This Ping List is for all things pertaining to the 2nd Amendment.
FReepmail me if you want to be added to or deleted from the list.
Posted on 06/02/2017 8:08:43 AM PDT by Mafe
I took a number of steps before I started carrying a gun. I got training, I read books and articles by self-defense experts, I learned the laws of my state, I started going to the range regularly, and I did “dry fire” exercises at home to keep my shooting skills up.
I also got a concealed-carry permit, which in Virginia required almost none of the above preparation. All I had to do was get a form notarized and send it in — along with $50 and a copy of the hunter’s-safety card I earned in Wisconsin when I was 13 years old, which allegedly proved my “competency with a handgun.” Nothing would have stopped me from getting a permit and carrying a gun legally if I hadn’t touched a firearm since 1997 and had received no training at all that pertained specifically to concealed carry or self-defense, as opposed to shooting deer in the freezing cold.
It’s perfectly fine, of course, for the state of Virginia to have lax permitting standards and trust that its residents will get the training they need of their own volition and good sense. In fact, a growing number of states don’t require a permit to carry at all — some call it “constitutional carry” — and their streets are not running red with blood.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
National Review is as predictable as NYT.
FUNR.
Since California criminalizes any mode of carry, there is no legal way (effectively) for me to carry in my home state, unless federal reciprocity is inacted.
Federally imposed reciprocity is a way to implement RKBA which has been seriously infringed in many areas like California, New York and other liberal hell holes.
The bill of rights is a list of rights that the federal government is required to protect against infringement by the states. Allowing reciprocity is the least the Fed can do to protect the second amendment; I would prefer they made “Constitutional Carry” the law of the land. Couldn’t disagree more with the author; if he wants to make this case it should be for rights whose protection is deferred to the states.
It all “sounds so reasonable”, until you read a few stories about gun-owners from other states being arrested in gun-grabber states for simply transporting a firearm locked in their car trunk while traversing any part of the g.g. state. A stronger impediment to interstate commerce I cannot imagine, and a perfectly legitimate exercise of Congressional authority.
Of course, this is from the National Review, from which one expects neither truth nor logic.
I still remember the training my Dad gave me before I turned 10. It was put to me as serious business so I paid attention....
Ping
yep.
At 12 years old, used to carry our 22’s on the public bus to go shoot cans down by the shore.
Now, Left-0-crats poop bricks if they see a spent shell made into a keychain.
Why would you show a picture of a cocked pistol laying on its side? If you’re handling a pistol like that it certainly shouldn’t be cocked. Fools.
This Ping List is for all things pertaining to the 2nd Amendment.
FReepmail me if you want to be added to or deleted from the list.
“driving is only a privilege not a right”
It would have been enumerated as one had the founding fathers conceived of government practically prohibiting travel without permission.
One of the biggest shams foisted on the American people.
there is no legal way (effectively) for me to carry in my home state, unless federal reciprocity is inacted.
Federally imposed reciprocity is a way to implement RKBA which has been seriously infringed in many areas like California, New York and other liberal hell holes.
= = = = = = = = = =
I am usually ‘dead set’ against Federal interference BUT I will go along with this particular one as some states are ‘overriding’ constitutional rights so it is up to the FED to step in on behalf of ALL citizens.
Also, if Nationwide reciprocity goes in effect the states will not have to issue out of state permits which should prompt people from NY, NJ, CA etc to elect people who will override the draconian laws...
It takes a while but notice how many ‘Spanish’ & ‘Muslim’ people showing up in politics.
One only has to ask the Apache, Sioux, Cherokee etc of what happens when one has lax immigration laws and the newcomers come in and breed like rabbits while the ‘natives’ accept Government handouts (reservations etc)
Yes, the Establishment Right.
One, they are too prissy and lazy to acquire skills and firearms themselves.
But above all they have to keep weapons out of the hands of the rabble.
“driving is only a privilege not a right”
Driving could be, I think; argued as a right under the free association clause. Perhaps not an absolute right but a right nevertheless. One of the best ways totalitarian states have to control populations is to restrict movement. Being able to pick up and leave is a right.
Before the advent of automobiles this could be seen as the ability to own a horse or wagon. Neither was absolutely necessary to go somewhere else but they made the process exponentially easier.
Being able to own a firearm is a right like free-association. There may, as with freedom of speech be some broad limits placed upon that right (Can’t make death threats, yell fire in a theatre and so forth) but neither can be abolished or substantially curtailed without tyranny.
Concealed Carry reciprocity should not be needed. Should and are different things and this is a law that is needed. At least in some form.
For what it’s worth, I do not carry a firearm. This is a safe place and the protection is not needed. But, if I lived where I did not feel safe then I would carry.
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
The right to keep and bear arms is a constitutional right, protected by the Second Amendment. And Article IV, Section 1 says that “Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.”
Accordingly, it could be argued that no state has the right NOT to honor carry permits issued by any state.
The “interstate commerce clause” is the most abused portion of the Constitution. Congress claims that ANY action that MIGHT affect interstate commerce is subject to regulation. In effect they believe that it gives practically unlimited power to the federal government. If they haven’t done it since the ratification of the Constitution, it’s just because they haven’t thought of it before. Any study of the Constitution would result in the conclusion that it was meant to LIMIT the power of the federal government, not enable its infinite power.
I am against the feds being involved (unless it is to mandate nationwide Constitutional carry). Once you get the feds involved, guaranteed the next Dem president will mandate minimum requirements for one state’s carry license to be recognized elsewhere.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.