National CCW?

The idea that a "license" is required to exercise a clearly defined Constitutional right is the most ridiculous concept I have ever heard. Should the Govt. require you to purchase a license from them to exercise free speech or to attend the church of your choice?
 
The idea that a "license" is required to exercise a clearly defined Constitutional right is the most ridiculous concept I have ever heard.
Click to expand...
The problem is that there isn't a clearly defined right to concealed carry.
 
No right is without restrictions. As more murders are committed, especially when involving a president or large number of people, there is an attempt to fix the problem with more laws.

I am not opposed to limitations on 2A, and not opposed to some on the 1st. It is a fine line that divides helpful limitations vs unnecessary and illegal limitations. That is why we must remain vigilant, and belong to the NRA.

Jerry
 
He had me right up to:
the Huffington Post said:
The applicant should be competent in of how to operate a handgun, familiar with the basic rules of gun safety and hold a fundamental understanding of the laws of "deadly force" as well as how they may differ from state to state.
Click to expand...
What " basic right" needs a competency requirement?

I know "concealed" is not a right just the bear part, but in some states OC is not allowed.

Currently Pennsylvania doesn't require competency tests for licensing. PA is very close to "shall issue" the other states requiring some type of training/instruction...not so much. And what about states that don't issue CCW's (VT, IL) or are "may issue?"

BTW, all of the above stipulations are good things to know. I just am questioning the "competent" requirements and who are setting those rules.
 
ChuckS said:
He had me right up to:
the Huffington Post said:
The applicant should be competent in of how to operate a handgun, familiar with the basic rules of gun safety and hold a fundamental understanding of the laws of "deadly force" as well as how they may differ from state to state.
Click to expand...
What " basic right" needs a competency requirement?...
Click to expand...
Putting aside the question of whether this ought to be a governmental requirement, in my view the responsible gun owner who intends to carry a loaded gun in public will undertake on his own initiative to "...be competent in of how to operate a handgun, familiar with the basic rules of gun safety and hold a fundamental understanding of the laws of "deadly force" as well as how they may differ from state to state...." It may be his right to carry a gun without doing so, at least in some States; but if he makes that choice, I'm sure not going to congratulate him for it.
 
What " basic right" needs a competency requirement?
Click to expand...
If you guys want the federal government to grant nationwide reciprocity, expect competency requirements. Expect them to be pretty expensive and difficult as well.

Like it or not, there is no "right to carry" in the eyes of the government. It's a restricted privilege until the courts say otherwise. I know folks are thinking "it's mah riiiight! It ain't up to the courts!"

But it is up to the courts. That's not how it's supposed to be, but that's where we are right now.
 
drail said:
The idea that a "license" is required to exercise a clearly defined Constitutional right is the most ridiculous concept I have ever heard. Should the Govt. require you to purchase a license from them to exercise free speech...
Click to expand...
Actually, it's well established that government may require permits of licenses to exercise a number of rights protected by the First Amendment, e. g., permit requirements for public assembly. It's settled law that constitutionally protected rights are subject to limited regulation.
 
There is actually a National concealed weapons permit. It's called H.R. 218, Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2004. Covers all 50 states, Guam, Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands, and the District of Columbia. Retired officers must qualify annually with the State requirement or the standard used by the Agency that qualifies them with the TYPE of handgun they carry. I do my annuals next week with a Sig P226 9mm & a S&W Mod. 10 38 spl.
 
A wonderful example of citizens being treated unequally.


I am thankful for all that LEO's active and retired have done. But the fact that they get more rights then every other citizen disgusts me.
 
What in the world does that have to do with the right to carry?


So your job gives people a reason to hate you? Lots of peoples jobs do that. Lots of people have enemies who would wish to cause them harm. Unless Im mising the angle of the argument point here thats null and void as far as I'm concerned.

Again, I'm glad for what officers do..I just dont believe they're entitled to special treatment. We're all american citizens here.. your occupation or former occupation should carry no weight.
 
Special treatment happens to classes of people all the time. Go to the nearest military base & try to gain admittance to buy commodities at the exchange, px or commissary at the prices active & retired do w/o paying sales tax. Retired military pays zip for medical care once eligible for S/S. Have a friend that's a retired reservist that had a 5 bypass and chemo for Cancer for 2 years with NO out of pocket expense all because he's being treated differently than those that aren't retired military.
 
Last edited:
hhb said:
There is actually a National concealed weapons permit. It's called H.R. 218, Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2004. Covers all 50 states, Guam, Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands, and the District of Columbia. Retired officers must qualify annually with the State requirement or the standard used by the Agency that qualifies them with the TYPE of handgun they carry. I do my annuals next week with a Sig P226 9mm & a S&W Mod. 10 38 spl.
Click to expand...
No. That's LEOSA, not a "National concealed weapons permit."

hhb said:
How many people have you met in public that you sent to prison?
Click to expand...
As a (traffic court) prosecutor, I do send a few folks a week to jail. My buddies over in the local Prosecuting Attorney's office send bunches of folks to prison, and most of those attorneys carry regularly. None of them will be "qualified law enforcement officers" because they lack statutory arrest authority.
 
hhb, medical care was a recruiting tool for the military, that Congress constantly tries to undercut. It was something promised, that is being kept to lesser and lesser degree.

Same with commissary benefits.

LEOSA was not something you were promised, it was not a recruiting device, and is not comparable.

If you want to make comparisons, then compare with old-school corporate pension plans.

Meanwhile, cops put people in jail.

Repo men take people's cars.

Older brothers and fathers run off guys they don't want around their sisters or daughters.

Loan officers refuse financing for homes; banks have late payers evicted.

Lots of people make enemies.

I like cops well enough, but don't feel you rate higher privileges than the rest of us. In fact, in this instance, I think it's in direct opposition to what the framers intended.
 
The idea that a "license" is required to exercise a clearly defined Constitutional right is the most ridiculous concept I have ever heard. Should the Govt. require you to purchase a license from them to exercise free speech or to attend the church of your choice?
Click to expand...

An oft stated sentiment.

And there's no CCW until you have a license, or until a State passes a separate law saying you don't need one.

States have rights, also, and can clearly enact laws pertaining to firearms.

What isn't clearly defined, are the amount of restrictions that can be placed on the citizenry. Scalia said in a recent interview that he'll have to "see what happens" with respect to how he'd come down on the matter should it go before the Court.


What we'd better worry about is who's going to be appointing Justices for the next four years, since the rulings by some are not in doubt.
 
Last edited:
Cease and desist griping about other employment benefits. I don't think such are in the BOR.

IIRC, national reciprocity was debated at the time of HR218 and not included.

If you don't like HR 218, please tell the next president to repeal it. :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top