Trump - 2nd Amendment - Page 6

steve4102 · December 6, 2016, 09:57 AM

National carry Bill Proposed.

http://dailycaller.com/wp-content/up...ep.-Hudson.pdf

Seems that some Republicans are taking this very seriously and working very quickly.

Wonder how far it will get in committee?

pnac · December 6, 2016, 12:38 PM

You beat me to it Steve, I was about to post the article. It's a great start!

**Aguila Blanca** · December 6, 2016, 06:03 PM

Short. Simple. Covers the necessary bases. And NO federal requirements or registrations.

Now, we need to keep the pressure on the Republicans in Congress to keep it simple, and to resist the Democrats' almost certain attempts to kill it with poison pill amendments.

**Tom Servo** · December 7, 2016, 07:39 AM

Assuming this bill were to pass as written (and that's a big "if"), this part will be used against us:

Quote:

b) This section shall not be construed to supersede or limit the laws of any State that—

‘‘(1) permit private persons or entities to prohibit or restrict the possession of concealed firearms on their property;

Expect to see just about every business in California, New York, New Jersey, Maryland, and Hawaii get posted. Politicians in those places will have signs already made and ready for distribution.

**Aguila Blanca** · December 7, 2016, 08:10 AM

^^^ Good point. But there may not be any way around that problem without trampling property rights. Unless the law defines "private" in a way that excludes places open to the public for profit-making enterprises.

**44 AMP** · December 7, 2016, 11:37 AM

I think I might be in the minority here, but I don't see property rights as something that can be "used against us" or something we have to "work around".

I know certain people will be frustrated about it, but the simple fact is that we do not have a legal right to carry a firearm everyplace, just because we feel like it. NOR SHOULD WE.

Just as we don't have a legal right to go anywhere we feel like. (trespassing)

personally, I could care less if every shop in the metro north east and west coast post no gun signs. Affects me personally not in the least.

If this passes, and we get nationally recognized carry, accept the bitter with the sweet and don't whine about it. Nor brag.

OK, we get legally recognized carry in public, but business owners can post and prohibit being armed on their property, a right that they have always had!

It may be there is even a new business opportunity here. Armored cars, fitted with lockboxes and armed guards, to act as mobile vaults, parked outside businesses, where CCW could be secured for the duration of your shopping. Sure, there are a few legalities to work out (one of them being legal recognition that it is NOT a "transfer" of the firearm), permits, licenses, insurance, etc., but I see no reason it couldn't be done.

As far as I can see right now, that's the only ethical "work around" that doesn't infringe on property owners rights.

Thoughts?

**Aguila Blanca** · December 7, 2016, 11:58 AM

Maybe build into the national reciprocity bill language similar to the Missouri House Bill 96, being discussed in another thread;

http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=582169

Make it less attractive for property owners to ban the public -- whom they want in their businesses -- from carrying. In other words, "Sure, you can prohibit people from carrying legally, but then you accept the responsibility for protecting them." I think that's a fair exchange. (In the engineering world, it's called "apportioning risk." Client wants the engineer to carry a bazillion dollars in professional liability insurance -- to protect the client, not to protect the engineer. Engineer says, "Okay, I'll buy the policy, but you want it, so the premiums get added to the fee." Client hears what the premium is, and quickly decides that maybe a bazillion dollars in coverage is more than what's actually needed.)

motorhead0922 · December 7, 2016, 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 44amp

It may be there is even a new business opportunity here. Armored cars, fitted with lockboxes and armed guards, to act as mobile vaults, parked outside businesses, where CCW could be secured for the duration of your shopping. Sure, there are a few legalities to work out (one of them being legal recognition that it is NOT a "transfer" of the firearm), permits, licenses, insurance, etc., but I see no reason it couldn't be done.

I agree completely. In fact, a business in St. Louis attempted to set up this exact thing outside Busch Stadium. So, what happened? Anti-gun forces stopped it from happening.

http://fox2now.com/2016/07/15/entrep...ness-downtown/

NJgunowner · December 9, 2016, 01:58 PM

The entire northeast would have a fit if this passed, they've gone to such great lengths to prevent carry.

PolarFBear · December 9, 2016, 04:51 PM

NJ', is it really the WHOLE N.E. or just the misguided legislative few? I haven't lived "up-north" since 1979 (Rhode Island). Does the general populace really have an aversion to firearms? I read that Vermont is an open carry state, Maine has a strong streak of conservatism and NY (above NYC) is pro-gun. Is there hope for the NE? I know there is NO hope for California.

**44 AMP** · December 9, 2016, 05:34 PM

Quote:

Is there hope for the NE? I know there is NO hope for California.

I wouldn't say there is no hope, but as long as we follow the rules of democracy, there is little hope for those (and other) areas.

Simply put, the metro/big city areas have the numbers of votes, often equal or even greater than the entire rest of the state combined, so essentially, they rule.

I grew up in NY, and left back in the late 70s. I'm sure its worse today than it was then, but back then, people's attitudes about guns didn't start to get sane until you got about an hour's drive north or west of Albany.....

Same thing in Illinois, and on the west coast, the big cities, who are overwhelmingly politically "progressive" (they certainly aren't liberal, by the dictionary definition of the word) use their numbers to pass what they feel is best.

In WA, we got a ridiculously unworkable back ground check law, because the 5 counties in the Sea/Tac corridor passed it. ONLY those 5 counties, passed it, the other 30+ counties in the state did not pass it, but democracy simply isn't about right or wrong, its about numbers. 3 wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner is democracy. The assumption is that the majority will choose what is right, but history shows us that to be a fallible assumption.

Democracy also relies on informed voters making educated choices. The public getting accurate information (about nearly everything) seems to be becoming a deliberately lost art these days.

**Aguila Blanca** · December 9, 2016, 09:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PolarFBear

NJ', is it really the WHOLE N.E. or just the misguided legislative few? I haven't lived "up-north" since 1979 (Rhode Island). Does the general populace really have an aversion to firearms? I read that Vermont is an open carry state, Maine has a strong streak of conservatism and NY (above NYC) is pro-gun. Is there hope for the NE? I know there is NO hope for California.

It's extremely unfair to lump all the NE states together and just write off the entire region. Each state is different.

Pennsylvania has unlicensed open carry outside of Philadelphia, and carry licenses are nearly shall issue in most counties (a few still -- illegally -- require letters of reference).

New York is hit and miss -- carry permits are more available in the up-state counties than closer to NYC, but may be restricted.

New Jersey ... is, well, New Jersey.

Connecticut is pretty close to shall issue. Yes, they have a magazine capacity limit and an "assault" weapon ban, but just about anyone who isn't a felon can get a carry permit.

Massachusetts also issues, but they may be restricted.

Rhode Island -- dunno.

Vermont - unlicensed carry is legal, and that includes both concealed and open carry.

New Hampshire -- pretty much shall issue.

Maine -- pretty much shall issue, and Maine recently went to permitless carry. The catch is that you can't carry in state or national (Acadia) parks without a carry permit.

December 6, 2016, 12:38 PM	#127
pnac Senior Member Join Date: September 7, 2008 Posts: 550	You beat me to it Steve, I was about to post the article. It's a great start! __________________ In my hour of darkness In my time of need Oh Lord grant me vision Oh Lord grant me speed - Gram Parsons

December 7, 2016, 11:37 AM	#131
44 AMP Staff Join Date: March 11, 2006 Location: Upper US Posts: 28,835	I think I might be in the minority here, but I don't see property rights as something that can be "used against us" or something we have to "work around". I know certain people will be frustrated about it, but the simple fact is that we do not have a legal right to carry a firearm everyplace, just because we feel like it. NOR SHOULD WE. Just as we don't have a legal right to go anywhere we feel like. (trespassing) personally, I could care less if every shop in the metro north east and west coast post no gun signs. Affects me personally not in the least. If this passes, and we get nationally recognized carry, accept the bitter with the sweet and don't whine about it. Nor brag. OK, we get legally recognized carry in public, but business owners can post and prohibit being armed on their property, a right that they have always had! It may be there is even a new business opportunity here. Armored cars, fitted with lockboxes and armed guards, to act as mobile vaults, parked outside businesses, where CCW could be secured for the duration of your shopping. Sure, there are a few legalities to work out (one of them being legal recognition that it is NOT a "transfer" of the firearm), permits, licenses, insurance, etc., but I see no reason it couldn't be done. As far as I can see right now, that's the only ethical "work around" that doesn't infringe on property owners rights. Thoughts? __________________ All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.

December 9, 2016, 04:51 PM	#135
PolarFBear Senior Member Join Date: April 22, 2015 Location: NE Tennessee, a "Free State" Posts: 478	NJgunowner NJ', is it really the WHOLE N.E. or just the misguided legislative few? I haven't lived "up-north" since 1979 (Rhode Island). Does the general populace really have an aversion to firearms? I read that Vermont is an open carry state, Maine has a strong streak of conservatism and NY (above NYC) is pro-gun. Is there hope for the NE? I know there is NO hope for California.

December 6, 2016, 09:57 AM	#126
steve4102 Senior Member Join Date: December 23, 2005 Location: Minnesota Posts: 2,955	National carry Bill Proposed. http://dailycaller.com/wp-content/up...ep.-Hudson.pdf Seems that some Republicans are taking this very seriously and working very quickly. Wonder how far it will get in committee?

December 6, 2016, 06:03 PM	#128
Aguila Blanca Staff Join Date: September 25, 2008 Location: CONUS Posts: 18,468	Short. Simple. Covers the necessary bases. And NO federal requirements or registrations. Now, we need to keep the pressure on the Republicans in Congress to keep it simple, and to resist the Democrats' almost certain attempts to kill it with poison pill amendments.

December 7, 2016, 08:10 AM	#130
Aguila Blanca Staff Join Date: September 25, 2008 Location: CONUS Posts: 18,468	^^^ Good point. But there may not be any way around that problem without trampling property rights. Unless the law defines "private" in a way that excludes places open to the public for profit-making enterprises.

December 7, 2016, 11:58 AM	#132
Aguila Blanca Staff Join Date: September 25, 2008 Location: CONUS Posts: 18,468	Maybe build into the national reciprocity bill language similar to the Missouri House Bill 96, being discussed in another thread; http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=582169 Make it less attractive for property owners to ban the public -- whom they want in their businesses -- from carrying. In other words, "Sure, you can prohibit people from carrying legally, but then you accept the responsibility for protecting them." I think that's a fair exchange. (In the engineering world, it's called "apportioning risk." Client wants the engineer to carry a bazillion dollars in professional liability insurance -- to protect the client, not to protect the engineer. Engineer says, "Okay, I'll buy the policy, but you want it, so the premiums get added to the fee." Client hears what the premium is, and quickly decides that maybe a bazillion dollars in coverage is more than what's actually needed.)

December 9, 2016, 01:58 PM	#134
NJgunowner Senior Member Join Date: February 13, 2009 Location: NJ Posts: 1,254	The entire northeast would have a fit if this passed, they've gone to such great lengths to prevent carry.