CCW Reciprocity Passes House, Senate Has it Now

Injun

Rabid Squaw
Staff member
Supporter
Thread starter #41
I swear y'all are a bunch of hypocrites.

On every other issue the federal government is Satan incarnate, and local officials like county sheriffs are representatives of the second coming. So why is it now that we're talking about the government questioning your sancrosanct right to own guns (which was not the Framer's intent) are the Feds "good enough," and letting local law enforcement who may actually have an insight on whether someone trying to get a gun has an unstable or violent personality a problem?
The Supreme Court has ruled that the US Constitution applies to States and localities every bit as much as it applies to the limitations on the federal government. That's how the Veterans' Memorial Cross on top of Skinner's Butte in Eugene, OR ended up being removed through lawsuit despite the wishes of the majority of Eugenians. It now resides at the local Christian college across town. Apparently, it violated the First Amendment's establishment of religion clause while it sat on public property.

This bill does not limit freedoms. Rather, it prevents localities from limiting the freedoms of the People. The Supreme Court ruled, in Heller v. Washington DC, that the right to keep and bear arms is a right that belongs to individuals, not the States, "the People" being individuals. This is not the federal government meddling in private affairs. It's the federal government telling States they are not going to be allowed to meddle in the private affairs of other States' residents as they're passing through. States will not be allowed to confiscate private property and will not be allowed to infringe on the rights of citizens of other States.

It does nothing more than extend reciprocity to permitted concealed carriers just the same as driver licensing. To your logic, we should be required to apply for and obtain a driver license for each State we pass through because traffic laws differ from place to place. As you know, that's just asinine.
 

ironpony

Professional Pot-Stirrer
Supporter
#42
So you're seriously saying that if a nutcase who hadn't violated any law (yet,) but who has loudly announced in the presence of local law enforcement that he intends to go out and commit a mass murder in a way that convinces those officers that he's a serious threat to the community goes out and applies to buy a small arsenal, he should be allowed to do that? On the basis of a federal records check by beaurecrats hundreds or thousands of miles away who have no real knowledge of the individual? That local law enforcement should have no say in the granting of CCW permit?

Really??
 
Last edited:

ironpony

Professional Pot-Stirrer
Supporter
#43
That right there shows your circuits are far too scrambled to even be having this discussion with. If you can't even understand or agree with the most basic, fundamental rights, there is absolutely nothing you can say on the topic that's even worth reading.
Try a sabbatical from being plugged into that infowars moron, and try reading something about the Philadelphia Convention and the debates over the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. It's obvious the Framer's were worried about a standing army overthrowing the government, and the remedy being the defense of the nation relegated to a militia. Not your individual right to own as many guns as you can
 

Duck

Quack
Supporter
#44
So you're seriously saying that if a nutcase who hadn't violated any law (yet,) but who has loudly announced in the presence of local law enforcement that he intends to go out and commit a mass murder in a way that convinces those officers that he's a serious threat to the community goes out and applies to buy a small arsenal, he should be allowed to do that? On the basis of a federal records check by beaurecrats hundreds or thousands of miles away who have no real knowledge of the individual? That local law enforcement should have no say in the granting of CCW permit?

Really??
The answer to all of those questions is yes.

Allowing government to take away rights without any kind of preceding criminal conviction is a slippery slope we can't allow to go down.

Freedom is more important than safety.

However of someone "announces in the presence of law enforcement" that he's going on a killing spree he'll be arrested for "making terrorist threats", and if convicted of that, can be required by law to obtain his guns on the black market instead of a gun shop.
 

Duck

Quack
Supporter
#45
It's obvious the Framer's were worried about a standing army overthrowing the government,
If you read the actual documents they completed and signed, instead of the democrats' bullshit interpretation of them, and had an IQ over 65, you would know that their sole intent was to ENABLE the people to overthrow the government if the need arises.

And we're allowed to own as many as we want.

If you don't like it, tough ****.
 
#46
Who cares about some piece of paper written a couple hundred years ago? Today's society is different than it was back then. Maybe it needs to be rewritten in modern language

:stirpot2:
 

Injun

Rabid Squaw
Staff member
Supporter
Thread starter #47
So you're seriously saying that if a nutcase who hadn't violated any law (yet,) but who has loudly announced in the presence of local law enforcement that he intends to go out and commit a mass murder in a way that convinces those officers that he's a serious threat to the community goes out and applies to buy a small arsenal, he should be allowed to do that? On the basis of a federal records check by beaurecrats hundreds or thousands of miles away who have no real knowledge of the individual? That local law enforcement should have no say in the granting of CCW permit?

Really??
Well, first, it's the jurisdiction this individual resides in that is supposed to make that decision, not the jurisdiction of some nutcase sheriff on the other side of the country who believes every gun owner outside law enforcement is a raging lunatic just because of the fact they own guns.

We cannot punish crimes that have not been committed. That's called Fascism.

However, in your scenario, two issues come into play: terroristic threats, as Duck pointed out, and the real opportunity here to have the person held for a 72 hour psychological evaluation as a danger to himself or others. Either a conviction of terroristic threats or a valid diagnosis of mental instability should be entered into NICS or whatever other federal records puzzle palace applies, which would show up on the most cursory FBI background check.

The way this Bill is written, CCW reciprocity applies only for those who are permitted to carry by their home State. The example mentioned a page or so ago, the guy who lives in PA but has a permit from FL, it would not be valid for the purpose of this Bill. He would need a permit from the same State (PA) as his driver license and home address. This, obviously, keeps his local jurisdiction in the loop. States that choose to recognize his FL permit, well, that's their choice.

also: Cite the article and provide a link to your assertion that a guy threatened to buy a bunch of guns and shoot everybody in a full police station and still got a concealed carry permit. If it's the case I just referenced, he was never convicted of anything.
 

Injun

Rabid Squaw
Staff member
Supporter
Thread starter #49
Hypothetical dearie...

:stirpot2:

Someone's gotta stir th' pot around here ta make sure all y'all haven't gone brain dead.

:biggrin-2:
....so...You're saying I should be denied the means to protect myself because you're capable of dreaming up some ridiculous fairy tale?
 

ironpony

Professional Pot-Stirrer
Supporter
#50
....so...You're saying I should be denied the means to protect myself because you're capable of dreaming up some ridiculous fairy tale?
Well... yeah. If local law enforcement believes you're a threat to the community, why should the rest of be forced to pay with our blood just to uphold your right to commit a horrendous crime?
 

dchawk81

Well-Known Member
#51
Well... yeah. If local law enforcement believes you're a threat to the community, why should the rest of be forced to pay with our blood just to uphold your right to commit a horrendous crime?
Um that's not a slope you really want to start sliding down. You may think you do, but you don't.
 

ironpony

Professional Pot-Stirrer
Supporter
#52
Um that's not a slope you really want to start sliding down. You may think you do, but you don't.
We already have. Local gun control laws have been a reality for some time. The Supreme Court has upheld their legality in a number of cases, as long as they don't unreasonably restrict lawful ownership.
 

Injun

Rabid Squaw
Staff member
Supporter
Thread starter #53
Well... yeah. If local law enforcement believes you're a threat to the community, why should the rest of be forced to pay with our blood just to uphold your right to commit a horrendous crime?
As I said before: Punishment for something that might happen is called Fascism a'la Josef Stalin. In this country, we're innocent until convicted.

Are you aiming for a Purge like Stalin instituted as well?

Criticism of Lamarckian Inheritance was treated not as academic, but as political subversion and deviancy. The logical chain was chilling, and lethal: Comrade Stalin endorses Lamarckism. You disagree with Lamarckism. Therefore you disagree with Comrade Stalin. It follows that you are a subversive, a Trotskyite, a foreign spy, fascist agent, or capitalist stooge working to sabotage the Soviet Union.

In that environment, Soviet scientists who scoffed at the quackery of Lysenko and his revived Lamarckism were arrested by the NKVD, brutally interrogated, tortured, sent to the gulag where many died, or executed outright. Over 3000 mainstream biologists were fired, jailed, arrested, or executed in a campaign instigated by Lysenko to eliminate his scientific opponents.
10 Remarkable Fraudulent Discoveries and Inventions that Shook the World
Lamarckism - Wikipedia

Great Purge - Wikipedia
 

Injun

Rabid Squaw
Staff member
Supporter
Thread starter #54
So... I knew I would have to move this, I just wanted it on the main forum long enough to draw general attention to it because of its direct impact on our industry.

I won't tolerate personal insults or derisive comments in this thread. So keep the Captain Cheeto (that's some funny ****, there) and Her Thighness comments to yourself.
 

Injun

Rabid Squaw
Staff member
Supporter
Thread starter #55
Response from Sen. Crapo's office:


Dear (name)

Thank you for contacting me regarding firearms and concealed carry laws. I share your support for the Second Amendment and welcome the opportunity to respond.

On February 27, 2017, Senator John Cornyn (R-Texas) introduced S. 446, the Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act. S. 446 would allow law-abiding citizens to exercise their fundamental right to self-defense while they are traveling or temporarily living away from home. Specifically, the bill would enable individuals with concealed carry privileges in their home state to exercise this right in other states, provided state and local laws concerning specific types of firearms and locations in which firearms may not be carried are respected. S. 446 has been referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee, where it awaits further consideration. I am an original co-sponsor of this legislation.

I am an unwavering supporter of the Second Amendment. We must protect and preserve our right to bear arms. I appreciate you taking the time to share your views with me, and please know that I will continue to vigorously support measures that allow law-abiding citizens to practice their constitutional rights.

Again, thank you for contacting me. Please feel free to contact me in the future on this or other matters of interest to you. For more information about the issues before the U.S. Senate as well as news releases, photos, and other items of interest, please visit my Senate website, http://crapo.senate.gov .

Sincerely,
Mike Crapo
United States Senator
 

ironpony

Professional Pot-Stirrer
Supporter
#60
Busting on a guy for his name. I was going to say that's low even for you, but I'd be lying.
Kick 'em when they're up!

Kick 'em when they're down!

Kick 'em all around!

'Specially if they're politicians!! :cool-61:
 
Top