National Constitutional Carry

[SheepDog]

The National Gun Owners of America (NGOA) has a request to initiate a national concealed carry law that does not require permits or licensing of individuals. We should all comment on this law and how much we want it. it can be found at: http://gunowners.net/cgi-bin/ttx.cgi?cmd=ticket&key=201647388Z1111586845384211700
If you support the second amendment this is key to finally get your right to carry protected forever.
SheepDog

 

[jds holler]

I a philosophically in favor of this -- but-- right now if I want to do business with an individual, his CC permit is pretty good proof that he isn't a felon, or even a misdemeniac (my new word).

There are in fact idiots and drunks that I prefer don't carry concealed, or possess a permit. Right now our local sheriffs department can deny their permit on the basis of recent convictions. That in itself is a sort of character evaluation.

I hope I'm not labeled as a gun control advocate for these thoughts. I'm open to having my mind changed. jd

 

[284winner]

I a philosophically in favor of this -- but-- right now if I want to do business with an individual, his CC permit is pretty good proof that he isn't a felon, or even a misdemeniac (my new word).

There are in fact idiots and drunks that I prefer don't carry concealed, or possess a permit. Right now our local sheriffs department can deny their permit on the basis of recent convictions. That in itself is a sort of character evaluation.

I hope I'm not labeled as a gun control advocate for these thoughts. I'm open to having my mind changed. jd

It's completely what's been brainwashed into all of our lives. The 2 nd amendment has really never been followed. Only interpreted how this countries government wants to read it. Then make it law.

 

[SheepDog]

I just think that we should push it through. I am sure the legislators will dumb it down with restrictions but it is a good first step in preserving our rights for our posterity.

 

[bench]

I would like to carry in any state without all the laws being the different. A true national carry right.

 

[jdh47]

"Idiots and drunks" are not likely to follow the laws anyway. That's why they are idiots and drunks.

We actually need this. Many years ago I went to an FFL meeting the ATF put on in Arlington. They informed us that by statute in Texas we were braking the law to have in our possession any firearm in transport for any reason and the state and local police were doing us a favor allowing us to transport firearms to and from the range or anywhere else for that matter. Then they went on to let us know that they had taken over the IRS's duty for collecting taxes on firearms and that anyone that altered a firearm in any way was in fact manufacturing a firearm and we would be required to pay the Pittman-Robertson tax on firearms. Talk about pissing a bunch of folks off.

Our government is not our friend. Each agency strives to enhance it's position and exert as much control as it can to justify it's existence.

It is sad that we have to pass a law that allows us what the constitution has already given us.

Joe

 

[dedogs]

I would like to carry in any state without all the laws being the different. A true national carry right

California will never abide by such a law. They have already stated that they will not comply--just as they ignore immigration law. dedogs

 

[joshb]

I'll go make some popcorn. Glad I used the ignore button.

 

[SheepDog]

We supposedly have the "friends" we need to get this passed but it will likely take some letters and calls to our representatives to let them know that we are willing to support this. Emails to all the gun groups will also help.

California and New York will either comply or pay the court costs to fight for it. We just have to be willing to act as citizens to remind them that we have rights, not privileges. We can also do this by serving as jurors to nullify any state laws to the contrary. Remember, we are the fourth and most powerful division of the government. Exercise your freedom, exercise your rights, use your power.

 

[Berger.Fan222]

It's already against the law to possess a firearm if you are a felon or intoxicated. That is not likely to change if Constitutional carry is legalized for the rest of us (good, law-abiding citizens.)

You don't have to prove yourself innocent and do a big background check and get a permit to exercise any other Constitutional rights, why should RKBA be any different?

 

[fx77]

Surely NY and CA will take it to court, delay it years , and fall back on the "reasonable restrictions" argument

 

[Steve Blair]

It is sad that we have to pass a law that allows us what the constitution has already given us.

Joe

No criticism, Joe, just noting that the United States Constitution Bill of Rights recognizes "natural rights" and explicitly limits government abridgment, not grants them. These rights originate many pay grades higher than any government.

 

[SheepDog]

No criticism, Joe, just noting that the United States Constitution Bill of Rights recognizes "natural rights" and explicitly limits government abridgment, not grants them. These rights originate many pay grades higher than any government.

That, Steve, is the most misunderstood part of the second amendment. It doesn't grant us the right to keep and bear arms. It is there to remind the government, at all levels, that they are supposed to protect our "natural" right. All, or at least most, living things on this earth have the right to protect themselves and the means with which to accomplish their self defense. No government gives us our right but they always want to control it. If you commit a crime you forfeit your rights, the government doesn't take them. The government has no lawful power to take or restrict our rights.

 

[snert]

One of my greatest concerns when we ask for FEDERAL law to make something that the STATES must comply to, we find ourselves then under the thumb of a bureacracy that is far from home, so to speak. Texas and Vermont enjoy the righteous freedoms they have BECAUSE they are states. I KNOW that the FEDS can just as easily over-rule local laws as we have seen in DOMA, the recent redefinition of marriage, abortion laws, etc. All I am saying is that Federal law is not always our friend. I "enjoy" the so-called protections afforded to retired LE under federal law and out of state carry. However, in reality, the local PD's refuse to take on the "liability" of certifying retired officers, so the federal law is toothless, and in fact ends up being an affirmative defense AFTER getting arrested, not a means to exercise a right. Again, this is mostly because of how the good law is interpreted. I have seen local police defer to the spirit of the federal law in this regard...but in other states, not so much. This area of law is tricky.

 

[redrockranger]

No criticism, Joe, just noting that the United States Constitution Bill of Rights recognizes "natural rights" and explicitly limits government abridgment, not grants them. These rights originate many pay grades higher than any government.

Bill Of Rights are non-negotiable as i see them. All 10 of them.

 

[SheepDog]

While it would be in the form of a law (in order to have any teeth at all) it is an affirmation that it is a right and that states have no lawful power to restrict it. It could be tested in court, at the supreme court level, and easily affirm that states cannot restrict our rights any more than the federal government can.
We have the opportunity to reassert our rights and I fully believe we should and can do so.

 

[jdh47]

States rights do not include opting out of the constitution. Not any of it even though it may seem unpalatable to some. Gun control has become one of the sacraments of the democrat party. It will likely initiate a stink but what doesn't?

I am no legal scholar but it would seem to me that the Heller decision would support concealed carry but anything coming before the court is subject to the whim of the majority and thanks to Obama the court is defunct as it were.

Joe

 

[dickn52]

California will never abide by such a law. They have already stated that they will not comply--just as they ignore immigration law. dedogs

HR218 and yes California offers it and recognizes it.

 

[dedogs]

HR218 and yes California offers it and recognizes it.

HR 218 covers active and retired police officers only, as far as I can tell. It does not cover every day law abiding citizens which is what GOA is after. dedogs

 

[alinwa]

I a philosophically in favor of this -- but-- right now if I want to do business with an individual, his CC permit is pretty good proof that he isn't a felon, or even a misdemeniac (my new word).

There are in fact idiots and drunks that I prefer don't carry concealed, or possess a permit. Right now our local sheriffs department can deny their permit on the basis of recent convictions. That in itself is a sort of character evaluation.

I hope I'm not labeled as a gun control advocate for these thoughts. I'm open to having my mind changed. jd

Just....WOW....

THIS is why we're where we are today

I have for 40yrs had a practice of asking avid shooters 2 questions;

#1, "should we be allowed to buy machine guns without restriction?" and
#2, "should we be able to buy silencers (suppressors) without restriction?"

And invariably through the yrs the bulk of the people have blurted "OF COURSE NOT!"

In the last several years folks' attitude toward suppressors has evolved thanks to the tireless efforts of folks like the OP (Thank You SheepDog sir) but we've a LONG way to go........

Please understand that our Founding Fathers explicitly felt that it was the RIGHT, nay the DUTY of the citizens of these United States to be better armed than the government of same.

And today these sentiments are considered by most to be the delusional rantings of an "extremist wacko"

"duty"="wacko"

sad


al