User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 1/17/2006 1:47:33 PM EDT
[#1]
First , I really hope this becomes law however the bill has some problems with it that anti gun states can use to harass otherwise law abiding citizens.
Example : You go to NY where there is an AWB carrying a gun with a magazine capacity of 13 rds , according to NY you have committed a crime unless its a pre 94 magazine. Example 2 : You go to NYC where they dont give a damn about preban or not , if the gun has a magazine over 10 rds its a crime. Example 3 : You go to NJ carrying your trusty 1911 stoked with Speer Gold Dot Hollowpoints , you have just committed a crime.... The reason I bring this up is these are the things that the very same states are trying to do under HR 218 LEOSA. We cant give these anti gun commi states (one of which I live in...for now  ) any wiggle room to harrass us. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2006 1:53:18 PM EDT
[#2]
Tagggg....
Hope it goes through! Probably won't have much of a impact on NJ though? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2006 1:53:35 PM EDT
[#3]
They'd better be careful not to piss off DICKhead Daly and RODman Blowjob-o-vitch!
The leaders of the circle jerk that is the illinois state circus...... er uh government . And some people think organized crime in illinoise is under control......    
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2006 2:09:40 PM EDT
[#4]
Personally, I would like to see a standard set of laws. I am uneasy carrying outside of NC, since that is the only state I know the laws in. If this law allowed me to carry on a road trip to Maine, I wouldn't want to have to study and remember the different laws of the seven states I would be traveling in.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2006 2:14:47 PM EDT
[#5]
I dont like this whole "standardized" procedures line of thinking.
You can bet your ass if this is passed, just like drivers licenses, there will be a minimum set of hoops to jump through to get CCW. Many states have training programs that are mandatory or classes etc. That would be a bitch if we all then had to do that. At least in this great state you don't have to go through any of that crap, turn in your application, get finger printed and get your CCW in 120 days. THe waiting sucks, but its a shall issue state with no requirement other than not being a felon. I fear with this law every state's worst aspect of CCW will come out and be combined into one. Extensive training programs. Issuing based on whim of whatever agency, not a shall issue, and a long ass waiting period like 120 days. How about the bill just demand every state recognize the license of another state. Why do they feel the need to "standardize" CCW. This part is fucking crap! |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2006 2:16:33 PM EDT
[#6]
It's a trap.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2006 2:28:16 PM EDT
[#7]
We have mandatory training classes in my state, and I am glad. You know why? Because as easy as they are, some people still fail them, and I am happy they can't legally carry around me. I figure if someone can't handle a gun safely with an instructor looking over their shoulder, I don't want to be anywhere near them if they have a loaded weapon. Also, I learned what I needed to know about the NC carry laws in the class I attended. The practical part was a joke for me since I have shot some IDPA, but it was a stretch for some in my class--scary. I was glad that some of them realized they weren't as good a shot as they thought they were. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2006 2:30:52 PM EDT
[#8]
I believe Mr. Stearns (GA) has introduced this "SAFE Act" several times. Let's hope it works this time.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2006 2:40:38 PM EDT
[#9]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2006 2:43:47 PM EDT
[#10]
So Federal pre-emption of State gun laws is ok if you agree with it? But federal pre-emption of abortion laws is not?
What if you live in one of the states with a very liberal interpretation of CCW laws, where if you can breathe you can carry, and now the Feds require a trainiing and certificataion requirement? Would (hopefully) help us in CA but screw guys in other states. Much as I'ld like to see things better in CA, I sure don't like letting the Feds get involved in any more than the absolute minimum. Remember it was the Feds that had the "reasonable" AW ban. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2006 2:48:55 PM EDT
[#11]
And California, NY, and others still have it. Fuck this state's rights bullshit when it comes to the subject of firearms. States like California stomp all over the 2nd Amendment. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2006 2:49:38 PM EDT
[#12]
I started a post with the same thought in mind but then I got to thinking about other Federal licensing of pilots and others. This might be legit interstate commerce regulation but the Feds should have no say if you don't cross state lines. Can't see how this would ever become law as it would have to apply to California, Washington DC and the other areas that do not really recognize the right to keep and bear. The coastal commies just don't care about citizens rights or limits of government power. Regards, Mild Bill |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2006 2:50:49 PM EDT
[#13]
IMHO I don’t see how the outcome of this could possibly be positive for us.
If we look back in time THEY will always add something to the end of the bill before It finally passes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2006 2:56:38 PM EDT
[#14]
Hmmm...maybe the Dems attaching a "safe storage" amendment to it? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2006 4:49:48 PM EDT
[#15]
Just so everyone is aware, this is coming from the same guy who explicitly stated that states and local governments have the right to completely ignore, at their will, the right to keep and bear arms of a United States citizen. His justification is that they can do this because the Supremem Court has not put their official stamp on the second amendment, and "incorporated" it like they have other amendments in the bill of rights. This despite the fact that the Constitution clearly states that no rights or privileges of United States citizens as outlined in the US Constitution can be usurped by anyone, including state governments. A right is a right. The purpose of the United States government is to protect the rights of the citizens of the United States. If a state government decides to infringe upon the rights of its citizens it is the federal governments JOB to step in. It looks to me like they are finally doing what they are suppossed to be doing. This has nothing to do with their stupid Klinton AW ban. The power for the US government to do this does not come from their power to infringe upon the second amendment (which doesn't exist BTW), but from their duty to protect it. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2006 4:53:04 PM EDT
[#16]
If you aren't a NRA member, then join.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2006 4:55:10 PM EDT
[#17]
amen |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2006 5:04:42 PM EDT
[#18]
The calm before the storm.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2006 2:32:38 PM EDT
[#19]
Sorry folks, I ain't never too keen on our Fed. Gubmit getting more power and more control.
I can just see it now, after their bill passes: We have amended the bill to prevent anyone from carrying on Sundays then, a few months later, We have amended the bill to prevent you from carrying semi automatic handguns then, a few months later, We have amended the bill to prevent you from carrying while driving on interstate highways and on and on it will go Anytime our fed. govt. passes a tax or law, that tax or law never comes off the books and only gets worse. Why in the hell do you want them to rule CCW? Hell it's bad enough that we have to get a friggin license to carry! By the way, what is wrong with the notion of States Rights? It is in our founding documents of our federal govt. to only do certain things.....provide armed forces, coin money and the rest of the stuff is to be handled by states. Gee folks, don't forget that the war of northern aggression [civil war] started because of our fed. govt. renigging on states rights that were supposedly guaranteed before that period. Let the feds. control CCW....are you insane? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2006 2:39:02 PM EDT
[#20]
Suggest you go back and read the bill. It just forces all states to recognize carry licenses from other states in the same manner as our driver's licenses. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2006 2:51:20 PM EDT
[#21]
LARRYG,
Don't listen to those folks. They are paranoid this implements a nationwide CCW law with standards, restrictions, ect. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2006 3:17:28 PM EDT
[#22]
 ____________________________  |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2006 3:22:55 PM EDT
[#23]
So who wants to hit the phones Monday?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2006 3:25:41 PM EDT
[#24]
They are paranoid this implements a nationwide CCW law with standards, restrictions, ect.
Thanks for making my point. Once they have the power, YOU don't |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2006 3:30:07 PM EDT
[#25]
The Feds could ban all CCW tomorrow 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2006 3:35:22 PM EDT
[#26]
Disagree. Firearms is a federal issue by virtue of its inclusion in the Bill of Rights. Therefore if states are denying a Constitutional right, it is the duty of the congress to fix the situation at the federal level. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2006 3:36:09 PM EDT
[#27]
It is not your place to judge when to apply someone elses right. It is your OPINION that some folks probably shouldn't carry. It is not your business. They have the same rights under the constitution as you do. You sound like a gun grabber. Well if you are properly trained and have a need etc etc 
|
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2006 4:52:46 PM EDT
[#28]
Oh soooo tagged
Now where's that number for the capitol switchboard? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2006 4:59:23 PM EDT
[#29]
Firearms are an explicity federal issue. Abortion is not (despite the tortured reasoning of the Warren Court). |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2006 5:07:46 PM EDT
[#30]
.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2006 5:20:00 PM EDT
[#31]
Here is a link to the bill
Write Your Representative Show your support. Keep it concise and professional. Lets get-r-done! |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2006 5:31:03 PM EDT
[#32]
+1 The government giveth and the goverenment taketh away. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2006 5:31:33 PM EDT
[#33]
Thank you |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2006 5:54:45 PM EDT
[#34]
tagged
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2006 6:03:35 PM EDT
[#35]
Go here: LINK
Find your representitive. Cut and paste: Dear Sir, I am writing to urge your support for H. R. 4547- To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a national standard in accordance with which nonresidents of a State may carry concealed firearms in the State. It is past due for law abiding citizens to have the capability to protect their families and themselves regardless of where their lawful travels take them. This bill allows for that God given right. Thank you for your support. Best regards, Add you signature. How simple can it be? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2006 6:14:11 PM EDT
[#36]
I guess some people don't read something before they comment. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2006 6:14:54 PM EDT
[#37]
Thanks for the letter!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2006 6:19:48 PM EDT
[#38]
I don't think that CCW is a state's rights issue. Federal gun laws control guns, and states just make more laws that fit what their
States rights only works when it is an issue that varies state to state. The 2nd ammendment does not only apply to those states that are friendly to gun owners. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2006 6:51:30 PM EDT
[#39]
I didn't see mention of it on the NRA or GOA web sites. I emailed them to see what is going on. This would be the time to get this legislation through. If half of the people on this board would get involved we could get thier attention.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2006 6:53:26 PM EDT
[#40]
Report back you replies. Thanks! |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2006 7:30:20 PM EDT
[#41]
btt
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2006 11:26:08 PM EDT
[#42]
Firearams are now and have always been a STATE issue. (Hint - Why do you think that all the states have different laws on firearms?) The 2nd still only refers to the Federal Government and has not been incorporated to other levels of government. You can hold your breath until you turn blue and say it ain't so but it is. (And no cheating turning blue fast in AK) Regulation of firearms by the states predates the Constitution. Any intrusion of the Feds into normal activities is to be viewed with suspicion, and if you look at most of my posts, I by no means am a tin foil hat guy. My feelings are that expecting the Federal Bureaucracy to move quickly, efficiently or secretly in a negative manner to the citizenry is to attribute to them qualities they have yet to display in any situation since the beginning of the country. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2006 11:48:25 PM EDT
[#43]
Tag
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2006 12:04:39 AM EDT
[#44]
Jesus Christ, you Kalifornians can't be that whipped. Reach down, grab your balls and muster up some fighting spirit! It is the JOB of the Federal Government to protect our civil rights. However, just as with MLK's Civil rights movement of the 60's, we have to make our voice's heard. The right of self defense is the most basic and most sacred of all rights. Let's get'er done. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2006 12:18:59 AM EDT
[#45]
so the gun bans in CA, NY, MD, are constitutional because its a states rights issue? BS its the feds job to step in when states are wrong...slavery..ect.. they are not even talking about a federal ccw ,its still a state ccw just like your drivers license is still state, so if the fed ever took it away it would be the way it is now. Some of you are looking progress in teeth,it is usually harder to undo an established working right ,anything that helps mainstream 2nd amendment rights is progress
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2006 8:01:28 AM EDT
[#46]
btt
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2006 8:10:53 AM EDT
[#47]
CONTACT INFO AT THIS WEBSITE:
http://judiciary.house.gov/contact.aspx This bill is before the US House Judiciary Committee SO IS HR 1243 |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2006 8:55:42 AM EDT
[#48]
Bullshit! Do the other amendments in the Bill of Rights only apply to the Feds? NO, they do not. Incorporate this! Besides, this bill would incorporate it. Some people are so hung up on state's rights that they are willing to overlook some states raping their citizens when it comes to RKBA. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2006 3:24:26 PM EDT
[#49]
Pull yer head out of your ass, grow up and learn something. The Bill of Rights is and was a restriction on the Federal Government. If you don't understand that yet, I suggest you return to Jr. High and drop back in. If you don't want to believe that, not my problem. Until and unless the Amendment is incorporated to lower levels it isn't applicable. Some have been incorporated, some haven't. If you can't understand that. You are allowed to be ignorant and stupid, you do realize that ignorant and stupid are different, but people can be both. You fit that illustrious category. Or are you one of the morons that is convinced that everybody else in the last 200+ years is wrong and you are right. Again, see if you can dribble out some explanation as to why all the states have different laws? For a an alledged Southerner you sure are intent on ramming Federal control down on others. |
||||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2006 3:45:23 PM EDT
[#50]
Just because your state doesn't issue CCW permits doesn't mean you can't get one from another state.
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
