National Constitutional Carry

[Jammer Six]

Yes and no.

Yes, it would be good to carry in any American city or state. No, I don't want to give the federal government any more power over my life than it already has. Yes, if it can be arranged by and between the states.*

Suppressors should be a non-issue. England, in it's experience and wisdom, requires the use of suppressors if one is hunting near other people. Because hearing.

No one needs a machine gun, but if that ever changed, I wouldn't have time to get one, so I'd own at least one. Then we could argue about MP35, M2 or M249 instead of nine vs. forty-five.

Can you imagine trying to feed an M2 with a single stage press? Dillon would love this. They'd probably give free machine guns away.

*An interesting diversion is a federal criminal code and federal criminal courts, and doing away with state criminal codes and courts. Murder is murder, no matter where it's committed, and penalty phases should be identical throughout the U.S. A federal system to deal with crime is, perhaps, one of the exceptions to my "less power" theory, but a) it will never happen, there are too many people who benefit from the current system, and b) it's just a theory that I haven't thought through. But it's an interesting one.

 

[dickn52]

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

Agreed, but when I read declarative statement, I respond.

 

[SheepDog]

This constitutional federal mandate is best because it doesn't give anyone power over us. It simply states that it is our right and no government, be it federal or state or local, can attempt to permit or license the individual in order to exercise his right.
go here to read it: http://gunowners.net/cgi-bin/ttx.cgi?cmd=ticket&key=201647388Z1111586845384211700

 

[dedogs]

Surely NY and CA will take it to court, delay it years

If the House and Senate pass it and the President signs it , it becomes law. The screwy states of California and New York would then have to fight it all the way to the Supreme Court to get it over turned. THAT could take years. dedogs

 

[Jammer Six]

Nope. Not as long as it's yet-another-federal-law.

I'd support a straight-up amendment.

 

[SheepDog]

Jammer - at least read it - there is no government involved except to get it to be a law. there is no permit, no card, no fee and no question that the government has no power over it. Think of it like the repeal of the voting tax but for guns.

 

[Jammer Six]

I did read it. It's putting up yet another federal law. How can you not see that? Not only is it yet another federal law, it conflicts with laws already on the books. You want to hand that mass of gray law to the antis? It'll be like red meat to a lion. And it's not even finished.

We don't need another federal law, for real change we need a constitutional amendment, worded for the twenty first century.

 

[dedogs]

for real change we need a constitutional amendment, worded for the twenty first century

Just how would you word such an amendment? dedogs

 

[SheepDog]

There is nothing wrong with the wording of the second amendment. What is wrong is that some government official decided they had the power to restrict that right - "common sense" restrictions. This just serves to remind them that no restriction is the only common sense thing to do.

As long as we allow states to restrict our rights we are in danger of losing them. As long as we allow courts to decide what our rights are we don't have any. We should never have to worry that liberal minded judges are appointed to the supreme court.

 

[olddav]

I have to ask.
Who in the federal government do you trust to write any law that does not further restrict the very rights they say they are tring to protect?

 

[/VH]

I have to ask.
Who in the federal government do you trust to write any law that does not further restrict the very rights they say they are tring to protect?

Trey Gowdy

 

[SheepDog]

None of them, but we have to start somewhere and if we gett all the 2nd amendment groups involved we can probably get it done.

 

[Jammer Six]

As long as we allow states to restrict our rights we are in danger of losing them. As long as we allow courts to decide what our rights are we don't have any. We should never have to worry that liberal minded judges are appointed to the supreme court.

Someone has to both administer and interpret those rights. There is no perfection in any process involving humans. Therefore, the standard is not perfection, the standard is the alternative.

 

[SheepDog]

Well, lawfully the people are the only branch of the government that can decide what is and is not a right. The right has to be the same for everyone and apply equally without interfering with any other rights.

 

[Jammer Six]

Your theories sound great, and would make great soundbites.

But the "how" is almost always missing from them. The "how" includes the Republic, and it's enormous, unwieldy mechanisms for both writing and interpreting the law.

Without the writing, you have no law. Without the interpretation, you have no enforcement. Without enforcement, the whole conversation is meaningless.

In theory, there is no difference between reality and theory. In reality, there is an enormous difference.

 

[dmoran]

 

[IdahoSharpshooter]

the notion of driving thru even the fringe of most big city neighborhoods is scary enough, without the situation where they are legally carrying. I really like the idea that anyone carrying has been vetted first.

 

[SheepDog]

I'm sure there are people in every neighborhood who are carrying - legally or not. Now, think about going into a neighboring state where concealed carry is not allowed to you. The locals still have their guns and with an out of state vehicle license you are in a "gun free zone". A free target for any crook on the block. Wouldn't rather have the right to carry in every state?

Where are you at in the great state of Idaho? We might be "neighbors".

 

[Jammer Six]

the notion of driving thru even the fringe of most big city neighborhoods is scary enough, without the situation where they are legally carrying. I really like the idea that anyone carrying has been vetted first.

That sounds suspiciously like some kind of restriction on the right to keep and bear arms. Be careful, the most vocal folks here refer to anyone who doesn't agree with them as a "troll".

I am against any sane adult being prevented from legally owning and carrying a weapon.

I understand your concern. I just don't agree with it. One of my biggest objections to this is that in places like Los Angeles or New York City, places where you are, in my opinion, most likely to need a weapon for self-defense, you are not likely to be able to carry one legally.

Once you start vetting beyond sanity, you start down a slippery slope that ends with what those two cities have now.

I live in the center of a large city. I grew up here, it's home, and it isn't scary to me, probably simply because I'm used to it.

 

[NewLiberty]

the notion of driving thru even the fringe of most big city neighborhoods is scary enough, without the situation where they are legally carrying. I really like the idea that anyone carrying has been vetted first.

So, the "good guys" have to be vetted but the "bad guys" just keep on doing what they're doing. That doesn't make sense to me.
I never could understand the background check. Bad guys don't have to do them to have guns but good guys have to jump through all the hoops to have a gun. And to top it off you have to have a background check for every gun you buy. What about all the stuff I already bought? Isn't one background check enough?
I have a CCW and still have to fill out the damned paperwork every time I buy a gun. What's the point since The Gov. "supposedly" doesn't use the yellow sheet to keep track of who has what? All of these gun control laws are completely ineffective and useless.
Machine guns? HELL YES! And with no permits or hoops to jump through. The founding fathers intended the average citizen to be as well armed as the military. Now, where's my bazooka?