House Weighs Bill to Make Gun Permits Valid Across State Lines

[The T]

What ever happened to reciprosity between States like Driver's licenses?

The FED shouldn't be involved at all.

Driving is not a right enumerated in the constitution. All the Feds are doing here is protecting ones right to bear arms just like the federal government protects any other right like speech, religion, etc.

I agree with you here.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

And you say you don't fear a person carrying a firearm in a holster? Your questions would lead me to believe you do. I see nothing wrong with a person carying a holstered firearm in any of those places.Why should you?

Oh, I guess I misinterpreted what you meant by "fear." When I see someone carrying a gun in a holster, I have no immediate visceral fear of him and no immediate desire to flee or protect myself. I'd consider moving away from him depending on where I was and what I'm doing, but that's not necessarily fear, just a reasonable precaution.

However, I do fear a crazy person with a gun and a license to carry that gun walking into Congress and shooting our leadership. In Delaware, I can visit the statehouse when it is in session and not be under surveillance past the gate. With the legal ability to carry a gun into the legislature, there would literally be nothing in the way from mass assassination (well, except if I decided to come during the half of the year when it's not in session).

Do I need to talk about all the crazy gunmen who had licenses? Anders Brevik, for example?

Thats why more people should carry to take care of those crazy people you fear.

 

[editec]

If you're going to do THAT, then why bother with gun permits AT ALL?

You want to carry?

Carry.

 

[Skull Pilot]

If you're going to do THAT, then why bother with gun permits AT ALL?

You want to carry?

Carry.

Exactly my point.

Every other right enumerated in the Constitution is protected across state lines without having to pay the fucking government a fee for a permit, why not gun ownership?

 

[Contumacious]

What ever happened to reciprosity between States like Driver's licenses?

The FED shouldn't be involved at all.

Driving is not a right enumerated in the constitution. All the Feds are doing here is protecting ones right to bear arms just like the federal government protects any other right like speech, religion, etc.

The purpose of the Constitution is not to enumerate our rights. It is understood that we have 100% of rights.

Its purpose is to specifically enumerate the government's authority.

.

 

[Skull Pilot]

What ever happened to reciprosity between States like Driver's licenses?

The FED shouldn't be involved at all.

Driving is not a right enumerated in the constitution. All the Feds are doing here is protecting ones right to bear arms just like the federal government protects any other right like speech, religion, etc.

The purpose of the Constitution is not to enumerate our rights. It is understood that we have 100% of rights.

Its purpose is to specifically enumerate the government's authority.

.

We obviously do not have 100% of all rights listed in the constitution if one can be denied the ability to carry a weapon.

 

[editec]

Okay the question is do we believe in STATE AUTHORITY or don't we?


We KNOW what the FEDERAL government's authority is regarding guns. It is found in the second amendment.

But are we now of the opinion that the STATES have no authority over gun owership?


I am asking for a clarification of this POV.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Okay the question is do we believe in STATE AUTHORITY or don't we?


We KNOW what the FEDERAL government's authority is regarding guns. It is found in the second amendment.

But are we now of the opinion that the STATES have no authority over gun owership?


I am asking for a clarification of this POV.

The state does not have the authority to deny rights listed in the Constitution does it?

If the state had that power then it could require and grant or deny permits for any and all activities related to our Constitutional rights.

How about a permit to blog about the government, a permit to attend a church, a permit to ensure your protection from unwarranted searches etc.?

 

[pgm]

When you say schools do you mean elementary and high schools? I have no problem with teachers carrying and those under the age of 18 should not be allowed to carry simply because they are not of legal age.

I don't see why subways are a problem if people can carry on the street why not a subway?

In fact the only place I agree with you is private property. The owner of a property can allow people with weapons or not as he sees fit.

As for schools, teachers are one thing because they go through extensive background checks and if we feel it's safe to leave these people with our children unarmed, having them armed isn't a stretch. But, how about parents and visitors?

I already explained my main objection to subways. That's probably an area where we'll have to agree to disagree. I believe the state should have the ability to restrict the presence of guns in certain areas in order to maintain public safety. I view it as you have an absolute right to own and keep a gun on your property. After that, things get pretty fuzzy right until the point where you enter someone else's property, at which point you absolutely no longer have the right to carry a gun.

You left out government building, btw.

Oh, to clarify my stance on guns further, I think governments are on extremely dubious grounds when they deny gun permits to citizens who maintain their rights (unlike felons). But I think the sale of guns should be regulated (with strict registration requirements for guns). Also, I think the people have an interest in restricting guns to certain locations.

 

[Skull Pilot]

When you say schools do you mean elementary and high schools? I have no problem with teachers carrying and those under the age of 18 should not be allowed to carry simply because they are not of legal age.

I don't see why subways are a problem if people can carry on the street why not a subway?

In fact the only place I agree with you is private property. The owner of a property can allow people with weapons or not as he sees fit.

As for schools, teachers are one thing because they go through extensive background checks and if we feel it's safe to leave these people with our children unarmed, having them armed isn't a stretch. But, how about parents and visitors?

I already explained my main objection to subways. That's probably an area where we'll have to agree to disagree. I believe the state should have the ability to restrict the presence of guns in certain areas in order to maintain public safety. I view it as you have an absolute right to own and keep a gun on your property. After that, things get pretty fuzzy right until the point where you enter someone else's property, at which point you absolutely no longer have the right to carry a gun.

You left out government building, btw.

Oh, to clarify my stance on guns further, I think governments are on extremely dubious grounds when they deny gun permits to citizens who maintain their rights (unlike felons). But I think the sale of guns should be regulated (with strict registration requirements for guns). Also, I think the people have an interest in restricting guns to certain locations.

There is no proof that restricting gun possession on a subway will increase public safety.

I have no problem with anyone of legal age carrying a weapon anywhere at anytime in public or in public buildings.

 

[editec]

Okay the question is do we believe in STATE AUTHORITY or don't we?


We KNOW what the FEDERAL government's authority is regarding guns. It is found in the second amendment.

But are we now of the opinion that the STATES have no authority over gun owership?


I am asking for a clarification of this POV.

The state does not have the authority to deny rights listed in the Constitution does it?

If the state had that power then it could require and grant or deny permits for any and all activities related to our Constitutional rights.

How about a permit to blog about the government, a permit to attend a church, a permit to ensure your protection from unwarranted searches etc.?

So it is your POV that the states have NO RIGHT to regulate gun ownership?

No right at all?

If that is the case then WHY does the second amendment SPECIFICALLY address STATE MILITIAs?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Okay the question is do we believe in STATE AUTHORITY or don't we?


We KNOW what the FEDERAL government's authority is regarding guns. It is found in the second amendment.

But are we now of the opinion that the STATES have no authority over gun owership?


I am asking for a clarification of this POV.

The state does not have the authority to deny rights listed in the Constitution does it?

If the state had that power then it could require and grant or deny permits for any and all activities related to our Constitutional rights.

How about a permit to blog about the government, a permit to attend a church, a permit to ensure your protection from unwarranted searches etc.?

The state does not have the authority to deny rights listed in the Constitution does it?

Exactly if the states did not grant the feds the authority then it's a states issue. When gay marriage is added to the bill of rights then the states will have given the FEDS authority on that issue untilk then it's a state issue.

 

[pgm]

If that is the case then WHY does the second amendment SPECIFICALLY address STATE MILITIAs?

Who knows? The 2nd Amendment is a grammatical mess. However, from the beginning, it referred to gun ownership for civilians. It was based out of English common law, but with less restrictions than the English had to deal with.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Okay the question is do we believe in STATE AUTHORITY or don't we?


We KNOW what the FEDERAL government's authority is regarding guns. It is found in the second amendment.

But are we now of the opinion that the STATES have no authority over gun owership?


I am asking for a clarification of this POV.

The state does not have the authority to deny rights listed in the Constitution does it?

If the state had that power then it could require and grant or deny permits for any and all activities related to our Constitutional rights.

How about a permit to blog about the government, a permit to attend a church, a permit to ensure your protection from unwarranted searches etc.?

So it is your POV that the states have NO RIGHT to regulate gun ownership?

No right at all?

If that is the case then WHY does the second amendment SPECIFICALLY address STATE MILITIAs?

It addressed not just as a single state but the people as a whole.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

You are confusing yourself

 

[Contumacious]

But are we now of the opinion that the STATES have no authority over gun owership?

.

What kind of "authority" do we need the states to exercise over a tool which I use to defend my life?!?!?!?!?!?!?


.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Okay the question is do we believe in STATE AUTHORITY or don't we?


We KNOW what the FEDERAL government's authority is regarding guns. It is found in the second amendment.

But are we now of the opinion that the STATES have no authority over gun owership?


I am asking for a clarification of this POV.

States incorporated Heller V DC.....McDonald V Chicago

 

[Skull Pilot]

Okay the question is do we believe in STATE AUTHORITY or don't we?


We KNOW what the FEDERAL government's authority is regarding guns. It is found in the second amendment.

But are we now of the opinion that the STATES have no authority over gun owership?


I am asking for a clarification of this POV.

The state does not have the authority to deny rights listed in the Constitution does it?

If the state had that power then it could require and grant or deny permits for any and all activities related to our Constitutional rights.

How about a permit to blog about the government, a permit to attend a church, a permit to ensure your protection from unwarranted searches etc.?

So it is your POV that the states have NO RIGHT to regulate gun ownership?

No right at all?

If that is the case then WHY does the second amendment SPECIFICALLY address STATE MILITIAs?

I do not believe that the states can deny or impede any citizen the free and unlimited exercise of any of their rights enumerated in the Constitution.

The militia could not exist if not for the people being armed.

Regulated and supplied are two different things. Regulated refers to organization chain of command etc does it not?

The last line is still: The peoples' right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

I take that as meaning a militia could not exist if the people weren't armed.

 

[Missourian]

Okay the question is do we believe in STATE AUTHORITY or don't we?


We KNOW what the FEDERAL government's authority is regarding guns. It is found in the second amendment.

But are we now of the opinion that the STATES have no authority over gun owership?


I am asking for a clarification of this POV.

The state does not have the authority to deny rights listed in the Constitution does it?

If the state had that power then it could require and grant or deny permits for any and all activities related to our Constitutional rights.

How about a permit to blog about the government, a permit to attend a church, a permit to ensure your protection from unwarranted searches etc.?

The state does not have the authority to deny rights listed in the Constitution does it?

Exactly if the states did not grant the feds the authority then it's a states issue. When gay marriage is added to the bill of rights then the states will have given the FEDS authority on that issue untilk then it's a state issue.

I disagree Reb.

I didn't read the whole thread, just the first and last page so I apologize if this was already covered.

This becomes a Federal issue under the Privileges and Immunities Clause... "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States."

This was already covered somewhat by Federal Law under Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 44, § 926A:

Notwithstanding any other provision of any law or any rule or regulation of a State or any political subdivision thereof, any person who is not otherwise prohibited by this chapter from transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm shall be entitled to transport a firearm for any lawful purpose from any place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm to any other place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm if, during such transportation the firearm is unloaded, and neither the firearm nor any ammunition being transported is readily accessible or is directly accessible from the passenger compartment of such transporting vehicle: Provided, That in the case of a vehicle without a compartment separate from the driver’s compartment the firearm or ammunition shall be contained in a locked container other than the glove compartment or console.
​

Meaning, I have the right to transport my firearm in any state in the manner prescribed, in spite of any state or local law.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The state does not have the authority to deny rights listed in the Constitution does it?

If the state had that power then it could require and grant or deny permits for any and all activities related to our Constitutional rights.

How about a permit to blog about the government, a permit to attend a church, a permit to ensure your protection from unwarranted searches etc.?

The state does not have the authority to deny rights listed in the Constitution does it?

Exactly if the states did not grant the feds the authority then it's a states issue. When gay marriage is added to the bill of rights then the states will have given the FEDS authority on that issue untilk then it's a state issue.

I disagree Reb.

I didn't read the whole thread, just the first and last page so I apologize if this was already covered.

This becomes a Federal issue under the Privileges and Immunities Clause... "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States."

This was already covered somewhat by Federal Law under Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 44, § 926A:

Notwithstanding any other provision of any law or any rule or regulation of a State or any political subdivision thereof, any person who is not otherwise prohibited by this chapter from transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm shall be entitled to transport a firearm for any lawful purpose from any place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm to any other place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm if, during such transportation the firearm is unloaded, and neither the firearm nor any ammunition being transported is readily accessible or is directly accessible from the passenger compartment of such transporting vehicle: Provided, That in the case of a vehicle without a compartment separate from the driver’s compartment the firearm or ammunition shall be contained in a locked container other than the glove compartment or console.
​

Meaning, I have the right to transport my firearm in any state in the manner prescribed, in spite of any state or local law.

This just goes with what I was saying

 

[Polk]

You should try bring a gun on your next trip through airport security. If they stop you, tell them you're just exercising your rights.

An airport is private proprety they can have any kind of restriction they want to have.

Except that most airports aren't private property.

Hartsfield-Jackson and LAX is owned by the city.
BWI is owned by the state of Maryland.
Logan, JFK, and LaGuardia are owned by their local port authorities.
Dulles and Reagan are co-owned by Virginia and DC.