we became more effective at being proactive and sending gun legislation at the anti-gunners to deal with. They suddenly became the ones expending political capital just to keep bills from becoming law, preoccupied with lobbying to kill pro-gun measures, they haven't been able to effectively get their anti-gun measures off the ground.

I think this bill is a great shot at the gun control lobby, the anti-gun senators and the Obama administration.

It's a wake up call to the politicians who think they can take advantage of Obama's years in office to sneak through some anti-gun BS.
 
Sorry, but this Virginian cannot support this measure, as viscerally appealing as it may be. This republic, before it was sundered and destroyed by the Least Emancipator, respected the proper rights of the individual states, which represented, of course, a delegation from the people. To quote Tony Montana, "Look at you now!"

Aside from that, we should carefully weigh what the fed.gov has done in every case where we've invited its tender mercies. Education, Health, Labor, Environment, and on and on it goes. In other words, a grotesque expansion of federal government power.
 
Then I suppose, Mr. James, that you also think each state should immediately stop recognizing from the other states:

  • Drivers' licenses
  • Marriages
  • High school diplomas
  • Professional licenses
  • Court decrees (divorce, child custody, etc.)
  • Criminal convictions
  • Motor vehicle titles
  • Etcetera

After all, if no state should be forced to recognize what another state has officially enacted, why should MY state send your kid back to you when your ex-wife kidnaps her, just because YOUR state's court says you have custody?

I think you're on a slippery slope (although I suspect you think I am, so I guess that's even-up).
 
CCW permits are a much different animal than marriage license, etc listed above. I don't know of any states that have overly restrictive requirements for those necessities. However, CCW permits are denied in many states and severely restricted in others. Despite that, if you look at the number of counties that are CCW friendly, we are winning the battle. It should state at the state level. Keep the FEDS out of this arena.
 
The fact that this bill would allow me to carry throughout the UNITED States of America as a law abiding holder of of a carry permit issued by my state government would be beneficial for us in the states in the northeast. So many of us live in one state and work in others. Beneficial to the pipe welder from Georgia who has a legal ccw and gets a 6 month job contract to work in the midwest. Is there a potential for some disaster by it going through the federal gov? Maybe,but unlikely. Should it even be an issue to protect yourself with a legally owned firearm while traveling? No, but it is. It's fine if your state already has reciprocity with others. Does one really think after watching the debate that Mass or R.I. is going to change their laws on their own? The argument of voting the bums out doesn't come into play if you don't live in that state. The other way to try to get them to change is a lawsuit that could go to the Supreme Court if you're lucky. But that's highly unlikely. This at the very least forces dialogue. Can we all agree? Nope. Just look at the difference of opinions for the people on THIS forum. I do have an interest in seeing this pass because I do live in a state that is surrounded by others who are very restrictive and do not offer reciprocity. I would love to be able to take the family on vacations and know I can protect them if the need arises. My personal interest also goes back to the court case in which I had to defend myself in court in Mass on a gun charge that cost me 2 yrs and $17,000. Eventually being found not guilty by a jury which never would have happened if this bill was already in effect. That 17 grand was my new Camaro down payment! Never get that back but I was looking at 8 years day for day which means no time off for good behavior so I guess it was worth it. All for a gun that was legal in VA. I am not a legal expert, nor do I claim this would be the best for all or the best way to go about it. If there is a better way, realistically, let me know. I can only speak for my own situation and others similar. I do want to apologize to oneounceload for the way our last conversation on this went, it should not have gotten personal. When a man is wrong, a man admits it.
But again, if there is a better way than this bill, let's hear it.
 
"The fact that this bill would allow me to carry throughout the UNITED States of America as a law abiding holder of of a carry permit issued by my state government would be beneficial for us in the states in the northeast."
--------------------------------------------------------

And what then? Subject ourselves to many other laws that are unfamiliar? I mean, many State/federal laws are not based on the right of the gun owner - civil tort claims, duty to retreat laws, brandishing a weapon charges, etc, etc..

Are we going to make all laws National? Of what value is an exchange of one system of monopoly for another? The word "united" is an averment of pre-existing social compacts, called states; and these consisted of the people of each separate state. It admits the existence of political societies able to contract with each other, and who had previously contracted.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top