Concealed Carry Permits Should be Treated Like Driver's Licenses

[RandallFlagg]

so should weapons qualification for well regulated militia.

Oh look... "Well regulated militia" nonsense.

It's always something, isn't it?

Hell, I qualified on a range at every post I was ever stationed at, at every Embassy, at Fort Meade, At Bolling AFB, shoot, everywhere. I have been shooting since I was 6 years old - I think I can say, with some authority, that I KNOW how to shoot. Their argument is a little "bogus".

 

[Seawytch]

That would erode the principle of states' rights and make the most lenient state dictate policy to more stringent states. Much as I believe in RKBA I dont believe in over riding people's folly.

Like driver's licenses, there would have to be minimum standards. Some states have more stringent licensing requirements that others for vehicle permits do they not?

The difference in standards is obviously not enough for authorities in those states not to recognize each others' DLs.

And you're sure the difference in standards between CCW permits would also be so great? Can you give examples?

Yeah. In NYC you need to show good reason why you need a permit. There is a background check and you must list the firearm to be carried. The permit specifies the lmited areas you can carry. In Indiana you fill out a form, pay a small fee and carry pretty much whatever you want whenever and wherever.

Hmmmm, sounds like there needs to be minimum standards to put my ideal law into place. I guess that would be the price to pay if you wanted a CCW to be treated like a DL.

It sure does, however, back up my point that CCWs in no way should be treated like marriage licenses. Thanks!

 

[RandallFlagg]

And that's why I find it refreshing that states (such as Kansas) have done away with all licensing requirements (including CCW). Let's be honest here. People have been carrying "illegally" for as long as I can remember. Why not use the second amendment as it was intended, rather than trying to invent ways to force the will of a few on the left on the vast majority of Americans.

Ohio may follow suit -- the bill is likely to pass thru the legislature, anyway.

Well, I applaud them. Either the second amendment is valid (as written) or it isn't. The SCOTUS has upheld the second on every front. That's one thing that has always caused me to scratch my head. What part of "Shall NOT be infringed" does the left NOT get?

 

[danielpalos]

so should weapons qualification for well regulated militia.

Oh look... "Well regulated militia" nonsense.

oh look; another gun lover without a clue or a Cause.

 

[RandallFlagg]

so should weapons qualification for well regulated militia.

Oh look... "Well regulated militia" nonsense.

oh look; another gun lover without a clue or a Cause.

Well, OK. Show me where "qualifying" exists in the second amendment.......tic - tock - tic -tock

 

[M14 Shooter]

oh look; another gun lover without a clue or a Cause.

We know you hate the fact that, like all other anti-gun loons, you can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty -- but that's your problem, not ours.

 

[The Rabbi]

That would erode the principle of states' rights and make the most lenient state dictate policy to more stringent states. Much as I believe in RKBA I dont believe in over riding people's folly.

Like driver's licenses, there would have to be minimum standards. Some states have more stringent licensing requirements that others for vehicle permits do they not?

The difference in standards is obviously not enough for authorities in those states not to recognize each others' DLs.

And you're sure the difference in standards between CCW permits would also be so great? Can you give examples?

Yeah. In NYC you need to show good reason why you need a permit. There is a background check and you must list the firearm to be carried. The permit specifies the lmited areas you can carry. In Indiana you fill out a form, pay a small fee and carry pretty much whatever you want whenever and wherever.

Hmmmm, sounds like there needs to be minimum standards to put my ideal law into place. I guess that would be the price to pay if you wanted a CCW to be treated like a DL.

It sure does, however, back up my point that CCWs in no way should be treated like marriage licenses. Thanks!

It sounds like you are using permits as stalking horses for gay marriage. It also sounds like you dont know what the hell you're talking about.

 

[The Rabbi]

so should weapons qualification for well regulated militia.

Oh look... "Well regulated militia" nonsense.

oh look; another gun lover without a clue or a Cause.

I'd say M14Shooter has both in abundence. I'd say you are an ignorant boob.

 

[danielpalos]

so should weapons qualification for well regulated militia.

Oh look... "Well regulated militia" nonsense.

oh look; another gun lover without a clue or a Cause.

Well, OK. Show me where "qualifying" exists in the second amendment.......tic - tock - tic -tock

wellness of regulation; our Founding Fathers were very non-ambiguous and really did think of every Thing.

 

[Seawytch]

Like driver's licenses, there would have to be minimum standards. Some states have more stringent licensing requirements that others for vehicle permits do they not?

The difference in standards is obviously not enough for authorities in those states not to recognize each others' DLs.

And you're sure the difference in standards between CCW permits would also be so great? Can you give examples?

Yeah. In NYC you need to show good reason why you need a permit. There is a background check and you must list the firearm to be carried. The permit specifies the lmited areas you can carry. In Indiana you fill out a form, pay a small fee and carry pretty much whatever you want whenever and wherever.

Hmmmm, sounds like there needs to be minimum standards to put my ideal law into place. I guess that would be the price to pay if you wanted a CCW to be treated like a DL.

It sure does, however, back up my point that CCWs in no way should be treated like marriage licenses. Thanks!

It sounds like you are using permits as stalking horses for gay marriage. It also sounds like you dont know what the hell you're talking about.

Then you need to get your hearing checked. I got tired of people saying "what about CCWs?" in threads about marriage licenses. CCWs should not be treated like marriage licenses as you so brilliantly pointed out. Well done sir!!

 

[danielpalos]

oh look; another gun lover without a clue or a Cause.

We know you hate the fact that, like all other anti-gun loons, you can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty -- but that's your problem, not ours.

if it were Only that, i would agree with you. unfortunately those of your point of view only have fallacy for your Cause and its effect is an appeal to ignorance of the law.

 

[danielpalos]

so should weapons qualification for well regulated militia.

Oh look... "Well regulated militia" nonsense.

oh look; another gun lover without a clue or a Cause.

I'd say M14Shooter has both in abundence. I'd say you are an ignorant boob.

so what; you aren't a True Judean.

 

[The Rabbi]

The difference in standards is obviously not enough for authorities in those states not to recognize each others' DLs.

And you're sure the difference in standards between CCW permits would also be so great? Can you give examples?

Yeah. In NYC you need to show good reason why you need a permit. There is a background check and you must list the firearm to be carried. The permit specifies the lmited areas you can carry. In Indiana you fill out a form, pay a small fee and carry pretty much whatever you want whenever and wherever.

Hmmmm, sounds like there needs to be minimum standards to put my ideal law into place. I guess that would be the price to pay if you wanted a CCW to be treated like a DL.

It sure does, however, back up my point that CCWs in no way should be treated like marriage licenses. Thanks!

It sounds like you are using permits as stalking horses for gay marriage. It also sounds like you dont know what the hell you're talking about.

Then you need to get your hearing checked. I got tired of people saying "what about CCWs?" in threads about marriage licenses. CCWs should not be treated like marriage licenses as you so brilliantly pointed out. Well done sir!!

There shouldnt be CCWs at all. The 2A already outlines what can be done in regard to carry. The Constitution doesnt say anything about marriage.
Check and mate.

 

[The Rabbi]

oh look; another gun lover without a clue or a Cause.

We know you hate the fact that, like all other anti-gun loons, you can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty -- but that's your problem, not ours.

if it were Only that, i would agree with you. unfortunately those of your point of view only have fallacy for your Cause and its effect is an appeal to ignorance of the law.

Your views violate the principles of the Dayton Accords.

 

[ogibillm]

Right now I could get a CCW in Utah, but not in New York, and I don't even live in Utah.

this is a problem for me. how can utah possibly issue a ccw for you? i mean i know they can and do for out of state people, i just don't understand how they can be sure the recipient meets the qualifications.

 

[danielpalos]

oh look; another gun lover without a clue or a Cause.

We know you hate the fact that, like all other anti-gun loons, you can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty -- but that's your problem, not ours.

if it were Only that, i would agree with you. unfortunately those of your point of view only have fallacy for your Cause and its effect is an appeal to ignorance of the law.

Your views violate the principles of the Dayton Accords.

I heard-said and sooth-said that Israelis really just need to acquire and possess some Judean janissaries from local natives who may conveniently need a city or two built.

And, we have a Second Amendment regarding what is necessary to the security (and presumably the domestic Tranquility) of a free State.

 

[WinterBorn]

oh look; another gun lover without a clue or a Cause.

We know you hate the fact that, like all other anti-gun loons, you can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty -- but that's your problem, not ours.

if it were Only that, i would agree with you. unfortunately those of your point of view only have fallacy for your Cause and its effect is an appeal to ignorance of the law.

No, it is not ignorance of any law. The Bill of Rights is specifically about protecting the rights of the individual. It is not about protecting state or federal rights. The founding fathers did indeed think about this. The saw the value of an armed population, out of which a ready militia could be formed.

The SCOTUS has ruled clearly that it is an individual right.

 

[M14 Shooter]

oh look; another gun lover without a clue or a Cause.

We know you hate the fact that, like all other anti-gun loons, you can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty -- but that's your problem, not ours.

if it were Only that, i would agree with you. unfortunately those of your point of view only have fallacy for your Cause and its effect is an appeal to ignorance of the law.

You have no idea what you're talking about, and you know it.

 

[RKMBrown]

I am of the belief that a CCW should be treated like a vehicle driver's license. If you are visiting a state, your CCW issued in your state should be legal and valid, just like your driver's license. If you move to a new state, you should have a set amount of time in which to get a new CCW issued by your new state.

CCW permits, in my opinion, should not be treated like a marriage licenses.

Opinions?

While I'm sorry for the folks that live in nazi like concentration camp cities and states in the liberal/progressive areas where the 2nd amendment is a joke, I like the way the gun laws are working in the free states.

 

[danielpalos]

oh look; another gun lover without a clue or a Cause.

We know you hate the fact that, like all other anti-gun loons, you can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty -- but that's your problem, not ours.

if it were Only that, i would agree with you. unfortunately those of your point of view only have fallacy for your Cause and its effect is an appeal to ignorance of the law.

No, it is not ignorance of any law. The Bill of Rights is specifically about protecting the rights of the individual. It is not about protecting state or federal rights. The founding fathers did indeed think about this. The saw the value of an armed population, out of which a ready militia could be formed.

The SCOTUS has ruled clearly that it is an individual right.

That was merely an open book test for Persons who may appeal to ignorance of the law; it can never be used by any juniors, as any form of precedent by our senior elders on the Judiciary.