House Approves Concealed Firearm Permit Bill!!!! YES!!!

MikeChandler · Dec 17, 2011

I oppose this law.

This law does nothing to correct the injustice of states that ban issuing their own permits - like California. Then, to make matters worse, it forces states to recognize the licensing and permit process of another state. Sure, we all would enjoy the firearms free-pass... but that's not the only thing licensed in a state.

I live next to California, where people can drive around stoned on marijuana if they have a medical marijuana card, and gay marriage is licensed too. Right now in Arizona we are not forced to accept either of those licenses/permits. After this law goes through, the slippery slope could likely make us accept all of it.

Sorry, I would rather see states forced to give citizens back their constitutional rights, and no laws passed that force any states to abide by another state's permits, laws, conventions, and licenses.

This law is a huge slippery slope.

Jack House · Dec 17, 2011

California law allows an individual to operate a motor vehicle while intoxicated?

I don't see harm in legalizing medical marijuana nor do I see harm in legalizing gay marriage.

Not that it matters as this law doesn't legalize carry where carry doesn't already exist. All it does is force states to recognize resident licenses from other states and only if the state has it's own resident license. Carry in Illinois and DC would still be illegal and if I were to carry in California with my Texas CHL under this law, I would still have to follow California law. Which nullifies you argument about California allowing individuals to operate motor vehicles while intoxicated then being allowed to do so in your state, even if it were true that people can drive while intoxicated in California.

In short, a similar law regarding gay marriage or medical marijuana would change nothing in your state.

hammer6 · Dec 18, 2011

Jack House said:
California law allows an individual to operate a motor vehicle while intoxicated?

I don't see harm in legalizing medical marijuana nor do I see harm in legalizing gay marriage.

Not that it matters as this law doesn't legalize carry where carry doesn't already exist. All it does is force states to recognize resident licenses from other states and only if the state has it's own resident license. Carry in Illinois and DC would still be illegal and if I were to carry in California with my Texas CHL under this law, I would still have to follow California law. Which nullifies you argument about California allowing individuals to operate motor vehicles while intoxicated then being allowed to do so in your state, even if it were true that people can drive while intoxicated in California.

In short, a similar law regarding gay marriage or medical marijuana would change nothing in your state.

i think he was referring to federal law allowing marijuana or gay marriage. if california wants to do that, that's cool. but we don't need a federal law that recognizes that. carry should be allowed in all states without state interference, because federal law (the Constitution) already guarantees it.

mrjam2jab · Dec 18, 2011

Jack House said:
Not that it matters as this law doesn't legalize carry where carry doesn't already exist. All it does is force states to recognize resident licenses from other states and only if the state has it's own resident license. Carry in Illinois and DC would still be illegal and if I were to carry in California with my Texas CHL under this law, I would still have to follow California law. Which nullifies you argument about California allowing individuals to operate motor vehicles while intoxicated then being allowed to do so in your state, even if it were true that people can drive while intoxicated in California.

In short, a similar law regarding gay marriage or medical marijuana would change nothing in your state.

Small point of order....it doesn't say anything about "resident". You being a TX resident would be able to carry in CA with an AZ license.

MikeChandler · Dec 18, 2011

hammer6 said:
i think he was referring to federal law allowing marijuana or gay marriage. if california wants to do that, that's cool. but we don't need a federal law that recognizes that. carry should be allowed in all states without state interference, because federal law (the Constitution) already guarantees it.

Exactly right.

The last thing we want to establish is federal laws requiring interstate licensing for what is already a constitutional right. It erodes gun rights and state rights in one clever stroke.

This law is a Trojan horse.

Jack House · Dec 18, 2011

That wasn't your argument though, if it was your intent it wasn't what you stated. Your argument was that it's a bad law because it will lead to the example laws you provided.

5906guy · Dec 27, 2011

thebigsd said:
Not really a great day... The Senate will destroy this bill. If for some impossible reason they pass it then Obama will veto it. This is good. We don't want this bill to pass. There is no need for further federal government intrusion into state's rights.

+1

cloudcroft · Dec 27, 2011

True.

And I am all for State's Rights, but we also need some way to force SOME states to recognize ALL the rights American citizens have, especially the 2nd Amendment, which -- apparently -- allows We the People to OWN ("keep") and CARRY ("bear") a firearm.

I'm talking about sorry sates like Hawaii (specifically responsible is Honolulu Police Chief Kealoha, AKA: "Kealoha-no-issue") that are "may issue" states but never issue! And no OC is allowed. So the second half of the 2nd Amendment is ignored. Consequently, there may as well be no 2nd Amendment over there...which is the right of ALL American citizens, regardless of whatever state they live in. If Americans don't UNIVERSALY (meaning in EVERY state of the Union) have ALL the rights of the Constitution, then that's criminal in itself, discrimination at the very least.

States like Hawaii effectively nullify the 2nd Amendment, and prevent We the People from excercising their RIGHT of self-defense.

States that deny RIGHTS (vs. privileges) need SOMETHING done about it by SOME entity...if not the Feds -- or the sorry SCOTUS that is SUPPOSED to rule such state conduct unconstitutional -- then by whom?

Redbaron007 · Dec 27, 2011

cloudcroft said:
[snip]......

States like Hawaii effectively nullify the 2nd Amendment, and prevent We the People from excercising their RIGHT of self-defense.

States that deny RIGHTS (vs. privileges) need SOMETHING done about it by SOME entity...if not the Feds -- or the sorry SCOTUS that is SUPPOSED to rule such state conduct unconstitutional -- then by whom?

Their citizens?

Jake8x7 · Dec 27, 2011

Redbaron007 said:
Their citizens?

We're obviously all on the same side, but there is theory and there is also application. Although I'd prefer a much better mode of transportation for the restoration of the right to carry in many states, the simple necessity of such rights are of paramount focus; States have NO rights to infringe on the FEDERAL constitution. This concept (but not the legislation itself) shouldn't even be up for discussion. If the Feds do not enforce the constitution in states that do not follow it, then no one will. Without federal intervention states build a superior "sovereign nation/state complex" that is near impossible to defeat within a single state.

Georgia has no right or jurisdiction to change a Florida statute that is inherently unconstitutional. It either needs to be amended by the citizens (or their representatives) of the respective state or superseded and voided by an overruling federal law. The problem with relying solely on the first choice is that some rights protect minorities (I'm not referring to ethnicity) as opposed to the majority (this can be seen in the upholding of the 5th amendment), resulting in democratic tyranny (which is what the constitution was created to prevent). This can take some time and many contradictions do exist (such as the "legalization" of medical marijuana in several states) but I would argue that legal marijuana is much more about state vs fed rights, while right to bear arms is much more of a state vs federally upheld constitutional rights.

Jake8x7

Redbaron007 · Dec 27, 2011

Jake8x7 said:
We're obviously all on the same side, but there is theory and there is also application. Although I'd prefer a much better mode of transportation for the restoration of the right to carry in many states, the simple necessity of such rights are of paramount focus; States have NO rights to infringe on the FEDERAL constitution. This concept (but not the legislation itself) shouldn't even be up for discussion. If the Feds do not enforce the constitution in states that do not follow it, then no one will. Without federal intervention states build a superior "sovereign nation/state complex" that is near impossible to defeat within a single state.

Georgia has no right or jurisdiction to change a Florida statute that is inherently unconstitutional. It either needs to be amended by the citizens (or their representatives) of the respective state or superseded and voided by an overruling federal law. The problem with relying solely on the first choice is that some rights protect minorities (I'm not referring to ethnicity) as opposed to the majority (this can be seen in the upholding of the 5th amendment), resulting in democratic tyranny (which is what the constitution was created to prevent). This can take some time and many contradictions do exist (such as the "legalization" of medical marijuana in several states) but I would argue that legal marijuana is much more about state vs fed rights, while right to bear arms is much more of a state vs federally upheld constitutional rights.

Jake8x7

I wish the feds would say CCW is a right under the 2A. This would resolve many problems. As it stands, they haven't nor has the SCOTUS. This is the frustrating part!:cuss:

hammer6 · Dec 27, 2011

Redbaron007 said:
I wish the feds would say CCW is a right under the 2A. This would resolve many problems. As it stands, they haven't nor has the SCOTUS. This is the frustrating part!:cuss:

wouldn't getting this bill passed say that exact thing?

Redbaron007 · Dec 27, 2011

hammer6 said:
wouldn't getting this bill passed say that exact thing?

This bill would make it a regulated privilege under the Commerce Clause, not a 2A right.

hammer6 · Dec 27, 2011

Redbaron007 said:
This bill would make it a regulated privilege under the Commerce Clause, not a 2A right.

yeah- i agree. i misread your post. i skipped over the word "right". my B

rodbender · Dec 28, 2011

Jake8x7 said:
Without federal intervention states build a superior "sovereign nation/state complex" that is near impossible to defeat within a single state.

That's the way it is suppose to be. The States ARE sovereign nations one and all. The feds actually have no authority to tell the States what to do in any circumstance other than what is in Art. I, Sec. 10. It's the child telling the parent what to do, but then, I guess a lot of people are use to that these days. The inhabitants of the individual States are suppose to take care of the State legislatures if they don't do what the citizens of that State want, and the general government (including SCOTUS) are suppose to keep their nose out of it. The States need to call an Article V convention to slap this unruly child down and clarify this and a lot of other things in the Constitution.

cloudcroft · Dec 28, 2011

The federal gov't -- via the SCOTUS -- IS telling the states what they can and can not do all the time -- and the states do it. Especially recently in the cases of AZ and GA (?), about their "uncontsitutional" laws to deal with "illegal immigrants" in their respective states. Too bad some states don't stand up and just NULLIFY any such SCOTUS ruling as being uncontstitutional itself -- where is South Carolina when you need them! ;-)

So why can't the SCOTUS "correct" Hawaii and other UNconstitutional states?

[a rhetorical question -- who knows]

What BS: The SCOTUS slams states on their "unconstitutional" immigration laws but won't protect LIVES of American citizens by enforcing the Constitution's Bill of Rights, specifically the 2nd Amendment.

rodbender · Dec 28, 2011

First, the feds have no jurisdiction over immigration, naturalization, yes, immigration, no. The States should nullify these rulings. They will not because they are a bunch of p*****s and the fact that like so many of the citizens, they have come to rely on the feds for sustainance.

Second, they should not interfere with intrastate affairs because 14A of the Constitution does not call for the BOR to be incorporated to the States. SCOTUS has ruled that it does, thereby granting itself power to intervene in such matters. It has also granted itself the power to interpret the Constitution while the Constitution does not grant it such power. These are the 2 biggest power grabs of the 20th century.

And you thought that congress pulled off the biggest power grab in American politics, didn't you?

kpearce · Dec 28, 2011

rodbender said:
First, the feds have no jurisdiction over immigration, naturalization, yes, immigration, no. The States should nullify these rulings. They will not because they are a bunch of p*****s and the fact that like so many of the citizens, they have come to rely on the feds for sustenance.

This means MONEY! It is always about power and MONEY.

Second, they should not interfere with intrastate affairs because 14A of the Constitution does not call for the BOR to be incorporated to the States. SCOTUS has ruled that it does, thereby granting itself power to intervene in such matters. It has also granted itself the power to interpret the Constitution while the Constitution does not grant it such power. These are the 2 biggest power grabs of the 20th century.

And you thought that congress pulled off the biggest power grab in American politics, didn't you?

I have seen a lot of “fail” in this thread. The people who are for this law (NRA) have their head in their a***s. Some on here have said this law will allow them to carry anywhere. This is NOT true. The law specifically states that the person carrying the firearm MUST abide by that states laws. So, for example, if you go to New Jersey with your handy dandy Glock Pistol with it corresponding 17 or 19 round magazines and hollowpoint ammo, congratulations!, you have just committed 2 felonies and you lose your 2A rights forever period! This law is a virtual minefield for anyone who carries a firearm and travels. You will have to go to law school and study daily every states laws to know where you can carry, and you will have to have a ”gun for every state” also. There are a lot of states that disallow semi-auto firearms. And if these other states do not have preemption then you run the risk of getting charged under some stupid local ordnance. While that may not lose your 2A rights back home, I bet the local guy will be happy to keep your firearm for his personal use.

This law and the NRA’s support of it are one reason I did not renew my membership this year. My wife IS a Firearms Lawyer and this simply is a bad bill all the way around, (not her statement, just mine) but hey, you come here to MI and get yourself hung out cause you didn’t know some obscure carry law, and she will be glad (for a reasonably high fee) to represent you.

The NRA is merely “putting lipstick on a pig” here to get this law passed. You see with this law in place, they have said they will police it for us. Well they wont do this for free, and you phone and mail will blow up from all the requests for more MONEY to help police this law. It is a virtual MONEY generator for them. If they really had our “constitutional freedoms” in mind, then they would have stood for nothing short of “National Constitutional Carry”. Any legal weapon, legally owned anywhere, anytime! But you see they would then have no justification for the big MONEY generator. They would simply return to the “hunter safety organization” that they started out as.

/RANT OFF

Redbaron007 · Dec 28, 2011

kpearce said:
I have seen a lot of “fail” in this thread. The people who are for this law (NRA) have their head in their a***s. Some on here have said this law will allow them to carry anywhere. This is NOT true. The law specifically states that the person carrying the firearm MUST abide by that states laws. So, for example, if you go to New Jersey with your handy dandy Glock Pistol with it corresponding 17 or 19 round magazines and hollowpoint ammo, congratulations!, you have just committed 2 felonies and you lose your 2A rights forever period! This law is a virtual minefield for anyone who carries a firearm and travels. You will have to go to law school and study daily every states laws to know where you can carry, and you will have to have a ”gun for every state” also. There are a lot of states that disallow semi-auto firearms. And if these other states do not have preemption then you run the risk of getting charged under some stupid local ordnance. While that may not lose your 2A rights back home, I bet the local guy will be happy to keep your firearm for his personal use.

This law and the NRA’s support of it are one reason I did not renew my membership this year. My wife IS a Firearms Lawyer and this simply is a bad bill all the way around, (not her statement, just mine) but hey, you come here to MI and get yourself hung out cause you didn’t know some obscure carry law, and she will be glad (for a reasonably high fee) to represent you.

The NRA is merely “putting lipstick on a pig” here to get this law passed. You see with this law in place, they have said they will police it for us. Well they wont do this for free, and you phone and mail will blow up from all the requests for more MONEY to help police this law. It is a virtual MONEY generator for them. If they really had our “constitutional freedoms” in mind, then they would have stood for nothing short of “National Constitutional Carry”. Any legal weapon, legally owned anywhere, anytime! But you see they would then have no justification for the big MONEY generator. They would simply return to the “hunter safety organization” that they started out as.

/RANT OFF

WOW!! :shocker:

Dont find much of anything to disagree about.

ManInBlack · Dec 29, 2011

eye95 said:
This.

The problem is that we are ceding authority to define the licensure of the Right and the terms thereof to the Feds.

Dumb and anti-Liberty.

But then, some who purport to be Liberty-loving have succumbed to the lure of allowing government to care for them by giving it power over them--and the rest of us.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

Hell hath frozen over. I agree with you.

House Approves Concealed Firearm Permit Bill!!!! YES!!!

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

New member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Activist Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member