House Weighs Bill to Make Gun Permits Valid Across State Lines

[bigrebnc1775]

He is depressed, has concluded that his life is not worth defending, his mind is enslaved and is wondering why you are acting differently?

.

I act differently because I refuse to be a victim

Ahh but you choose to be a victim. Not of gunplay but none the less a victim.

I choose to carry because I can carry, I refuse to be a victim.

 

[pgm]

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?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!?

.

So, you're saying you have a right to a concealed weapon and a right to bring a gun into any public school or government building?

You car is not a home.

I view this especially in the case of a trucker who could be literally subject to highway robbery. I think if he is licensed to carry a gun, he should be able to keep that gun in his truck. I think it's reasonable to transfer that to any driver on the road.

 

[Contumacious]

Yet no one ever ponders how many uneventful flights occur because there are no firearms on the plane. C'mon, you know it's true.

OK Vern, how many "eventful" flights occurred prior to 1965?!?!?!?!?!?!!?!?!?!?!?

.

I honestly don't know, I can't honestly say that there definitely would have been incidents had firearms been allowed on airplanes all these years. At the same rate you can't really say things would have been different for the better on 9/11 had it not been against the law.

It wasn't against the law. It was against the rules imposed by the thugs employed by the Continuing Criminal Enterprise known as the US of A.

Had you been armed in any of those planes , ywould you have sat idly by while the perpetrators flew the planes towards their intended targets?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

.

 

[bobcollum]

Lucky woman if the shooter was intent on shooting up the place what then? That woman didn't have to be a victim if she would have been armed

From what I've read he walked in visibly armed. If she had drawn a weapon in his view she would have gotten shot with the intent to prevent her from firing, so probably not as lucky as a leg.

Would've should could've bullshit. When you carry a firearm handgun it should be holstered when you carry a rifle iit should be attached to a sling and carried on your shoulder. If the shooter was carring any other way his intention will be in question

A tough line considering your last point was a "would have".

 

[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?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!?

.

So, you're saying you have a right to a concealed weapon and a right to bring a gun into any public school or government building?

Yes, indeed . For the time being, until you come up with a device or system which can predict with a 100 % degree of certainty that my life is safe at any given location.

.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

From what I've read he walked in visibly armed. If she had drawn a weapon in his view she would have gotten shot with the intent to prevent her from firing, so probably not as lucky as a leg.

Would've should could've bullshit. When you carry a firearm handgun it should be holstered when you carry a rifle iit should be attached to a sling and carried on your shoulder. If the shooter was carring any other way his intention will be in question

A tough line considering your last point was a "would have".

My would have was pretty frim your's was speculation
She wasn't armed therefore you specuylating on the other possible happenings. My wuld have was if she had a gun she could have defended herself.

 

[bobcollum]

OK Vern, how many "eventful" flights occurred prior to 1965?!?!?!?!?!?!!?!?!?!?!?

.

I honestly don't know, I can't honestly say that there definitely would have been incidents had firearms been allowed on airplanes all these years. At the same rate you can't really say things would have been different for the better on 9/11 had it not been against the law.

It wasn't against the law. It was against the rules imposed by the thugs employed by the Continuing Criminal Enterprise known as the US of A.

Had you been armed in any of those planes , ywould you have sat idly by while the perpetrators flew the planes towards their intended targets?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

.

No I wouldn't. Frankly if it were common place for random passengers to potentially be armed 9/11 wouldn't have gone down. More than likely the terrorists find a way to get their guys on the plane armed, which again leads to the inevitable Texas shoot-out.

 

[pgm]

Why do you fear a person who has their firearm in a holster?

Um...I don't.

Public inteest? the bad guy doesn't care about public intrest why should I? I refuse to be a victim therefore I refuse to leave the house unarmed and unprepared.

OK, you guys repeatedly ignore the one thing I'm asking and constantly repeat the same thing. Therefore, I'll be very specific:

What are your thoughts on whether or not you have a right to carry a gun into 1) a school, 2) a subway, 3) a government building, such as Congress?

Edit: This was answered by one person.

 

[bobcollum]

Would've should could've bullshit. When you carry a firearm handgun it should be holstered when you carry a rifle iit should be attached to a sling and carried on your shoulder. If the shooter was carring any other way his intention will be in question

A tough line considering your last point was a "would have".

My would have was pretty frim your's was speculation
She wasn't armed therefore you specuylating on the other possible happenings. My wuld have was if she had a gun she could have defended herself.

My initial point was the story itself. One armed person...licensed at that, and he's the only one killed. I'm not saying that will happen in every instance, but this is basically where people who want unrestricted gun rights and myself come to disagreements. I can be responsible with a gun, but I honestly doubt the majority of people can be. If 90% of the US population was armed I probably wouldn't go out much.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Why do you fear a person who has their firearm in a holster?

Um...I don't.

Public inteest? the bad guy doesn't care about public intrest why should I? I refuse to be a victim therefore I refuse to leave the house unarmed and unprepared.

OK, you guys repeatedly ignore the one thing I'm asking and constantly repeat the same thing. Therefore, I'll be very specific:

What are your thoughts on whether or not you have a right to carry a gun into 1) a school, 2) a subway, 3) a government building, such as Congress?

Also, does anyone know if there is case law on whether or not the Supreme Court has extended the right to concealed weapons as a part of the 2nd Amendment?

What are your thoughts on whether or not you have a right to carry a gun into 1) a school, 2) a subway, 3) a government building, such as Congress?

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?

 

[Contumacious]

I honestly don't know, I can't honestly say that there definitely would have been incidents had firearms been allowed on airplanes all these years. At the same rate you can't really say things would have been different for the better on 9/11 had it not been against the law.

It wasn't against the law. It was against the rules imposed by the thugs employed by the Continuing Criminal Enterprise known as the US of A.

Had you been armed in any of those planes , ywould you have sat idly by while the perpetrators flew the planes towards their intended targets?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

.

No I wouldn't. Frankly if it were common place for random passengers to potentially be armed 9/11 wouldn't have gone down.

Exactly.

More than likely the terrorists find a way to get their guys on the plane armed, which again leads to the inevitable Texas shoot-out.

You are missing the point Vern.

Their mission was to bring down the WTC not to shoot some passengers.

The answer is not to continue to prevent us from carrying firearms aboard airplanes. The solution is for the federal scumbags to cease and desist intervening in the internal affairs of other nations.

.

 

[bobcollum]

The solution is for the federal scumbags to cease and desist intervening in the internal affairs of other nations.

Well we can certainly agree on that part. Please stop calling me Vern.

 

[pgm]

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?

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

I don't own guns and never will. However I think this is a good idea for two reasons.

Owning guns is a universal American right.

I live in a boarder city (KC) and It's easy to cross state lines without even knowing it.

 

[Skull Pilot]

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.

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.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Since guns are not outright banned in any state, states are not hindering anybody's right to bear arms. Different states have different gun laws. Each state's gun laws should be respected. Don't tell me that you have the right to openly carry in my state without training or a permit just because you can do so in your state. There is absolutely nothing unconstitutional about that.

Gun permits are denied all the time. One must pay annually for permits.

Do you support having to pay for a permit to practice your religion or to speak out loud?

Apples and oranges. Requiring permits does not hinder gun ownership. While religious people do kill people, religion does not; therefore, I do not support having to get a permit to practice your religion. People with guns do kill people; sometimes it's malicious; sometimes it's by accident because they aren't conscientious gun owners. People should pay annually for gun permits. If you want to own a deadly weapon, you should have a permit for it and you should take gun safety courses.

But permits are denied all the time. In a town where I used to live to get a pistol permit you first had to get permission to apply from the local chief of Pigs. He could prevent anyone he didn't like from even applying for a permit.

 

[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.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Apples and oranges. Requiring permits does not hinder gun ownership. While religious people do kill people, religion does not; therefore, I do not support having to get a permit to practice your religion. People with guns do kill people; sometimes it's malicious; sometimes it's by accident because they aren't conscientious gun owners. People should pay annually for gun permits. If you want to own a deadly weapon, you should have a permit for it and you should take gun safety courses.

Requiring permits

A permit is a privlege privlege's are not rights

That argument does not pass the sniff test. In this case, requiring a permit is a matter of safety and law enforcement. You have a right to bear arms; I have a right to feel safe.

A right to feel safe? Please point out where in the constitution where that is guaranteed.

 

[Skull Pilot]

The federal government gave the states power over anything not specifically enumerated in the Constitution.

The right to bear arms is guaranteed in the constitution. The states should not be able to hinder any citizen exercising that right.

Actually the right of the individual to bear arms wasn’t determined until 2008 with the Heller ruling, and incorporated to the states in McDonald last year.

This has nothing to do with ‘enumerated powers,’ rather it has to do with the 14th Amendment applying the Bill of Rights to the states. It’s the same principle as compelling the states to acknowledge privacy rights, search and seizure rights, and due process rights.

I said nothing about enumerated powers. The Bill of rights enumerates the guaranteed rights of all citizens.

I don't see what's so confusing about the line: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

 

[The Rabbi]

A permit is a privlege privlege's are not rights

That argument does not pass the sniff test. In this case, requiring a permit is a matter of safety and law enforcement. You have a right to bear arms; I have a right to feel safe.

A right to feel safe? Please point out where in the constitution where that is guaranteed.

Somehow I feel safer around armed responsible citizens. Look at those poor people in London trying to defend themselves with baseball bats and rocks.