|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
May 26, 2017, 11:43 AM | #1 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 6, 2013
Posts: 456
|
National Concealed Carry...checking status...
Ive been waiting patiently for President Trump to push national concealed carry. I have a feeling its just another one of my wild dreams that may never come true. I have not lost hope, however, lets just say I have become used to being disappointed about these matters.
So what is the status? |
May 26, 2017, 12:25 PM | #2 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 29, 2010
Location: The ATL (OTP)
Posts: 3,946
|
Well, Trump may very well sign it, but the House and Senate have to pass a Bill first. Based on the amount of time left this session and the other contentious issues I doubt we’ll see anything this year. The WSJ ran a story a few day ago about a possible Bill making suppressors more readily available which seemed a little more likely, but then again not sure it’ll happen this session.
__________________
A major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that it ... gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman |
May 26, 2017, 01:42 PM | #3 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 19, 2012
Location: MS - USA
Posts: 899
|
While I'd love to see every state reciprocate with every other state, I really don't think I'm in favor of a federal law mandating it. Mostly because of my general stance on federalism vs. states' rights. And, because of the states' rights issue, I'm not sure a federal mandate would withstand constitutional scrutiny.
Now, taking suppressors off the NFA list is entirely doable and I'd love to see that! Last edited by jmhyer; May 27, 2017 at 08:10 AM. |
May 26, 2017, 02:01 PM | #4 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 12, 2017
Location: Ohio
Posts: 1,048
|
Im with ya jmhyer
Suppressors should not even be regulated. If anything they should be encouraged as a safety device. The pity is most guns aren't threaded from the factory, But if the law changed I bet we'd see a lot more guns come threaded as standard. As far as nation wide reciprocity, I think it would be a mess given the wide range of laws state to state. Unlike a drivers license traffic laws are like 95% uniform. It would require a heavy handed approach to standardize laws for it to work smoothly and I think that might be going to far. Im in favor instead of just passing Constitutional Carry on a state by state basis, some states are a loss cause and will take the will of the voters in those state to inflict real change. |
May 26, 2017, 02:35 PM | #5 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 3, 2017
Posts: 1,583
|
All the federal government would have to do is compare concealed weapons permits to marriage, driver, and court documentation. All states must honor the legal documents of any other state.
For national open carry they would only have pass a law that defines the right to keep and bear arms and as a right no state can interfere with that right. California, Washington DC and New York wouldn't like it but they would be forced to recognize the individual right to carry - at least openly. They did the same thing for marriage and a host of other discriminatory acts. It is an individual right and the state is not lawfully able to refuse it to the general population. |
May 26, 2017, 06:22 PM | #6 | ||||||||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
||||||||
May 27, 2017, 02:11 AM | #7 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 22, 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 5,299
|
Thank you for that detailed explanation, Frank.
|
May 27, 2017, 02:53 AM | #8 |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
My pleasure.
As I've said before, law is complex and non-intuitive. Details matter. Understanding law requires study, whether formal or informal, doing the research, and reading cases. It requires an adequate knowledge base. One can't expect to just be able to figure it all out
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
May 27, 2017, 07:13 PM | #9 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Posts: 438
|
your efforts to do just that are appreciated
|
May 27, 2017, 09:55 PM | #10 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 7, 2000
Location: AZ, WA
Posts: 1,466
|
Quote:
__________________
Violence is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and valorous feeling which believes that nothing is worth violence is much worse. Those who have nothing for which they are willing to fight; nothing they care about more than their own craven apathy; are miserable creatures who have no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the valor of those better than themselves. Gary L. Griffiths (Paraphrasing John Stuart Mill) |
|
May 27, 2017, 10:24 PM | #11 |
Junior member
Join Date: April 6, 2015
Location: WI & UP
Posts: 284
|
I am a states rights person.
It is more than checking status in other states. Requirements vary a great deal between states. It is not a matter of just sharing data. |
May 27, 2017, 10:30 PM | #12 |
Junior member
Join Date: April 6, 2015
Location: WI & UP
Posts: 284
|
Lots of cutting and pasting, which could simply be said states have different requirements.
My go to is 10th amendment. But I think it is poorly upheld. The history of drivers license may be interesting. With federal roadstudent and money, I wouldn't be surprised if it was done with a gun. |
May 29, 2017, 10:05 AM | #13 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,468
|
Quote:
Remember, the Second Amendment is a part of the Constitution, and thanks to the McDonald case the Second Amendment now applies to the states as well as to the federal government. IMHO the entire construct of needing a license or permit to exercise a fundamental Constitutional right is invalid but, overlooking that for the moment, if I have permission slips from multiple states, all of which conduct criminal background checks before issuing my permission slips, how is it in any way just or proper that in some states I am not allowed to carry? Remember, you still have to conduct yourself according to the laws of the state you're in, so that's not the point. Why aren't my multiple permits (let alone just my home state permit) recognized in a number of states? |
|
May 29, 2017, 10:24 AM | #14 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 2, 2013
Posts: 975
|
Quote:
|
|
May 29, 2017, 11:18 AM | #15 | ||
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,468
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
May 29, 2017, 11:35 AM | #16 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
Exactly and the problem is what level of state laws violate the 2nd Amendment. This is played out with other civil liberties issues all the time.
Usually, the states want to constrain individual rights depending on their political orientation. As far as the original issue, forget any gun positive legislation coming out of the Congress in the foreseeable future. They are paralyzed by the circus and emphasis on standard GOP issues that are much more important to them. More analysis turns to politics, so I shall cease.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
May 29, 2017, 12:36 PM | #17 |
Junior member
Join Date: April 6, 2015
Location: WI & UP
Posts: 284
|
I do agree it is a valid argument that 2A should preclude the need for any permit. But each state has set requirements, contest to that. Each state has its own requirement on who should carry. This is different than simply saying don't break any state law.
So until we can enforce 2A, I say the state should decide who carries in their state, as oppressive as those states may be. |
May 29, 2017, 12:42 PM | #18 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
So the state can decide you cannot own guns? That is a logical extension of your position. Many states do decide what guns you can have.
If owning a firearm and carrying such is a reasonable analysis of the 2nd Amend., it is not acceptable to accept a theoretical state's right basis for their laws. That reciprocity legislation is needed shows that states will take away fundamental rights as they did with voting requirements, restrictions on marriage (interracial) and other personal liberties. States rights cannot be a basis for depriving fundamental human rights.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
May 29, 2017, 05:34 PM | #19 |
Junior member
Join Date: April 6, 2015
Location: WI & UP
Posts: 284
|
Glenn, I believe 2A should trump most state laws. Buy the world we live in it doesnt. I think you need to fight battles and not one big war. I think states 2A groups need to fight individual restrictions.
But since many states do not have constitutional carry, I think it is tough to say a permit from a state with no requirement is good in a state that has training. I am against requiring training. Ding bats will always be ao, a single mother in the hood can't get to it, and can barely afford a gun. I think they should have you sign a sheet with 22 font with basics. Only for self defense and bread list of places can't carry. I am for constitutional carry too. |
|
|