National Carry Permit

[groovatron]

i have not read this entire thread so this may be repeated, imo the goverment has there nose in to much of my business already and should do away with carry permits all together. why do i need to carry a card granting me permision to use what the 2nd already grants me

Yep......even without reading the thread, you have pretty much summed up the general sentiment relating to this thread

 

[DaveD]

....., why do i need to carry a card granting me permision to use what the 2nd already grants me

Just a note: The 2nd Amendment doesn't grant you anything. It just states a right that you already have.

The Bill of Rights is there to tell the government what to keep their dirty paws off.

 

[groovatron]

Just a note: The 2nd Amendment doesn't grant you anything. It just states a right that you already have.

The Bill of Rights is there to tell the government what to keep their dirty paws off.

Well, then they need to start listening

 

[42769vette]

Just a note: The 2nd Amendment doesn't grant you anything. It just states a right that you already have.

The Bill of Rights is there to tell the government what to keep their dirty paws off.

ill give you that. thanks for the correction

 

[DaveD]

Well, then they need to start listening

Yep, time for us to get off the couch and help unplug their ears!

 

[downzero]

They've done that. It's merely being ignored by the judicial and legislative branches.

Oh, I must have missed that. I've read an awful lot of cases and not even seen someone make a second amendment argument outside of a few recent, famous cases and a few here or there over the years.

Maybe the problem wasn't that there haven't been good cases, but rather, no good lawyers to bring them.

 

[IndySSD]

Oh, I must have missed that. I've read an awful lot of cases and not even seen someone make a second amendment argument outside of a few recent, famous cases and a few here or there over the years.

Maybe the problem wasn't that there haven't been good cases, but rather, no good lawyers to bring them.

What? Surely the sole champions of justice and peace that are Lawyers would not stand by and let such a travesty occur.

Personally I'd support a bill that granted a state LTCH the same nationally recognized status as a drivers license.

While I would like to see a more fundamental constitutionalist view taken by the SCOTUS, it's not going to happen realistically, especially with Kagan coming in.

 

[opus1776]

what does's the Utah permit actually do?

UT's permit allow you to carry in states where IN's LTCH is not recognized. The additional states are: WA, NE, MN, OH, WV, VA and DE.



======================================
"Nothing tastes as good as skinny feels" K. Moss

You can NEVER be too rich or too thin.

Life is not a journey, but a series of unplanned detours...

Perfection: is not a goal-- it's an demanded expectation.

 

[dross]

I think the carry movement has been a huge grassroots success. People want to do it, so the state legislatures have answered the call, though slowly. The day we get a national carry ID, we will know we've already won the battle, because that's the only way a gutless Congress will pass and get a President to sign.

What I fear is that once the Feds get involved, they will begin to restrict and regulate, usually based on a Columbine or WV type incident.

What the Feds give, they can take away. I say let's keep them out of it, except for some sort of reasonable law that actually relates to commerce, such as being able to travel freely in the U.S. with a carry permit issued from your state.

Kind of like driving your car through another state, or even visiting for a while. You don't have to register it, or comply with the state's emission laws, or whatever, until you establish residency there. Then you would have to follow that State's procedure.

Yes, I agree that we don't need the government's permission to exercise a right, but that's the ideological world, not the practical one.

 

[groovatron]

i think the biggest problem is certain state's not honoring other states permits/license. Look at Utah. They are making a ton of money off out of state permits. Do you really think they want to see things change?

 

[CarmelHP]

What? Surely the sole champions of justice and peace that are Lawyers would not stand by and let such a travesty occur.

Bull****, there were plenty of cases, but few attractive plaintiffs who weren't criminals. And courts were generally not interested, until after Sanford Levinson's blockbuster law review article, The Embarrassing Second Amendment, that started a torrent of legal scholarship on the 2A that was used to persuade the courts. It was a lot of champions of justice and peace lawyers that laid the groundwork for recognition of the 2A as an individual right and to incorporation. Armchair quarterbacks never give a **** about the heavy lifting that goes on outside of their notice, or the results that they contributed to not a whit.

Personally I'd support a bill that granted a state LTCH the same nationally recognized status as a drivers license.

There is no such bill regarding drivers licenses, there is an interstate compact among the member states and the very few non-members affirm other states drivers licenses through their internal laws and regulations.

While I would like to see a more fundamental constitutionalist view taken by the SCOTUS, it's not going to happen realistically, especially with Kagan coming in.

You've already seen it. Kagan doesn't change the ideological makeup of the Court. Whether the makeup changes in the future is up to the voters, not the lawyers.

 

[dross]

Armchair quarterbacks never give a **** about the heavy lifting that goes on outside of their notice, or the results that they contributed to not a whit.

.

Exactly. But you see, making sausage is dirty and disgusting. Much easier to talk about how in a perfect world, we wouldn't have to make sausage. Better to refuse to understand or participate in the process until the world changes its nature and sausage making is no longer required.

I'd rep you, but I'm not allowed.

 

[cop car]

I don't want the fed to issue a "national carry card" because I fear that would establish fed authority over the issue. I could see them issue the cards and then wait a few years, shuffle the names on the offices and decide to pull the cards altogether. Then, bang, no carry nationwide. California and the east coast don't like carry, so no carry for the flyover states either.

thats why the best solution is to make everyone recognize everyone elses carry permits, just like drivers licenses, without consolidating the power in washington.

 

[IndySSD]

Bull****, there were plenty of cases, but few attractive plaintiffs who weren't criminals. And courts were generally not interested, until after Sanford Levinson's blockbuster law review article, The Embarrassing Second Amendment, that started a torrent of legal scholarship on the 2A that was used to persuade the courts. It was a lot of champions of justice and peace lawyers that laid the groundwork for recognition of the 2A as an individual right and to incorporation. Armchair quarterbacks never give a **** about the heavy lifting that goes on outside of their notice, or the results that they contributed to not a whit.

So I'm guessing you mean all of this at Downzero actually whom I was prodding for more information because of his comment that I'll quote here that you seem to take umbrage with.

Maybe the problem wasn't that there haven't been good cases, but rather, no good lawyers to bring them.

And no, I am not a lawyer but I vote so I'd say I'm more of a volunteer assistant to the assistant's coach than an armchair quarterback.

Either way you seem to have missed the PURPLE.

There is no such bill regarding drivers licenses, there is an interstate compact among the member states and the very few non-members affirm other states drivers licenses through their internal laws and regulations.

I didn't say I'd support a bill LIKE THE BILL that allows national recognition of your license, I said I'd support a bill that gave national recognition like a drivers license. Perhaps clear the angry steam from your eyes about my sarcasm and look more closely.

You've already seen it. Kagan doesn't change the ideological makeup of the Court. Whether the makeup changes in the future is up to the voters, not the lawyers.

*Removed because it was wrong and I was just being dumb*

Not exactly what I'd call a return to fundamentalist constitutional views.

 

[dross]

Kagan makes a 5-4 ruling in favor of gun rights a 5-5 stalemate which continues the current law/ruling of the lower court meaning Chicago would still have it's handgun ban.

Not exactly what I'd call a return to fundamentalist constitutional views.

There are nine members of the Supreme Court. Kagan replaced Stevens, who was among the four who would vote against any 2nd Amendment issue.

Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito will vote pro 2nd Amendment. Kennedy has been voting that way. That's your five. Kagan is just one of the other four.

 

[Bill of Rights]

SSD, please do not take this personally. I read your post about the "5-5 stalemate" and literally shook my head in amazement. Not at you personally, but at the problem your post illustrates: A lack of knowledge about the function and form of the government of the United States.

I have previously posted links to various civics tests by which people may test themselves. If there is a demand for it, I will do so again, but that only addresses a small measure of the problem.

People who do not know their rights could be said to have none.
Many people do not know their rights nor the limitations incumbent upon our government under the Constitution.
Many of those people, sadly, have been elected to legislative (and other) offices.

The solution is education. The responsibility for getting that education to the people rests with their parents, while they are young. The responsibility for getting that education if your parents abdicated their responsibility is yours.

The largest problem I see with your post, and again, I'm not meaning to pick on you personally, is with your member name here: SafeShootingDad. This implies that you have children who will be depending on YOU to ensure they are properly taught, and therein lies the problem: You cannot teach what you do not know.

So therefore, to you and to everyone out there, here is my suggestion: Educate yourselves. If you don't know where to begin, ask.

My suggestions would begin with our Founding Documents: The Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights. You can find them here: National Archives and Records Administration. Examine such things as how many Senators and Representatives there are. How long are their terms of office? What qualifications must they have to be elected? Much more important than those last three questions, WHO are they? How do you contact them, and about what issues?

None of this is personal against any one person. It is, for lack of a better term, an open letter to EVERYONE out there who does not know these bare-bones-basic lessons of civics.

An educated electorate will choose far more wisely than an uneducated electorate. In the last election, this country voted for the office of the President like the hypothetical stereotypical woman chooses a horse to bet on: By color and charisma, having nothing whatsoever to do with ability.

We have a chance in a few months to attempt to geld that loser of a "horse". This will only happen if people know how to do it, and that will take education, involvement, and the basic willingness to give a about someone other than themselves.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[CarmelHP]

There are nine members of the Supreme Court. Kagan replaced Stevens, who was among the four who would vote against any 2nd Amendment issue.

Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito will vote pro 2nd Amendment. Kennedy has been voting that way. That's your five. Kagan is just one of the other four.

Stop confusing him with the facts, it's just your angry steam.

 

[IndySSD]

There are nine members of the Supreme Court. Kagan replaced Stevens, who was among the four who would vote against any 2nd Amendment issue.

Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito will vote pro 2nd Amendment. Kennedy has been voting that way. That's your five. Kagan is just one of the other four.

Yes, you're right, I apologize about the 5-5 comment, my father passed and I wasn't thinking straight (I'm still not) . Also for some idiotic reason I thought that the SCOTUS was up to 10 people. I do know the size of the court is not limited by the constitution and for some reason I had it stuck in my head that O' was "evening up the odds" in the SCOTUS.

But still, I don't think your initial armchair quarterback statement was warranted or accurately directed at me.

SSD, please do not take this personally. I read your post about the "5-5 stalemate" and literally shook my head in amazement. Not at you personally, but at the problem your post illustrates: A lack of knowledge about the function and form of the government of the United States.

I have previously posted links to various civics tests by which people may test themselves. If there is a demand for it, I will do so again, but that only addresses a small measure of the problem.

People who do not know their rights could be said to have none.
Many people do not know their rights nor the limitations incumbent upon our government under the Constitution.
Many of those people, sadly, have been elected to legislative (and other) offices.

The solution is education. The responsibility for getting that education to the people rests with their parents, while they are young. The responsibility for getting that education if your parents abdicated their responsibility is yours.

The largest problem I see with your post, and again, I'm not meaning to pick on you personally, is with your member name here: SafeShootingDad. This implies that you have children who will be depending on YOU to ensure they are properly taught, and therein lies the problem: You cannot teach what you do not know.

So therefore, to you and to everyone out there, here is my suggestion: Educate yourselves. If you don't know where to begin, ask.

My suggestions would begin with our Founding Documents: The Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights. You can find them here: National Archives and Records Administration. Examine such things as how many Senators and Representatives there are. How long are their terms of office? What qualifications must they have to be elected? Much more important than those last three questions, WHO are they? How do you contact them, and about what issues?

None of this is personal against any one person. It is, for lack of a better term, an open letter to EVERYONE out there who does not know these bare-bones-basic lessons of civics.

An educated electorate will choose far more wisely than an uneducated electorate. In the last election, this country voted for the office of the President like the hypothetical stereotypical woman chooses a horse to bet on: By color and charisma, having nothing whatsoever to do with ability.

We have a chance in a few months to attempt to geld that loser of a "horse". This will only happen if people know how to do it, and that will take education, involvement, and the basic willingness to give a about someone other than themselves.

Blessings,
Bill

Bill, thanks for being so kind while pointing out my misinformed position. I'm not at the level I need to be but I keep myself in a constant learning and development mode. Thanks for the suggestions. I do know quite a few of the facts you list specifically but I'm not actively using this information on a day to day basis so it tends to get lost among all the operations manuals for the gear I do support on a day to day basis.

I agree with you 100% that everyone needs to educate themselves on the inner workings of our government and our rights and I'm constantly learning new things.

Thanks for being a positive force in this direction.

Stop confusing him with the facts, it's just your angry steam.

I'm fine with facts but calling someone a " !#$%ing armchair quarterback" for a comment that I didn't even make is definately what I would refer to as a "blowing steam" at someone.

I'm ok with being wrong or misinformed about things, even being underinformed. No need for blowing off the handle. His second post was well formed and informative, his first response was not.

 

[dross]

What? Surely the sole champions of justice and peace that are Lawyers would not stand by and let such a travesty occur.

But still, I don't think your initial armchair quarterback statement was warranted or accurately directed at me.


I'm ok with being wrong or misinformed about things, even being underinformed. No need for blowing off the handle. His second post was well formed and informative, his first response was not.

Your comment in purple was what started the sharp-edged retorts, I believe.

Do you not see how that might be seen as picking a fight?

 

[IndySSD]

Your comment in purple was what started the sharp-edged retorts, I believe.

Do you not see how that might be seen as picking a fight?

Well, it wasn't directed at you. Rather it was spillover from another thread that that involved Downzero and I. Hence the prod emoticon on a direct quote of his post saying that there were no good lawyers to take the case. *Which is what I thought you were actually getting all fired up about, apparently I was wrong about that and you were mad over a sarcastic statement I made in response to his saying there have been no good lawyers to take the cases*

Either way you're entitled to feel however you want about my prodding Downzero. I appreciate you taking time later in the thread to point out the flaw in my thought process. I'm not defending my misinformation and I've sinced edited it out and explained why I was thinking that.


So.... back on track!!

While I would like to see firearms licenses abolished across the US in favor of allowing all citizens to carry, I would support a national LTCH as a compromise.