Interstate Concealed Carry permits?

NateKirk said:
I think think the shooting community should make some compromises before the media and politicians sway public opinion to the point of making a constitutional amendment feasible.
Click to expand...

I’m curious what kind of compromises your thinking of that hasn’t already been made?
 
Its up to the courts to decide what it means
Click to expand...

I would kindly disagree with that, because of State's rights regarding firearms. Recently a Freshman State Congressman from Maine, introduced a bill,that would allow "anyone" other than convicted felons, to carry a concealed weapon without a permit. It easily passed, and was effective Oct. 13th.

I've had a CCP (former military & LEO) for years. Two weeks ago a lady followed me home, cut me off in front of my garage, and approached without fear, had her hands in her pockets, and calmly accused me of cutting her off a couple of miles back at an intersection.

I was about to call 911 when she left. But, she had me thinking! How many women would be that aggressive toward a full grown man, she didn't know? Some, maybe! But, thinking about it, she was probably armed.

So, I'm back to carrying again. People carrying without any requirement for safety training, or background checks makes me nervous. I'm all for Freedom, and Gun Freedom, but we can't have it both ways. I'd rather have the CCP law in effect, than not.
 
Bullrock said:
So, I'm back to carrying again. People carrying without any requirement for safety training, or background checks makes me nervous. I'm all for Freedom, and Gun Freedom, but we can't have it both ways. I'd rather have the CCP law in effect, than not.
Click to expand...
What's the other option, then? Either we have freedom, or we don't have freedom.

Just to reflect the fact that I work in the Department of Redundancy Department, I'll just mention (again) that the Second Amendment does not establish any training requirement for guaranteeing the right to keep and bear arms. If you have to get a permission slip from the state, it's no longer a right, it's a privilege.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Click to expand...
A training requirement is an infringement.
 
People carrying without any requirement for safety training, or background checks makes me nervous.
Click to expand...

Bullrock, mandatory training is no guarantee, I can speak of numerous incidents where LEO's that were trained that had negligent discharges with their firearms injuring themselves or innocent people.

Background checks also is no guarantee, as a matter of fact both may very well be a false sense of security.

I'm all for people training/practicing with their firearm to be proficient but not government regulated training.

We need less government not more.
 
Last edited:
Interstate Concelaed Carry

I see one specifically and more that imply that "Judicial Supremacy" or Judge made political Law establishes what is our Rights.
That seems to be the case in many areas but is not what our Constitution says.
it is up to Congress and Senate and Executive branch to remove if need be activist Judges.
The Constitution is Supreme Law of the Land.
it is the duty, of every Official, LEO and Citizen to insure it is complied with and not modified or eliminated by a Court or Politician.
They took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution not given a Rulers staff and told change the Constitution or ignore it or dow whatever your ideas on it are.
 
People carrying without any requirement for safety training, or background checks makes me nervous. I'm all for Freedom, and Gun Freedom, but we can't have it both ways. I'd rather have the CCP law in effect, than not.
Click to expand...

That's how it is in Vermont. There is no registration. There are no permits. The only requirement for carrying a gun is that you be at least sixteen years of age. It's been that way for as long as I know. It just happens to be the safest state in the Union. :)
 
Its up to the courts to decide what it means
Click to expand...

WRONG!!! It means what it says. It's up to the courts to decide whether or not it applies to a specific case. The Supreme court has over stepped it's power and gotten away with it. Doesn't mean they have the power under the constitution.
 
Bullrock, mandatory training is no guarantee, I can speak of numerous incidents where LEO's that were trained that had negligent discharges with their firearms injuring themselves or innocent people.

Background checks also is no guarantee, as a matter of fact both may very well be a false sense of security.

I'm all for people training/practicing with their firearm to be proficient but not government regulated training.

We need less government not more.
Click to expand...

I know that! I've been a conservative for more years than you have probably been alive! I didn't preach against the right to bear arms, or guarantees. I said it makes me nervous. At 80 years of age allot of things make me nervous today, that is why I'm carrying again..

I'm a former LEO. As far some LEOs are concerned. The only LEO AD I've seen was in a school room, when his Glock went off in his pants...lol.:D. I'm sure there have been more, however...
 
Bullrock, mandatory training is no guarantee, I can speak of numerous incidents where LEO's that were trained that had negligent discharges with their firearms injuring themselves or innocent people.

Background checks also is no guarantee, as a matter of fact both may very well be a false sense of security.
Click to expand...

Those of us who are grown up know that there are no guarantees about anything (except death and taxes) but what you have basically just said is that since neither more training or background checks will guarentee that there wont be problems we shouldn't bother with them. You have to look at it in cost/gain terms. What will people have to sacrifice for more training and background checks vs. how many problems will it prevent. At the cost of some convenience and probably another 100 bucks to cover the new material in a better CPL course, you will have less idiots on the street with deadly weapons. Speaking of idiots on the street here is a local case
http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/cpl-holder-charged-after-shots-fired-at-auburn-hills-home-depot-shoplifters/35813934

But I mean she took the basic CPL class so she must be qualified right?:rolleyes:

We all have a right to bear arms, but bearing arms carries with it a great responsibility. Those who cannot meet the responsibility of a right should be restricted in the exercise thereof. That means setting a standard.
 
Last edited:
We all have a right to bear arms, but bearing arms carries with it a great responsibility. Those who cannot meet the responsibility of a right should be restricted in the exercise thereof. That means setting a standard.
Click to expand...

I wish I had said that! Good post!
 
" We all have a right to bear arms, but bearing arms carries with it a great responsibility. Those who cannot meet the responsibility of a right should be restricted in the exercise thereof. That means setting a standard."

What is the responsibility of a right? Who decides? When you set conditions on a right, it is no longer a right!
 
its worth noting that there already is a hell of a lot of responsibility associated with our right to bear arms. And if you screw one little thing up you often get a lot more than the right taken away, I’m sure the lady in Detroit is about to find out. There is a lot of incentive already to take responsibility upon ourselves with education and training. As far as I’m concerned any more compromises just add to the list of infringements on our right.
 
NateKirk said:
You have to look at it in cost/gain terms. What will people have to sacrifice for more training and background checks vs. how many problems will it prevent. At the cost of some convenience and probably another 100 bucks to cover the new material in a better CPL course, you will have less idiots on the street with deadly weapons.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry, but it doesn't work that way. You don't get to apply a cost-benefit analysis when you're talking about restricting ("infringing") a fundamental right that's guaranteed by the Constitution.

As I posted earlier in this thread, I don't think anyone here would argue that training isn't a good thing. But it can't be a mandatory requirement for being allowed to exercise the right that's set forth in the Second Amendment.

And I am even more of that opinion since I know of numerous firearms accidents committed by people who have had training and who bloody well should have known better. Since training doesn't in any way provide any assurance that accidents won't happen, that's just one more reason why a cost-benefit analysis fails ... there's no way to predict what benefit you'll actually see.

But ... the bottom line is that cost-benefit analyses are not applicable to Constitutional rights. The Second Amendment does NOT say, "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed beyond the degree of perceived benefit to be derived by infringement."
 
Those of us who are grown up know that there are no guarantees about anything... You have to look at it in cost/gain terms. What will people have to sacrifice for more training and background checks vs. how many problems will it prevent. At the cost of some convenience and probably another 100 bucks to cover the new material in a better CPL course, you will have less idiots on the street with deadly weapons.
Click to expand...

We all seem to agree that increased background checks, or gun control in general, won't guarantee that there won't be problems. However, it absolutely will guarantee that there will be more cost to us, more hassle for us, and more government power over us. That is indisputable fact.

So on one hand we do have an absolute guarantee of something bad for us. What's in the other hand to trade for that bad guarantee? It's worse than something without a guarantee. It's something without an objective basis. Do we have any solid, objective proof that gun control curbs violence or violent crime? Is there even a good reason to believe that it actually means "less idiots on the street with deadly weapons"? No. Worse, it is statistically and mechanistically easy to argue that more gun control actually means more violence or less safety! So it's a trick. It's a trade of something real for a bag of hot air.

Every time a new gun control law is proposed, some pressing problem is presented to justify it. If the law gets passed, does the problem get solved? No. In fact, that problem just gets presented again the very next time another new gun control law gets proposed.

We have to consider the incremental nature of government power, at least with respect to gun control. We also have to consider that this is a fundamental and natural right that is being chipped away here. As gun owners or enthusiasts, we need to stand together and be firm in protecting the right.
 
:confused:
Is there even a good reason to believe that it actually means "less idiots on the street with deadly weapons"? No.
Click to expand...

How do you know that? I can't find any stats to back that up. On the other hand, I don't think anyone here is for gun control. There are more people in Maine who will carry now, who don't have enough smarts not to shoot at a shop lifter. All that was said, was it makes me nervous. I think that was a reasonable statement.

Maybe it's old age, who knows...:confused:
 
nterstate Concdaled Carry perrmits

There use to lots of gun ranges and even schools had training in firearms and shooting teams, in competition.
To the East of us they constructed a gun range ostensibly for use by Civilians and financed for it.
LEOs excluded everybody.
There are few places to shoot , for a majority of people. They make do and get little practice.
People would shoot much more if there was a place, a range, or opportunity.
County wanted to construct a range right near me but Insurance concerns got it cancelled. Mayor of small town wanted it open to public.
County Mayor and LEOS wanted it exclusively for them.
I don't shoot much as not any lately because I don't want to scare the deer and turkeys out of the yard and field.
National Forest use to have ranges, for the public but ostensibly Vandals caused them to be closed under Bush.
NRA and CMP had lots of ranges made available to people.
I'm not sure off all the forces but when Dodd's, copied from Nazi Germany regulations GCA 68 came along the Libs started to shut down everything associated with firearms.
In the west lots of BLM land but not everyone lives five minutes away.
Said all that to say this. We need to get more publicly funded ranges where everyone can shoot. Everyone wants to shoot and everyone benefits from practice.
 
I wish I had said that! Good post!
Click to expand...

Thanks bullrock!:)

however, it absolutely will guarantee that there will be more cost to us, more hassle for us, and more government power over us. That is indisputable fact.
Click to expand...

Correct, but again, look at things in terms of cost/gain. Trying something and seeing if it works for a trial period is better than saying "Oh it would never work." If higher standards are implemented then they should be done so for a trial period and analyzed with statistics that are kept during said period in order to see if it's worth keeping. If it is, then Antis will have ammunition to rally support for it and if it isn't the Pros will have the same to rally against.

Is there even a good reason to believe that it actually means "less idiots on the street with deadly weapons"? No.
Click to expand...
How can you deny that more training and higher standards will cut down on idiots who have no purpose in having a CPL, or at least train some of the idiots to be safe and qualified? And I'm not talking about criminals with deadly weapons, only grossly unqualified CPL holders.

There is a lot of incentive already to take responsibility upon ourselves with education and training.
Click to expand...
The key word is incentive. What I'm saying is that is should be requirement.
 
Last edited:
Bullrock said:
Is there even a good reason to believe that it actually means "less idiots on the street with deadly weapons"? No.
Click to expand...
How do you know that? I can't find any stats to back that up.
Click to expand...
You're just not looking hard enough -- or not in the right places.

For starters, compare a state that requires training to get a permit (Texas) with a state that does NOT require training to get a permit (Pennsylvania) and a state that allows anyone to carry withOUT a permit (Vermont). Since the issue is idiots with guns, the statistic that would be most indicative of a problem would be accidental shootings. If your premise is correct, Texas should have far fewer accidental shootings than either Pennsylvania or Vermont, and Pennsylvania in turn should also have fewer than Vermont.

In fact, I believe if you chase the statistics over a period of five or ten years you'll find that the differences between/among them isn't statistically significant.

The example of the woman shooting at the shoplifters pretty well refutes the entire argument for mandatory training making us safer. She HAD taken a training class to get her permit, or so I understand. The training requirement didn't keep that particular idiot off the street -- why should we believe it might keep some other idiot off the street?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top