Federal permit

[Hal]

Look at the seat of federal government - Washington D.C. - and the gun laws there. That's about what I'd expect anything federal to be like.

Not only is it a bad idea - it's a really bad idea.

Besides, it would only add to size and scope of the federal payroll which would make a bad situation worse.

 

[Rich Lucibella]

Hugh-
That's why we're the "United States of America" and not the "Federal Republic of America".

States were originally Sovereign. They "united" for common goal without relinquishing that sovereignty, except as detailed in the Constitution. One of the keystones of State (and thus Individual) Rights is the concept that one State must honor the home rights of citizens of other States.

It makes perfect sense.....at least to me. How long do you think the Mass Legislature could quash Second Amendment Rights of its citizens when every tourist with a home State CCW was allowed to carry unfettered?
Rich

 

[Hugh Damright]

They "united" for common goal without relinquishing that sovereignty, except as detailed in the Constitution.

Yes, and I do not believe that the States relinquished their police powers which have traditionally been seen as including CCW powers.

one State must honor the home rights of citizens of other States.

If I understand you correctly, I disagree. As a Virginian I have certain legal rights. If I go to another State then I am bound by a different set of laws. My rights as a Virginian do not travel with me.

How long do you think the Mass Legislature could quash Second Amendment Rights of its citizens when every tourist with a home State CCW was allowed to carry unfettered?

That does not fit my vision of sovereignty. If the people of a State do not want CCW, and they make it illegal in their State, then CCW is illegal in that State.

 

[dav]

Are there really so many of you here who don't get it?

We HAVE a Federal 'permit' for CCW. What we don't have is a federal government that recognizes it.

If you want to throw the constititution away, along with the 2nd Amendment thereof, please don't include me in your plans.

All I want is for the goverment to keep their hands and laws off of my fully legal weapons. 'Shall not be infringed' is completely clear to any but the incompetent (meaning legislators, mostly).

Rich clearly understands this, but I didn't see one other poster that does. You have no idea how sad this makes me.

 

[Rich Lucibella]

Rich clearly understands this...

Ohhh, I think we like this guy!


Stick around, dav. Even here, victories are measured one convert at a time.
Rich

 

[k_dawg]

the only thing I would like to see is this:

an individual purchaser license. Thus, he can purchase any firearm, and have it sent to him. no need for an FLL, etc.

kind of like a modern C&R

 

[freedumblover]

sighhh...

I just wish more people understood that when you have to ask permission to do something, it isn't a right, it is a privilege. The right to keep and bear arms is supposed to be inalienable - incapable of being surrendered, transferred, or alienated. In my view, the Second Amendment to the US Constitution is all too often treated like a bastard child among The Bill of Rights by those who do not understand its importance or the context in which in which it was written.

I'm no expert, just thought I'd throw in my $0.02 worth

 

[Al Norris]

A license is a granted permission to engage in a business or occupation or an activity that is otherwise unlawful.

A permit is a written form of permission.

A privilege is a special advantage, an immunity, a permission, or a benefit granted to or enjoyed by a specific class of people.

We used to have the right to go anywhere within the territories and States at will. This right included whatever mode of travel we desired to use. This right has been relegated to a mere privilege. Right or wrong, we no longer have the right to travel by whatever means we desire.

Regardless. the Feds (the comity clause - Art IV sec 1) were never involved in the recognition of our vehicle registrations and drivers licenses. This was done solely at the state level, through reciprocity agreements. Sound familiar?

What may be needed, is for the various states to standardize concealed carry, such that moving from one state through another will not cause the bearer the grief of legal action against him. We are seeing some of this happening now, to a greater or lesser extent.

There is no need to get the feds involved. What you would get are all kinds of regulations and stipulations, just like what's in the recently passed law that federalizes concealed carry for active and retired LEOs.

 

[magsnubby]

dav,
Unfortunately there is.

 

[drinks]

Ccw

Rich;
Unless I am mistaken, this is a "Federal Republic"
Or at least is suposed to be, more and more it becomes a peoples democracy, that is , mob rule, which is why every time I hear some sorry pol go on and on about "Our Great Democracy" I become ill..
The 2nd is a right, not something to be licensed or permitted.
A right is an absolute.
I am just glad I am about done, I would hate to be 21 and forsee what firearms laws are likely to be in another 50 years.
Don :barf:

 

[Rich Lucibella]

drinks-
If I appeared to disagree with what you've stated, I apologize.
You're on the same target as I.
Rich

 

[Avizpls]

am just glad I am about done, I would hate to be 21 and forsee what firearms laws are likely to be in another 50 years

Like me? I actually came online today to investigate something my friend spoke of. "Act 235" dont know if its a real thing, a fed thing, or a PA thing.

 

[ghobrien]

The federal gov has no buisness in restricting any kind of firearms in any possible way. Even in interstate commerce.
Re read the constitution and pay attention to the BOR 2nd amendment.
The states of the United States of America should be the last highest athority to prosecute persons for commiting crimes with firearms.
The can of **&^%$ is open and when you cut a can open with a dull screwdriver you will not get it closed again easily. Any power to regulate firearms and not a malitia or members theirin only lead as the US has to more and more restriction.
Kirk, When are you going to run for a state office?
Ok sig had to be revised from a post.

 

[dustind]

The feds have no buisness licensing a right. Recipricory like drivers licenses may be ok, but isn't that for the courts to decide?

On a more practicle note, their are many restrictions that will be passed on federal licenses, and there would be nothing we can do about it. Their is no way to stop Kennedy from doing what he ranted about during the mfgr. liability reform. He ranted about how horrible it will be when police can carry any pistol, even *gasp* ones that they have not been trained for (if you where trained with a Glock, then you can not carry any firearm but a Glock), how the police will carry into places that serve alcohol, and so on. It was a long speach, and he talked about many many restrictions that he wanted for LEOs. He may not be able to restrict LEOs, but the common person he could.