Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
You're speaking f what should be. I should be able to tke my firearm with me wherever I go in this country. I should be able to carry it loaded anywhere with very limited exceptions.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.
If the states can agree on basic needs for a driver's license, they can agree on basic requirements for a CCW, and then quibble on the finer points.
The recognition of the CCW is so a person isn't arrested for felony gun possession when they legally own the weapon. If a state wants to require additional training and an endorsement on the CCW, that would be fine, but violating that would be a ticket and a fine, not a felony.
But that isnt the world we live in. States that want to restrict RKBA are legally within their powers to do so, depending on this restriction. And they are entitled to their folly and stupidity. There is a big difference between illegal andbad policy.
Since we're discussing the exercise of a right (as opposed to the exercise of the privilege granted by a DL)...If the states can agree on basic needs for a driver's license, they can agree on basic requirements for a CCW, and then quibble on the finer points.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.
A state should be required to show that the CCW from another state does not meet the reasonable requirements for same -- that is, if a state has stricter requirements for its own CCW and it wants to not recognize the CCW from another state. it needs to show that the stronger standards are necessary to met a compelling state interest not covered by the lesser standards that other state.
That would be funny.Since we're discussing the exercise of a right (as opposed to the exercise of the privilege granted by a DL)...If the states can agree on basic needs for a driver's license, they can agree on basic requirements for a CCW, and then quibble on the finer points.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.
A state should be required to show that the CCW from another state does not meet the reasonable requirements for same -- that is, if a state has stricter requirements for its own CCW and it wants to not recognize the CCW from another state. it needs to show that the stronger standards are necessary to met a compelling state interest not covered by the lesser standards that other state.
Do you think states should be forced to accept same sex marriages from other states too?
Yes. Either states have to recognize the legal marriage of another state or they don't. If 40 year old Bubba marries his 15 year old 1st cousin Mary Sue, they are married in all 50 states...even if they don't allow 1st cousins or 15 year olds to marry.
The "May Issue" laws are IMO clearly unconstutitional. You do not need a reason to exercise a right. The law should be challenged in NY and overturned. But NY state has other problems. It is a county by county issue with a patchwork of laws so a permit good in one county may not be in the next countyYou're speaking f what should be. I should be able to tke my firearm with me wherever I go in this country. I should be able to carry it loaded anywhere with very limited exceptions.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.
If the states can agree on basic needs for a driver's license, they can agree on basic requirements for a CCW, and then quibble on the finer points.
The recognition of the CCW is so a person isn't arrested for felony gun possession when they legally own the weapon. If a state wants to require additional training and an endorsement on the CCW, that would be fine, but violating that would be a ticket and a fine, not a felony.
But that isnt the world we live in. States that want to restrict RKBA are legally within their powers to do so, depending on this restriction. And they are entitled to their folly and stupidity. There is a big difference between illegal andbad policy.
I agree that in an ideal world a law abiding person shouldn't need a permit for CCW, but we are in a far from ideal world.
What I want is my base rights back, such as my ability to not have to explain myself to the NYPD that I want a CCW. We can work on the next steps later. (The next steps in NY being a reduction of the crazy cost of a CCW, and the inane mag limits).
A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. -Mill.Do you think states should be forced to accept same sex marriages from other states too?
Yes. Either states have to recognize the legal marriage of another state or they don't. If 40 year old Bubba marries his 15 year old 1st cousin Mary Sue, they are married in all 50 states...even if they don't allow 1st cousins or 15 year olds to marry.
I can appreciate the consistency of that position. Thank you.
Do you believe that states should have to accept and recognize a CCW from another state?I can appreciate the consistency of that position. Thank you.Yes. Either states have to recognize the legal marriage of another state or they don't. If 40 year old Bubba marries his 15 year old 1st cousin Mary Sue, they are married in all 50 states...even if they don't allow 1st cousins or 15 year olds to marry.Do you think states should be forced to accept same sex marriages from other states too?
The "May Issue" laws are IMO clearly unconstutitional. You do not need a reason to exercise a right. The law should be challenged in NY and overturned. But NY state has other problems. It is a county by county issue with a patchwork of laws so a permit good in one county may not be in the next countyYou're speaking f what should be. I should be able to tke my firearm with me wherever I go in this country. I should be able to carry it loaded anywhere with very limited exceptions.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.
If the states can agree on basic needs for a driver's license, they can agree on basic requirements for a CCW, and then quibble on the finer points.
The recognition of the CCW is so a person isn't arrested for felony gun possession when they legally own the weapon. If a state wants to require additional training and an endorsement on the CCW, that would be fine, but violating that would be a ticket and a fine, not a felony.
But that isnt the world we live in. States that want to restrict RKBA are legally within their powers to do so, depending on this restriction. And they are entitled to their folly and stupidity. There is a big difference between illegal andbad policy.
I agree that in an ideal world a law abiding person shouldn't need a permit for CCW, but we are in a far from ideal world.
What I want is my base rights back, such as my ability to not have to explain myself to the NYPD that I want a CCW. We can work on the next steps later. (The next steps in NY being a reduction of the crazy cost of a CCW, and the inane mag limits).
Do you believe that states should have to accept and recognize a CCW from another state?I can appreciate the consistency of that position. Thank you.Yes. Either states have to recognize the legal marriage of another state or they don't. If 40 year old Bubba marries his 15 year old 1st cousin Mary Sue, they are married in all 50 states...even if they don't allow 1st cousins or 15 year olds to marry.Do you think states should be forced to accept same sex marriages from other states too?
The "May Issue" laws are IMO clearly unconstutitional. You do not need a reason to exercise a right. The law should be challenged in NY and overturned. But NY state has other problems. It is a county by county issue with a patchwork of laws so a permit good in one county may not be in the next countyYou're speaking f what should be. I should be able to tke my firearm with me wherever I go in this country. I should be able to carry it loaded anywhere with very limited exceptions.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.
If the states can agree on basic needs for a driver's license, they can agree on basic requirements for a CCW, and then quibble on the finer points.
The recognition of the CCW is so a person isn't arrested for felony gun possession when they legally own the weapon. If a state wants to require additional training and an endorsement on the CCW, that would be fine, but violating that would be a ticket and a fine, not a felony.
But that isnt the world we live in. States that want to restrict RKBA are legally within their powers to do so, depending on this restriction. And they are entitled to their folly and stupidity. There is a big difference between illegal andbad policy.
I agree that in an ideal world a law abiding person shouldn't need a permit for CCW, but we are in a far from ideal world.
What I want is my base rights back, such as my ability to not have to explain myself to the NYPD that I want a CCW. We can work on the next steps later. (The next steps in NY being a reduction of the crazy cost of a CCW, and the inane mag limits).
The "May Issue" laws are IMO clearly unconstutitional. You do not need a reason to exercise a right. The law should be challenged in NY and overturned. But NY state has other problems. It is a county by county issue with a patchwork of laws so a permit good in one county may not be in the next countyYou're speaking f what should be. I should be able to tke my firearm with me wherever I go in this country. I should be able to carry it loaded anywhere with very limited exceptions.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.
If the states can agree on basic needs for a driver's license, they can agree on basic requirements for a CCW, and then quibble on the finer points.
The recognition of the CCW is so a person isn't arrested for felony gun possession when they legally own the weapon. If a state wants to require additional training and an endorsement on the CCW, that would be fine, but violating that would be a ticket and a fine, not a felony.
But that isnt the world we live in. States that want to restrict RKBA are legally within their powers to do so, depending on this restriction. And they are entitled to their folly and stupidity. There is a big difference between illegal andbad policy.
I agree that in an ideal world a law abiding person shouldn't need a permit for CCW, but we are in a far from ideal world.
What I want is my base rights back, such as my ability to not have to explain myself to the NYPD that I want a CCW. We can work on the next steps later. (The next steps in NY being a reduction of the crazy cost of a CCW, and the inane mag limits).
Indeed. "May" issue has been struck down in those states where it has been litigated. The other issue (as in states that are abolishing licensing and permits) is that "Either a "right" is a right or it is not" If it is a "right" it shall not be infringed. Permits and a license are all infringements on the "right".
Those arent comparable. At all.The "May Issue" laws are IMO clearly unconstutitional. You do not need a reason to exercise a right. The law should be challenged in NY and overturned. But NY state has other problems. It is a county by county issue with a patchwork of laws so a permit good in one county may not be in the next countyYou're speaking f what should be. I should be able to tke my firearm with me wherever I go in this country. I should be able to carry it loaded anywhere with very limited exceptions.If the states can agree on basic needs for a driver's license, they can agree on basic requirements for a CCW, and then quibble on the finer points.
The recognition of the CCW is so a person isn't arrested for felony gun possession when they legally own the weapon. If a state wants to require additional training and an endorsement on the CCW, that would be fine, but violating that would be a ticket and a fine, not a felony.
But that isnt the world we live in. States that want to restrict RKBA are legally within their powers to do so, depending on this restriction. And they are entitled to their folly and stupidity. There is a big difference between illegal andbad policy.
I agree that in an ideal world a law abiding person shouldn't need a permit for CCW, but we are in a far from ideal world.
What I want is my base rights back, such as my ability to not have to explain myself to the NYPD that I want a CCW. We can work on the next steps later. (The next steps in NY being a reduction of the crazy cost of a CCW, and the inane mag limits).
Indeed. "May" issue has been struck down in those states where it has been litigated. The other issue (as in states that are abolishing licensing and permits) is that "Either a "right" is a right or it is not" If it is a "right" it shall not be infringed. Permits and a license are all infringements on the "right".
Tell that to the guy who has to get a permit for his parade or demonstration.
Time, place, and manner restrictions have long since been accepted - right or wrong.
Those arent comparable. At all.The "May Issue" laws are IMO clearly unconstutitional. You do not need a reason to exercise a right. The law should be challenged in NY and overturned. But NY state has other problems. It is a county by county issue with a patchwork of laws so a permit good in one county may not be in the next countyYou're speaking f what should be. I should be able to tke my firearm with me wherever I go in this country. I should be able to carry it loaded anywhere with very limited exceptions.
But that isnt the world we live in. States that want to restrict RKBA are legally within their powers to do so, depending on this restriction. And they are entitled to their folly and stupidity. There is a big difference between illegal andbad policy.
I agree that in an ideal world a law abiding person shouldn't need a permit for CCW, but we are in a far from ideal world.
What I want is my base rights back, such as my ability to not have to explain myself to the NYPD that I want a CCW. We can work on the next steps later. (The next steps in NY being a reduction of the crazy cost of a CCW, and the inane mag limits).
Indeed. "May" issue has been struck down in those states where it has been litigated. The other issue (as in states that are abolishing licensing and permits) is that "Either a "right" is a right or it is not" If it is a "right" it shall not be infringed. Permits and a license are all infringements on the "right".
Tell that to the guy who has to get a permit for his parade or demonstration.
Time, place, and manner restrictions have long since been accepted - right or wrong.
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?
Yes... but these all have to do with the exercise of a right on public property normally used by the general public for other purposes.Tell that to the guy who has to get a permit for his parade or demonstration.
Time, place, and manner restrictions have long since been accepted - right or wrong.
Those arent comparable. At all.The "May Issue" laws are IMO clearly unconstutitional. You do not need a reason to exercise a right. The law should be challenged in NY and overturned. But NY state has other problems. It is a county by county issue with a patchwork of laws so a permit good in one county may not be in the next countyI agree that in an ideal world a law abiding person shouldn't need a permit for CCW, but we are in a far from ideal world.
What I want is my base rights back, such as my ability to not have to explain myself to the NYPD that I want a CCW. We can work on the next steps later. (The next steps in NY being a reduction of the crazy cost of a CCW, and the inane mag limits).
Indeed. "May" issue has been struck down in those states where it has been litigated. The other issue (as in states that are abolishing licensing and permits) is that "Either a "right" is a right or it is not" If it is a "right" it shall not be infringed. Permits and a license are all infringements on the "right".
Tell that to the guy who has to get a permit for his parade or demonstration.
Time, place, and manner restrictions have long since been accepted - right or wrong.
Of course they are.
List your distinctions.
Yes... but these all have to do with the exercise of a right on public property normally used by the public for other purposes.Tell that to the guy who has to get a permit for his parade or demonstration.
Time, place, and manner restrictions have long since been accepted - right or wrong.
Those arent comparable. At all.The "May Issue" laws are IMO clearly unconstutitional. You do not need a reason to exercise a right. The law should be challenged in NY and overturned. But NY state has other problems. It is a county by county issue with a patchwork of laws so a permit good in one county may not be in the next county
Indeed. "May" issue has been struck down in those states where it has been litigated. The other issue (as in states that are abolishing licensing and permits) is that "Either a "right" is a right or it is not" If it is a "right" it shall not be infringed. Permits and a license are all infringements on the "right".
Tell that to the guy who has to get a permit for his parade or demonstration.
Time, place, and manner restrictions have long since been accepted - right or wrong.
Of course they are.
List your distinctions.
Be glad to. You have the right to speak anywhere you like. Say whatever the hell you want. However, when you are going to do it in large groups, at one time, considerations such as traffic, police, cleanup must be taken into account. Not one soul is denying your right to gather and speak. No one. Now, do those in power use that as a means to "control" the process - you bet. Just like they have done with the 2nd for the last 75 years. Difference? Litigation - and a powerful lobby with powerful attorneys.
Those arent comparable. At all.The "May Issue" laws are IMO clearly unconstutitional. You do not need a reason to exercise a right. The law should be challenged in NY and overturned. But NY state has other problems. It is a county by county issue with a patchwork of laws so a permit good in one county may not be in the next county
Indeed. "May" issue has been struck down in those states where it has been litigated. The other issue (as in states that are abolishing licensing and permits) is that "Either a "right" is a right or it is not" If it is a "right" it shall not be infringed. Permits and a license are all infringements on the "right".
Tell that to the guy who has to get a permit for his parade or demonstration.
Time, place, and manner restrictions have long since been accepted - right or wrong.
Of course they are.
List your distinctions.
Be glad to. You have the right to speak anywhere you like. Say whatever the hell you want. However, when you are going to do it in large groups, at one time, considerations such as traffic, police, cleanup must be taken into account. Not one soul is denying your right to gather and speak. No one. Now, do those in power use that as a means to "control" the process - you bet. Just like they have done with the 2nd for the last 75 years. Difference? Litigation - and a powerful lobby with powerful attorneys.
