1. Attention: We have put together a thread with tips and a tutorial video to help with using the new software. Please take a moment to check out the thread here: Trapshooters.com Tutorial & Help Video.
    Dismiss Notice

So you want national concealed carry?

Discussion in 'Politics, Elections & Legislation' started by wireguy, Aug 11, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. wireguy

    wireguy TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    3,715
    From THE TACTICAL WIRE:


    Editor's Notebook: Sometimes We Need to Think
    by Rich Grassi

    In some places with restrictions on lawful discreet carry, people have taken to "open carry" - openly and obviously wearing firearms that are unloaded. Bad idea . . .
    I have a variety of correspondents, some communicating only indirectly by means of a mailing list or forum and some going direct to me with email or phone calls. In that sense, I'm unique "just like everyone else" in this age of internet and social networking. It opens the mind sometimes, though caution is a good thing; a mind too open can allow the brain to fall out.

    That was my situation with regards to a nationwide-concealed carry, similar to the Law Enforcement Officers' Safety Act, for any citizen. The idea is that states vary in their regulation and rules on the lawful discreet carry of arms. It'd be easier to know what's allowed and what isn't if there was one rule to follow everywhere and that should come from our Rich Uncle Sugar. Then all citizens could be alike, whether or not they carry or had carried a badge, we'd all be one happy family. The only way that could happen is to leave things to our beneficent Papa in Foggy Bottom. The federal government.

    The federal government; you know, that august body that's incapable of balancing its checkbook?

    I happily went along with that line of reasoning like the dope I can be until I noticed something in correspondent Stephen Wenger's Defensive Use of Firearms (DUF) Digest, his daily email of news and analysis.

    The Digest has become my favorite listing of current news having to do with the law, self defense firearms usage and safety. He raised the argument that having old U.S. decide our carry regulations was about like having government in charge of education, housing, the environment and business - it has no place there. As proof, he offered a link to the darling U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer's website. She's already on the case looking out for the free American citizen.

    On her site, she proposes the "Common Sense Concealed Firearms Act of 2011." Now, anytime a politician tells me that a proposed law is common sense, I begin backing away. It's common knowledge that of all the things common in old Foggy Bottom, it's not common sense! These people couldn't pour piss from a boot with instructions inscribed upon the heel.

    In this "Common Sense" claptrap from our wondrous representative of free citizens (or dopes who would vote for her), she calls for all states "to have minimum standards for granting permits," like the states are too stupid to do it without Congressional oversight.

    This prohibitionist violation of the 2nd Amendment requires all states "establish permitting processes that would include meaningful consultation with local law enforcement authorities to determine whether the permit applicant is worthy of the public trust and has shown good cause to carry a concealed firearm." (Italics added)

    Remember that "shall issue" thing of which you were so proud? Bye-bye.

    Consider what you want before acting. We're now in a phase where a significant number of people want to reduce the power of the federal government; power so horribly mismanaged and squandered that we're in real danger of becoming a second-class country.

    The federal government already mandates the type of lightbulbs in your house, the mileage on your vehicle, the kind of toilet you can install - you want MORE laws?

    This is what happens when politics is a career and when you allow legislators in one place year around. Give them 90 days in Foggy Bottom during which they have to pass a budget. Once it's approved and signed, they have to go home.

    Better to rub shoulders with constituents than lobbyists and other pols. Face your people and learn that home is where you came from.
     
  2. RobertT

    RobertT Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2006
    Messages:
    1,354
    Even the Law Enforcement Officers' Safety Act has caveats but they are based on individual States laws, for instance, it may be illegal to take a firearm into a school or church. As poor as many State ccw laws may be in some instances, giving the Feds more power over States rights is pure folley.

    Robert
     
  3. noknock1

    noknock1 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    1,399
    Location:
    Stranger in a Strange Land
    Good post wire guy.

    As much as I wish the voters in Indiana would 'retire' Senator Luger by voting him out... Two of his letters (staffers I should say.. lol..) sent back to me in response to CCW reciprocity as well as 218 for LEO some years back were very similar.

    Senator's Luger response was that he did not believe the federal government should have the right to regulate gun laws and possibly infringe on individual state's sovereignty.

    Like I said, I am tired of Luger and his support of U.N. policies and treaties that directly affect gun owners and states sovereignty, but his I do agree with his logic even though he doesn't believe in it. LOL...
     
  4. Brian in Oregon

    Brian in Oregon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    25,238
    Location:
    Deplorable Bitter Clinger in Liberal La La Land
    This is exactly why I am gun shy of national legislation for concealed carry. If congress has anything to do with it it's not going to be pretty. They'll put on all sorts of conditions that will wind up making it difficult if not impossible for average citizens with no political connections to get a permit.
     
  5. HSLDS

    HSLDS Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2006
    Messages:
    6,372
    Location:
    S-E PA
    Brian,

    I think you miss the point of a Federal concealed carry law.

    The point is NOT to have the Fed write and administer the law, the goal is an article four issue of the Constitution (Full faith and credit). It would merely use federal power to force the states to recognize the carry permits from other states.

    My driver's license is valid in all 50 states, why not my concealed carry license??

    While I agree with Misters Grassi and Wenger that having the U S Government involved in the issuing and management of concealed carry licenses is a bad idea, no one who is truly for national concealed carry is even suggesting this in any way. The source for this idea is Barbara Boxer... 'nough said.
     
  6. jimrich60

    jimrich60 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2007
    Messages:
    810
    While, in theory, the idea of letting the Federal Government (under some interpretation of Article 4) force states to recognize the CCW permits/licenses of all other states might seem like a good idea to some, be very careful of what you wish for. As an example, if those wonderful Feds can do that, then what is to stop them from, say, forcing all states to recognize what some states now allow as lawful same-sex marriages (New York States new law) for instance. While we all would undoubtedly wish every state would accept our states CCW like they do our drivers license, I think this decision is best left to each state and its citizens to decide, and not an area that we should be allowing the Federal government to interfere with. It could, indeed, become that proverbial slippery slope and thus allow one state to dictate what all states must accept in areas far beyond CCW that many of us (perhaps most) would not like at all.

    Jim R
     
  7. HSLDS

    HSLDS Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2006
    Messages:
    6,372
    Location:
    S-E PA
    Jim R,

    My right to own and carry firearms is protected under the U S Constitution, and many State Constitutions. I see no reference to my car in any of them.

    Why should my driver's license hold a higher spot than my CCW??

    Do I think the Fed should be involved in any way?? NOT!

    Do I think I should be able to carry in any state of the Union - yes!
     
  8. jimrich60

    jimrich60 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2007
    Messages:
    810
    HSLDS

    I agree that CCW should be allowed throughout the 50 states, but what I am saying is that, under the Constitution, that decision is reserved to the states, or to the people. As we make more and more progress within the various states on CCW (now that 49 states have some form of CCW and several now have "constitutional carry", I think that acceptance between states will continue to expand (with my home states CCW and a couple of other out-of state licenses, I can carry in the great majority of states now for instance). But the federal government has absolutely no business or constitional right in the area of firearms laws, except perhaps for manufacture and inter-state sales. Interstate rules on drivers licenses, by the way, are regulated under the Interstate Commerce clause of the Constitution, so they at least do have some basis for federal regulation between states. Not so for firearms and other areas.

    I should add that there is one other (and better) way to achieve legal CCW in all 50 states and that is for the Supreme Court to finally recognize and acknowledge the clear meaning and intent of the 2nd Amendment which prohibits the government from passing any law infringing on a citizens right to keep AND BEAR arms. That would invalidate not only federal, but state restrictions on firearms carry.

    Jim R
     
  9. ColtM1911A1

    ColtM1911A1 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2010
    Messages:
    307
    The Feds need to stay out of state issues such as CCW. Giving the Feds power over state issues is what in essence started our great continental war 150 years ago. The federal government must be pushed clear of state powers, otherwise chaos will ensue...
     
  10. timberfaller

    timberfaller Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2007
    Messages:
    7,951
    Location:
    Eastern Washington
    A bureaucrat is someone who can NEVER make a sound decision, that what makes them "bureaucrats"

    There needs to be a repeal of all gun laws and go back to what the Constitution states and means. Its all documented, the Founders knew and understood the language they put into the Second Amendment.

    Words DO have meaning! BUT if you keep dumbing down each succeeding generation, those "meanings" will be lost!

    What part of "shall not be infringed." Don't YOU understand??

    The Founders spelled it out, do the research!
     
  11. slic lee

    slic lee Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2008
    Messages:
    1,026
    Location:
    Miami Beach florida
    FEDERAL SUPREMACY AMENDMENT MUST BE REMOVED
     
  12. Brian in Oregon

    Brian in Oregon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    25,238
    Location:
    Deplorable Bitter Clinger in Liberal La La Land
    The simple fact is congress has yet to pass a gun law that benefits all gun owners.

    Even FOPA'86 screwed over a lot of gun owners.
     
  13. halfmile

    halfmile Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    15,643
    Location:
    Green Bay Wisconsin
    I do.

    De facto CCW, in other words repealing all laws that infringe on my right to carry a firearm, concealed or not.

    Nationwide. And a prohibition on states working around it.

    HM
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.