House Weighs Bill to Make Gun Permits Valid Across State Lines

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

 

[The T]

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.

Correct.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

Correct.

They can kick the TSA off it's proprety.

 

[pgm]

I never said it did.

I am not the only one who took it that was what you meant.

Yes, I know. I slipped up with the Holocaust Museum comment. However, check out both my next reply and my first post.

Reply:

So people having guns means they will shoot everyone right?

Maybe if another citizen was armed those people would not have has the chance to kill as many. The ******* cops sure didn't stop it.

Unless you're going to start mandating that people carry guns, I don't see how you can guarantee that there will be another gun-carrying civilian at the scene.

Using the Holocaust Memorial shooting was a pretty shallow and blatant attempt at an appeal to emotion on my part, so I apologize for that. Let me back up.

To answer the original question, People should not necessarily be allowed to take a firearm wherever they choose to because there is an interest in protecting those who are not carrying firearms from irresponsible users. There is also an interest in protecting sensitive areas. In this case, I am referring to areas where public officials are and areas that are high-density with no outlet for escape.

So, now I'll ask you a question. Is there no location that should be deemed reasonable for a state to restrict firearms - even to those who are licensed to carry such firearms?

The examples I will offer as areas of reasonable restriction are government buildings, subways, schools and private property.

First post:

Anyway, this law makes some sense - especially for truckers (as was said earlier). The main concern I have is that it would make it a lot harder to track guns that may end up in the hands of criminals. I think a state has a right to know what guns are being brought into the state and by whom. I'm not sure how you address this exactly. Also, I'm sure there's already some legal responsibility to report stolen guns, but this becomes even more paramount if it's across state lines.

Anyway, that's my 2 cents.

I'll sum up my thoughts:
1) You have an absolute right to own a firearm and keep it on your property. This includes both your home and car.
2) If you enter private property that is not yours, it is at the discretion of the property owner whether or not you can bring your gun on that property (this includes stores).
3) If you have a permit to own a gun in one state, that permit should be valid in all states.
4) My only reservation with this is if two states have wildly different standards. For example, if state A allows convicted felons, the insane and people on a terrorist watch list to purchase guns, the people of state B have a reason to be concerned.
5) I don't think you have an inherent right to carrying a weapon in public. I certainly don't think you have a right to conceal that weapon. However, I'm open to the idea that this is protected under the 2nd Amendment.
6) I absolutely believe the people have the right to restrict where guns can be brought in public. However, this should be restricted as much as possible to areas where it's absolutely in the public interest.

I may have forgotten something.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I never said it did.

I am not the only one who took it that was what you meant.

Yes, I know. I slipped up with the Holocaust Museum comment. However, check out both my next reply and my first post.

Reply:

Unless you're going to start mandating that people carry guns, I don't see how you can guarantee that there will be another gun-carrying civilian at the scene.

Using the Holocaust Memorial shooting was a pretty shallow and blatant attempt at an appeal to emotion on my part, so I apologize for that. Let me back up.

To answer the original question, People should not necessarily be allowed to take a firearm wherever they choose to because there is an interest in protecting those who are not carrying firearms from irresponsible users. There is also an interest in protecting sensitive areas. In this case, I am referring to areas where public officials are and areas that are high-density with no outlet for escape.

So, now I'll ask you a question. Is there no location that should be deemed reasonable for a state to restrict firearms - even to those who are licensed to carry such firearms?

The examples I will offer as areas of reasonable restriction are government buildings, subways, schools and private property.

First post:

Anyway, this law makes some sense - especially for truckers (as was said earlier). The main concern I have is that it would make it a lot harder to track guns that may end up in the hands of criminals. I think a state has a right to know what guns are being brought into the state and by whom. I'm not sure how you address this exactly. Also, I'm sure there's already some legal responsibility to report stolen guns, but this becomes even more paramount if it's across state lines.

Anyway, that's my 2 cents.

I'll sum up my thoughts:
1) You have an absolute right to own a firearm and keep it on your property. This includes both your home and car.
2) If you enter private property that is not yours, it is at the discretion of the property owner whether or not you can bring your gun on that property (this includes stores).
3) If you have a permit to own a gun in one state, that permit should be valid in all states.
4) My only reservation with this is if two states have wildly different standards. For example, if state A allows convicted felons, the insane and people on a terrorist watch list to purchase guns, the people of state B have a reason to be concerned.
5) I don't think you have an inherent right to carrying a weapon in public. I certainly don't think you have a right to conceal that weapon. However, I'm open to the idea that this is protected under the 2nd Amendment.
6) I absolutely believe the people have the right to restrict where guns can be brought in public. However, this should be restricted as much as possible to areas where it's absolutely in the public interest.

I may have forgotten something.

Two things I disagree with

5) I don't think you have an inherent right to carrying a weapon in public. I certainly don't think you have a right to conceal that weapon. However, I'm open to the idea that this is protected under the 2nd Amendment.
6) I absolutely believe the people have the right to restrict where guns can be brought in public. However, this should be restricted as much as possible to areas where it's absolutely in the public interest.

Carrying in public is when you need a gun the most. Mass shooting victims from the past if they could speak would agree with me.

 

[The T]

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

Correct.

They can kick the TSA off it's proprety.

And some already have. Now that you have brought this up? The guy that designed the TSA thinks it should be disbanded and privatized. Imagine that?

/OT issue.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Correct.

They can kick the TSA off it's proprety.

And some already have. Now that you have brought this up? The guy that designed the TSA thinks it should be disbanded and privatized. Imagine that?

/OT issue.

What and shrink the government, in this economy?

 

[The T]

They can kick the TSA off it's proprety.

And some already have. Now that you have brought this up? The guy that designed the TSA thinks it should be disbanded and privatized. Imagine that?

/OT issue.

What and shrink the government, in this economy?

TSA Creator Says Dismantle, Privatize the Agency

They’ve been accused of rampant thievery, spending billions of dollars like drunken sailors, groping children and little old ladies, and making everyone take off their shoes.

But the real job of the tens of thousands of screeners at the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is to protect Americans from a terrorist attack.

Yet a decade after the TSA was created following the September 11 attacks, the author of the legislation that established the massive agency grades its performance at “D-.”

“The whole program has been hijacked by bureaucrats,” said Rep. John Mica (R. -Fla.), chairman of the House Transportation Committee.

“It mushroomed into an army,” Mica said. “It’s gone from a couple-billion-dollar enterprise to close to $9 billion.”

As for keeping the American public safe, Mica says, “They’ve failed to actually detect any threat in 10 years.”

 

[bigrebnc1775]

And some already have. Now that you have brought this up? The guy that designed the TSA thinks it should be disbanded and privatized. Imagine that?

/OT issue.

What and shrink the government, in this economy?

TSA Creator Says Dismantle, Privatize the Agency

They’ve been accused of rampant thievery, spending billions of dollars like drunken sailors, groping children and little old ladies, and making everyone take off their shoes.

But the real job of the tens of thousands of screeners at the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is to protect Americans from a terrorist attack.

Yet a decade after the TSA was created following the September 11 attacks, the author of the legislation that established the massive agency grades its performance at “D-.”

“The whole program has been hijacked by bureaucrats,” said Rep. John Mica (R. -Fla.), chairman of the House Transportation Committee.

“It mushroomed into an army,” Mica said. “It’s gone from a couple-billion-dollar enterprise to close to $9 billion.”

As for keeping the American public safe, Mica says, “They’ve failed to actually detect any threat in 10 years.”

Shocking

 

[pgm]

Carrying in public is when you need a gun the most. Mass shooting victims from the past if they could speak would agree with me.

I don't know a single instance of a mass shooting that was protected with a gun-carrying vigilante, but I could be wrong. That still won't change my point, though, that simply allowing people to carry guns in all instances won't guarantee that there will be someone with a gun.

Anyway, what I'm saying is that carrying a concealed weapon or carrying a weapon in public is not necessarily a right. I view it as a (reasonable) privilege that states grant certain citizens they deem to be responsible enough to carry these guns. But the state still should be able to restrict where it allows guns, such as my examples of state legislatures, schools and subways.

Now, a driver's license is a privilege that is valid across state lines, despite differing standards of tests and quality of drivers (I'm looking at you, Floridians). But I would argue that states should create reciprocity agreements between themselves for conceal-carry licenses.

I do have concerns about differing standards between states.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Carrying in public is when you need a gun the most. Mass shooting victims from the past if they could speak would agree with me.

I don't know a single instance of a mass shooting that was protected with a gun-carrying vigilante, but I could be wrong. That still won't change my point, though, that simply allowing people to carry guns in all instances won't guarantee that there will be someone with a gun.

Anyway, what I'm saying is that carrying a concealed weapon or carrying a weapon in public is not necessarily a right. I view it as a (reasonable) privilege that states grant certain citizens they deem to be responsible enough to carry these guns. But the state still should be able to restrict where it allows guns, such as my examples of state legislatures, schools and subways.

Now, a driver's license is a privilege that is valid across state lines, despite differing standards of tests and quality of drivers (I'm looking at you, Floridians). But I would argue that states should create reciprocity agreements between themselves for conceal-carry licenses.

I do have concerns about differing standards between states.

I don't know a single instance of a mass shooting that was protected with a gun-carrying vigilante, but I could be wrong.

OH you do realize gun grabbers are famous for using the word's "gun-carrying vigilante" You are bodering on the lines of gun grabber. I'll let that slide for now. The reason there weren't any law abiding citizens with guns because of the stegma from people like you. The bad guy really doesn't care about your feelings and will carry. So stop with the resatrictions and you will have less mass shootings.

 

[pgm]

OH you do realize gun grabbers are famous for using the word's "gun-carrying vigilante" You are bodering on the lines of gun grabber. I'll let that slide for now.

But vigilantes are cool - like batman and Zoro. Actually, I just didn't know what word to use for a guy who shoots a guy who is shooting people.

The reason there weren't any law abiding citizens with guns because of the stegma from people like you. The bad guy really doesn't care about your feelings and will carry. So stop with the resatrictions and you will have less mass shootings.

I think two people reasonable people can disagree about this. I think there are just people who don't want to carry guns and these people out number those who do want to carry guns with them. I think that's why we don't often see armed civilians shoot bad guys (but we do see it occasionally, particularly on private property). As evidence of my point of view, I put forward that there have been mass shootings in states that allow concealed weapons and where gun ownership has less of a stigma than in the Northeast (where I'm from).

 

[bigrebnc1775]

OH you do realize gun grabbers are famous for using the word's "gun-carrying vigilante" You are bodering on the lines of gun grabber. I'll let that slide for now.

But vigilantes are cool - like batman and Zoro. Actually, I just didn't know what word to use for a guy who shoots a guy who is shooting people.

The reason there weren't any law abiding citizens with guns because of the stegma from people like you. The bad guy really doesn't care about your feelings and will carry. So stop with the resatrictions and you will have less mass shootings.

I think two people reasonable people can disagree about this. I think there are just people who don't want to carry guns and these people out number those who do want to carry guns with them. I think that's why we don't often see armed civilians shoot bad guys (but we do see it occasionally, particularly on private property). As evidence of my point of view, I put forward that there have been mass shootings in states that allow concealed weapons and where gun ownership has less of a stigma than in the Northeast (where I'm from).

But vigilantes are cool - like batman and Zoro. Actually, I just didn't know what word to use for a guy who shoots a guy who is shooting people.

How about an American citizen doing the right thing?

I think two people reasonable people can disagree about this. I think there are just people who don't want to carry guns and these people out number those who do want to carry guns with them. I think that's why we don't often see armed civilians shoot bad guys (but we do see it occasionally, particularly on private property). As evidence of my point of view, I put forward that there have been mass shootings in states that allow concealed weapons and where gun ownership has less of a stigma than in the Northeast (where I'm from

It's still the stigma from people when they see someone with a gun.

 

[pgm]

How about an American citizen doing the right thing?

That's not as catchy.

It's still the stigma from people when they see someone with a gun.

I think if I saw someone carrying a gun on his/her belt, I'd probably assume he/she was a cop.

Anyway, do you believe the interest in carrying a gun in public for safety outweighs all other public interests?

 

[Contumacious]

Anyway, do you believe the interest in carrying a gun in public for safety outweighs all other public interests?

I have a right to life and to defend the same.

But you are inferring that's there is a greater "public" interest which outweighs my right.........hummmmmmmmm........what could that be?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!?

.

 

[uscitizen]

So, I, as part of the "milita" should have the same rights as they do when they are not on duty. I should be able to carry the same weapon they do when not on duty, in the same places they do.

If someone wants to restrict my right to an arms, it should be across the board, no favorites.

You are part of an armed govt agency?

a part of the unorganized militia.

Why I wonder do I not feel any safer now that I know that?

 

[uscitizen]

I never said it did.

I am not the only one who took it that was what you meant.

Yes, I know. I slipped up with the Holocaust Museum comment. However, check out both my next reply and my first post.

Reply:

Unless you're going to start mandating that people carry guns, I don't see how you can guarantee that there will be another gun-carrying civilian at the scene.

Using the Holocaust Memorial shooting was a pretty shallow and blatant attempt at an appeal to emotion on my part, so I apologize for that. Let me back up.

To answer the original question, People should not necessarily be allowed to take a firearm wherever they choose to because there is an interest in protecting those who are not carrying firearms from irresponsible users. There is also an interest in protecting sensitive areas. In this case, I am referring to areas where public officials are and areas that are high-density with no outlet for escape.

So, now I'll ask you a question. Is there no location that should be deemed reasonable for a state to restrict firearms - even to those who are licensed to carry such firearms?

The examples I will offer as areas of reasonable restriction are government buildings, subways, schools and private property.

First post:

Anyway, this law makes some sense - especially for truckers (as was said earlier). The main concern I have is that it would make it a lot harder to track guns that may end up in the hands of criminals. I think a state has a right to know what guns are being brought into the state and by whom. I'm not sure how you address this exactly. Also, I'm sure there's already some legal responsibility to report stolen guns, but this becomes even more paramount if it's across state lines.

Anyway, that's my 2 cents.

I'll sum up my thoughts:
1) You have an absolute right to own a firearm and keep it on your property. This includes both your home and car.
2) If you enter private property that is not yours, it is at the discretion of the property owner whether or not you can bring your gun on that property (this includes stores).
3) If you have a permit to own a gun in one state, that permit should be valid in all states.
4) My only reservation with this is if two states have wildly different standards. For example, if state A allows convicted felons, the insane and people on a terrorist watch list to purchase guns, the people of state B have a reason to be concerned.
5) I don't think you have an inherent right to carrying a weapon in public. I certainly don't think you have a right to conceal that weapon. However, I'm open to the idea that this is protected under the 2nd Amendment.
6) I absolutely believe the people have the right to restrict where guns can be brought in public. However, this should be restricted as much as possible to areas where it's absolutely in the public interest.

I may have forgotten something.

You car is not a home.

 

[Contumacious]

You car is not a home.

I see, so my life is not worth defending when I am driving.............why?

.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I am not the only one who took it that was what you meant.

Yes, I know. I slipped up with the Holocaust Museum comment. However, check out both my next reply and my first post.

Reply:



First post:

Anyway, this law makes some sense - especially for truckers (as was said earlier). The main concern I have is that it would make it a lot harder to track guns that may end up in the hands of criminals. I think a state has a right to know what guns are being brought into the state and by whom. I'm not sure how you address this exactly. Also, I'm sure there's already some legal responsibility to report stolen guns, but this becomes even more paramount if it's across state lines.

Anyway, that's my 2 cents.

I'll sum up my thoughts:
1) You have an absolute right to own a firearm and keep it on your property. This includes both your home and car.
2) If you enter private property that is not yours, it is at the discretion of the property owner whether or not you can bring your gun on that property (this includes stores).
3) If you have a permit to own a gun in one state, that permit should be valid in all states.
4) My only reservation with this is if two states have wildly different standards. For example, if state A allows convicted felons, the insane and people on a terrorist watch list to purchase guns, the people of state B have a reason to be concerned.
5) I don't think you have an inherent right to carrying a weapon in public. I certainly don't think you have a right to conceal that weapon. However, I'm open to the idea that this is protected under the 2nd Amendment.
6) I absolutely believe the people have the right to restrict where guns can be brought in public. However, this should be restricted as much as possible to areas where it's absolutely in the public interest.

I may have forgotten something.

You car is not a home.

For some in this obama economy yes for some their car is thei home.

 

[uscitizen]

You car is not a home.

I see, so my life is not worth defending when I am driving.............why?

.

Whether your life is worth defending anytime is open to debate.

but that was not my point.
why is your life not worth defending while flying on a plane?