Skip to comments.
Is It Time for Federal Reciprocity of Concealed Carry Permits?
HUMAN EVENTS ^
| 08/08/2008
| A.W.R. Hawkins
Posted on 08/10/2008 10:50:18 AM PDT by neverdem
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-32 next last
No. Bad guys don't worry about concealed carry laws. Why should the good guys? There should be a universal recognition of the Second Amendment as the supreme law of the land. The right to concealed carry is good for only two reasons: you keep the bad guys guessing, and you don't have to deal with those people who become faint hearted or paranoid with the sight of firearms.
1
posted on
08/10/2008 10:50:18 AM PDT
by
neverdem
To: neverdem
2
posted on
08/10/2008 10:51:22 AM PDT
by
mylife
(The Roar Of the Masses Could Be Farts)
To: neverdem
3
posted on
08/10/2008 10:52:47 AM PDT
by
rellimpank
(--don't believe anything the MSM tells you about firearms or explosives--NRA Benefactor)
To: neverdem
Politics is, alas, the art of the possible. Given that there are 38+ states that allow ordinary law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons, and that 38 is the number of states required to amend the Constitution, there would seem to be some possibility of ratifying a reciprocity amendment if it could get through Congress. States might balk at an amendment that completely removed their control over issuance; it would be important to write the amendment in such a way as to not remove any Second-Amendment rights, but not itself go too far in asserting what the Second Amendment means. A "Nothing in this amendment shall be construed as diminishing the protection for any rights which would be enforceable via the Second Amendment" clause would probably suffice.
One important effect of such an amendment would be that it would enshrine in the Constitution an acknowledgment that people have a right to defend themselves with firearms, a claim which--while bolstered by the Supreme Court--is still going to be under attack for years to come.
4
posted on
08/10/2008 10:57:56 AM PDT
by
supercat
To: neverdem
There should be a universal recognition of the Second Amendment as the supreme law of the land.So far, at least, the Second Amendment does not give you the right to carry anywhere outside your home.
The one gripe I have with Alito's majority writing is his specific citation that restricting carry from schools is acceptable. It opens up the potential for restrictions in all sorts of places, leaving your home as the only place you can exercise your Second Amendment rights.
5
posted on
08/10/2008 10:59:41 AM PDT
by
Erik Latranyi
(Too many conservatives urge retreat when the war of politics doesn't go their way.)
To: neverdem
I would love to see this happen but I think the 12 without the CC’s would fight this tooth and nail. Perhaps the 38 could ban together as a start?
To: neverdem
Your concealed carry license should be exactly like your drivers license. Once you have one it is good in any state of the union. Period!
7
posted on
08/10/2008 11:10:55 AM PDT
by
Citizen Tom Paine
(Swift as the wind; Calmly majestic as a forest; Steady as the mountains.)
To: neverdem
Is It Time for Federal Reciprocity of Concealed Carry Permits?"Permits" are just another infringement upon a God given right confirmed in the Constitution. If anyone needs a permit, it's the idiots who continually foster the idea we should ask for permission for what is already ours.
F* 'em...
8
posted on
08/10/2008 11:14:27 AM PDT
by
Caipirabob
(Communists... Socialists... Democrats...Traitors... Who can tell the difference?)
To: neverdem
So the second amendment for the U.S. Secret Service works like a “living” GPS or something, like it does for a National Guard machine gunner.
9
posted on
08/10/2008 11:15:24 AM PDT
by
BerryDingle
(I know how to deal with communists, I still wear their scars on my back from Hollywood-Ronald Reagan)
To: Erik Latranyi
So far, at least, some political a$$wipes won't recognize that the Second Amendment does not give you voices your GOD given right to carry anywhere outside your home.
10
posted on
08/10/2008 11:17:40 AM PDT
by
xmission
(Democrats have killed our Soldiers by rewarding the enemy for brutality)
To: Erik Latranyi
The one gripe I have with Alito's majority writing is his specific citation that restricting carry from schools is acceptable.Anthony Scalia wrote the majority decision.
It opens up the potential for restrictions in all sorts of places, leaving your home as the only place you can exercise your Second Amendment rights.
I don't read it that way. If the militia is everyone, then everyone should be armed at home. How does a militia perform its duty if they are confined to their homes? To bear arms means to carry. It's not restricted to open carry in the Second Amendment.
11
posted on
08/10/2008 11:21:39 AM PDT
by
neverdem
(I'm praying for a Divine Intervention.)
To: neverdem
If carrying a firearm could somehow be linked to finding oil, Nancy might let her (wrecking) crew vote for it.
Here's what I propose:
Run a loop of Jed Clampet "shootin' for some food,
and up from the ground
came a-bubblin' crude. Oil, that is. Black gold. Texas tea." Rinse and Repeat.
12
posted on
08/10/2008 11:23:04 AM PDT
by
budwiesest
(Tan or no, this guy isn't getting into the White House. Too Marxist.)
To: Caipirabob
"Permits" are just another infringement upon a God given right confirmed in the Constitution. If anyone needs a permit, it's the idiots who continually foster the idea we should ask for permission for what is already ours. Exactly right! Nobody needs a free speech permit, so how can they justify a CCW permit?
13
posted on
08/10/2008 11:26:14 AM PDT
by
magslinger
(A politician who thinks he is above the law is actually beneath contempt.)
I don’t agree that there should be reciprocity required for concealed carry permits. This is because I am opposed to the very idea of requiring permits for the tools of self defense.
I am still waiting for someone to explain logically what problem concealed carry permits are supposed to solve.
The Second Amendment doesn’t call for required reciprocity of concealed carry permits. It calls for the lifting of any licensing or registration of weapons.
To: neverdem
It depends on what law might be passed at the federal level. At present, in view of the Heller decision, I’m afraid that any federal legislation concerning concealed carry would include far too much Eastern-state-style restriction and outright infringement. Once passed, such a law would be hard to get rid of.
I live in Arizona, which is by no means the worst state for firearms laws, though also not the best. CCW permits are easy to get, although I oppose the requirement of any government-issued permit to exercise one’s RKBA. No FOIDs or registration yet either, and a private citizen can sell a gun to another (subject to federal law, of course).
I might favor, as a start, a federal law that simply mandates that no state may impose stricter constraints on CCW than any other state. Picture Vermont rules in all 50!
15
posted on
08/10/2008 11:29:14 AM PDT
by
HartleyMBaldwin
(buk...buk...buk...BARACK!)
To: Caipirabob
Keep on preaching brother.
Asking the state for permission to exercise a right is BS.
16
posted on
08/10/2008 11:36:33 AM PDT
by
An Old Man
("The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they suppress." Douglas)
To: Caipirabob
Tell it to the judge.
You are, of course, absolutely correct.
But it won’t keep you out of jail if you break an unconstitutional law, no matter how wrong it is.
Liberals, as usual, screwing it up for everyone.
17
posted on
08/10/2008 11:37:49 AM PDT
by
jim35
("...when the lion and the lamb lie down together, ...we'd better damn sure be the lion")
To: chris_bdba; jdege
I would love to see this happen but I think the 12 without the CCs would fight this tooth and nail. Perhaps the 38 could ban together as a start?Here's the most recent tally, courtest of jdege.
There are 37 shall issue and 2 unrestricted, Vermont and Alaska. There are 2 no issue and 9 may issue.
18
posted on
08/10/2008 11:37:56 AM PDT
by
neverdem
(I'm praying for a Divine Intervention.)
To: neverdem
The NPS has a ridiculous policy of no weapons allowed on Federal Property. For example, it is legal to carry here in Mississippi but if one travels the Natchez Trace for even a mile, one is breaking the Federal Law. For some of us that live in a tri state area, we travel onto and off the trace in Tennessee, Alabama, and Mississippi. If we are carrying a weapon we go from law breaker to innocent. There are other clear examples where a state road in Tennessee cuts through a National Park and one can be prosecuted by the Feds for carrying a weapon for that small amount of traveling area...NPS personnel are for the most part gun controlling tree hugging Democrats.
Comment #20 Removed by Moderator
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-32 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson