• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

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

hogeaterf6

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2010
Messages
381
Location
, ,
"Under the House legislation, people with a concealed carry permit in one state could carry a concealed weapon in every other state that gives people the right to carry concealed weapons. "


Could these words get turned around since Ind does not issue CCW permits? They only issue LTCH. Lisc to carry Handguns.
 

Aknazer

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
1,760
Location
California
"Under the House legislation, people with a concealed carry permit in one state could carry a concealed weapon in every other state that gives people the right to carry concealed weapons. "


Could these words get turned around since Ind does not issue CCW permits? They only issue LTCH. Lisc to carry Handguns.

Most states don't call it a CCW, but no I wouldn't be concerned with those specific words being turned around. Also remember, a handgun is still a weapon which means the weapon itself is still technically a CCW regardless of what the state calls their license or what they allow you to carry.
 

ALOC1911

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2011
Messages
70
Location
Troy, AL
DL is a bad analogy; the states agreed to this, not the feds. You're comparing apples to oranges.

Doesn't matter about who agreed to what or why. The point is all state's DLs are honored in all other states and so should CC licenses be (well actually you shouldn't need one at all but we all know that ain't gonna happen) and a fed bill like this is the only way it's gonna happen so take what you can get along the way of getting what you really want. If anybody here thinks for a second they'll see this whole country go from the gun carrying system we have now to full constitutional carry or anything close it you are fooling yourself in a major way. The only way we'll get what we want is little by little like this law does. Not having to have a CC license at all in all states would be great but since we know that's not gonna happen, making them all honor each other's licenses is the next best thing.
 

The Wolfhound

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2009
Messages
728
Location
Henrico, Virginia, USA
OK, for those who are still enthusiastic......

State "A" requires training, inspections and fingerprinting. State "B" only requires training. Congress comes along and says "It is only common sense" that the restictions of State "A" be made the national norm. After all allowing unfingerprinted persons to carry in State "A" is an infringment of their laws. Citizens of State "B" suddenly have their rights infringed upon by Congressional fiat. Does any one trust Chuck Shumer or Dianne Feinstein to not go down this route? Anything other than "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" will be a further impediment and more difficult to get rid of. The NRA may not have served us well with this.:banghead:
 

Redbaron007

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2011
Messages
1,613
Location
SW MO
Doesn't matter about who agreed to what or why. The point is all state's DLs are honored in all other states and so should CC licenses be (well actually you shouldn't need one at all but we all know that ain't gonna happen) and a fed bill like this is the only way it's gonna happen so take what you can get along the way of getting what you really want......

They all (states) came to an agreement; the feds didn't legislate it. BIG difference. No offense, but with these statement you make, it sounds as if you are a big government individual; meaning you go to Uncle Sam to get what you want regardless of a states priviledge to control for their own citizens. The Feds are usually not the best place to go for help!

The only way we'll get what we want is little by little like this law does.
Are you crazy....what do you think the states have been doing for the last 10 years. Go back and see the difference in 10 years. Passing bad legislation for the sake of getting it done NOW is bad mojo and should be avoided.

Not having to have a CC license at all in all states would be great but since we know that's not gonna happen, making them all honor each other's licenses is the next best thing.
How do you know it isn't going to happen? It's been happening. Maybe at the speed you want; but that is irrelevant!

Think about it this way, do you elect the senators/house members for another state? Why? Then why should we be subject to these other states congressmen if we cannot elect them? That's what happens with this bill. The congressional members from IL or CA now have a say in where you can or can't carry. See what this opens up?
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
As you say there are no "rights" of states. I see nowhere in the 10th amendment or anywhere in the constitution mention of governments having Rights, only powers. This is important, because powers can be taken away, though it is important to keep power from being centralized to the feds.

I should first mention, the Federal Government IS the Authority, and holds THE exclusive Power. The Second Amendment of the Constitution protects the carrying of firearms; unless there is some person here that disagrees? The States have zero Authority, and zero Power, other than that which is bestowed to them by the Federal Government. If it tickles the Federal Government to exercise its exclusive Authority to Power by a national firearms bill, then it will be such, and the States will have zero recourse, but to abide by the mandate.

*cracks knuckles* Ok.

States have no 'rights', I agree. States are bestowed, by the Federal Government, 'power', but indirectly, meaning, the Federal Government does not exercise Its exclusive Authority to Power, then the States by default are bestowed 'power' - State power is conditional.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

So, we have:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,..."

Consider:

"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

The Federal Government is The Ultimate Authority, and the exclusive exerciser of Power.

"nor prohibited by it to the States,"

The Federal Government decides the extend of, and bestows 'powers' to the States.

"are reserved to the States respectively,"

Yes, if the Federal Government does not assert Its Authority by exercising Its exclusive Power then the States by default have said 'power'.

"or to the people."

Alternatively, the people? So much for "We The People". "The People" are an after-thought; the final, not Ultimate, benefactor of Authority, and Power.
 
Last edited:

Daylen

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
2,223
Location
America
I should first mention, the Federal Government IS the Authority, and holds THE exclusive Power. The Second Amendment of the Constitution protects the carrying of firearms; unless there is some person here that disagrees? The States have zero Authority, and zero Power, other than that which is bestowed to them by the Federal Government. If it tickles the Federal Government to exercise its exclusive Authority to Power by a national firearms bill, then it will be such, and the States will have zero recourse, but to abide by the mandate.

*cracks knuckles* Ok.

States have no 'rights', I agree. States are bestowed, by the Federal Government, 'power', but indirectly, meaning, the Federal Government does not exercise Its exclusive Authority to Power, then the States by default are bestowed 'power' - State power is conditional.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

So, we have:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,..."

Consider:

"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

The Federal Government is The Ultimate Authority, and the exclusive exerciser of Power.

"nor prohibited by it to the States,"

The Federal Government decides the extend of, and bestows 'powers' to the States.

"are reserved to the States respectively,"

Yes, if the Federal Government does not assert Its Authority by exercising Its exclusive Power then the States by default have said 'power'.

"or to the people."

Alternatively, the people? So much for "We The People". "The People" are an after-thought; the final, not Ultimate, benefactor of Authority, and Power.

There were States before the Fed, the 10th amendment itself even shows the proper relationship of states giving up some powers to the fed, all other are retained. This is not supposed to be a Nation with sectors. The fed is not to the states as a state is to its cities. You have the most twisted way of reading meaning where none exists and inserting meaning where there is none. Where in the constitution does it give powers of any sort to the States? Also, you seem to ignore the entire first part, States had to delegate powers to the fed for it to have powers. And yes the fed can prohibit powers to the states, but you seem to forget that it can only do so in exercise of powers granted in the constitution. Very limited powers.

Edit: you seem to forget as well that the States can call a constitutional convention and add or subtract or do whatever they want to the fed. The fed is not the ultimate authority, though nor are the states. The people are.
 
Last edited:

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
There were States before the Fed, the 10th amendment itself even shows the proper relationship of states giving up some powers to the fed, all other are retained. This is not supposed to be a Nation with sectors. The fed is not to the states as a state is to its cities. You have the most twisted way of reading meaning where none exists and inserting meaning where there is none. Where in the constitution does it give powers of any sort to the States? Also, you seem to ignore the entire first part, States had to delegate powers to the fed for it to have powers. And yes the fed can prohibit powers to the states, but you seem to forget that it can only do so in exercise of powers granted in the constitution. Very limited powers.

Edit: you seem to forget as well that the States can call a constitutional convention and add or subtract or do whatever they want to the fed. The fed is not the ultimate authority, though nor are the states. The people are.

There were States before the establishment of the Federal Government. The Federal Government is the established Authority, and exerciser of Power.

Yes, the States can call a "Constitutional Convention" - good luck with that.

We will just leave this to disagreeing who holds the ultimate Authority, and Power.
 

rushcreek2

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2010
Messages
909
Location
Colorado Springs. CO
It is a generally recognized concern among the majority of the states that the practice of concealing a weapon lends itself to criminal endeavors. My understanding is that laws have been passed in recent years by every state except Illinois, and Vermont (and Alaska?)to regulate concealed weapon carry by license/permit.

By definition any state that requires a person to obtain a license/permit in order to legally carry a handgun at all, or to carry it concealed does not recognize the licensed/permitted behavior to constitute a right of citizenship reserved to the people by either the federal or that state's constitution.

Therefore HR 822 merely mandates reciprocity of other states' licensed/permitted privileged behavior. It has nothing to do with any recognition of a right, and thus nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment or the RIGHT to bear arms.
 
Last edited:

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
It is a generally recognized concern among the majority of the states that the practice of concealing a weapon lends itself to criminal endeavors. My understanding is that laws have been passed in recent years by every state except Illinois, and Vermont (and Alaska?)to regulate concealed weapon carry by license/permit.

By definition any state that requires a person to obtain a license/permit in order to legally carry a handgun at all, or to carry it concealed by definition does not recognize the licensed/permitted behavior to constitute a right of citizenship reserved to the people by either the federal or that state's constitution.

Therefore HB 822 merely mandates reciprocity of other states' licensed/permitted privileged behavior. It has nothing to do with any recognition of a right, and thus nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment or the RIGHT to bear arms.

There may be no clarification needed. It appears to me that you are stating OC/CC are not Constitutionally/constitutionally protected 'rights'.


By definition any state that requires a person to obtain a license/permit in order to legally carry a handgun at all, or to carry it concealed by definition does not recognize the licensed/permitted behavior to constitute a right of citizenship reserved to the people by either the federal or that state's constitution.

I am not attempting to pick your words apart. By what definition - are you merely asserting that a particular definition exists, or is the case by the act(s) themselves? Wait, sorry, I see what you are stating. You are stating that by the Federal Government, or the States mandating a permitting in order to OC/CC, that 'they' are causing what you believe to be a 'right', to be rendered a 'privilege'?
 
Last edited:

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
There were States before the establishment of the Federal Government. The Federal Government is the established Authority, and exerciser of Power.

Yes, the States can call a "Constitutional Convention" - good luck with that.

We will just leave this to disagreeing who holds the ultimate Authority, and Power.

You think it's the Feds? (snicker) Some folks thinks it's the States (another snicker). <--- PS: Proper spelling, c. 1694. "snigger" was a gross misspelling, courtesy of some incompetent writer around 1706. Don't believe me? Look them up.

The ultimate authority in the United States of America is The People. If the majority of The People do not like a President, a sitting Congress, a Governor, Mayor, or State and local Legislators, they will not be returning to office. Whatever damage they did will likely be undone by those who're elected to replace them, particularly if they campaigned on such a promise to do so.

The only way the Federal Government could ever become the "established Authority, and exerciser of Power" as you claim, is if they were to succeed in abolishing or corrupting the Constitutionally-established process of election and the reservation of the rights to the states and the people not specifically granted to the feds. That is where We, the People, need to concentrate our focus, and ask this question: Is the individual for whom I am voting in line with the Constitution, or are they subverting it?

Obama's Constitutional track records is abysmal. Bush's wasn't much better. Reagan's was pretty good. Eisenhower's was fantastic. Roosevelt... Nope.

I really hate to tell anyone they're wrong. After giving issues very serious and in-depth consideration for three full decades, I can conclusively state that if you consider yourself an American and yet vote for someone weak on, or subversive of our Constitution, you're wrong.

That's un-American.

Our Constitution and our system of law based upon it isn't everything. It's the only thing. When you vote for those who respect it, protect it, and defend it, you are voting for America. When you vote for those who disrespect it, sidestep it, or seek to undermine it, you're voting for someone, or something, but it/they have about as much in common with America as the folks much-loved by Obama who continually profess to hate America and consistently refer to us as "the enemy." Just as "the enemy of my enemy is my friend," so the "friend of my enemy is my enemy." Obama is very friendly with those people who are our sworn (their oath, not ours) enemies.

Folks, it doesn't get any clearer than this, and Hillary's positions where the rubber meets the road are frighteningly similar to Obamas. In fact, in some measures, she's a significantly more deadly choice for American ideals than is Obama. To be perfectly honest, I would much rather endure another 4 years with Obama in office than see Hillary's true anti-Constitutional colors come forth were she ever to get her foot in the door.
 
Last edited:

Daylen

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
2,223
Location
America
There were States before the establishment of the Federal Government. The Federal Government is the established Authority, and exerciser of Power.

Yes, the States can call a "Constitutional Convention" - good luck with that.

We will just leave this to disagreeing who holds the ultimate Authority, and Power.

Easy, whoever has guns.
 

Daylen

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
2,223
Location
America
The ultimate authority in the United States of America is The People. If the majority of The People do not like a President, a sitting Congress, a Governor, Mayor, or State and local Legislators, they will not be returning to office. Whatever damage they did will likely be undone by those who're elected to replace them, particularly if they campaigned on such a promise to do so.

What have you been smoking? Damage is almost never undone at the federal level. In fact I can't think of one time when damage was undone without a sunset in the law so congress could have simple inaction to fix a wrong.
 

rodbender

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
2,519
Location
Navasota, Texas, USA
I should first mention, the Federal Government IS the Authority, and holds THE exclusive Power. The Second Amendment of the Constitution protects the carrying of firearms; unless there is some person here that disagrees? The States have zero Authority, and zero Power, other than that which is bestowed to them by the Federal Government. If it tickles the Federal Government to exercise its exclusive Authority to Power by a national firearms bill, then it will be such, and the States will have zero recourse, but to abide by the mandate.

*cracks knuckles* Ok.

States have no 'rights', I agree. States are bestowed, by the Federal Government, 'power', but indirectly, meaning, the Federal Government does not exercise Its exclusive Authority to Power, then the States by default are bestowed 'power' - State power is conditional.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

So, we have:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,..."

Consider:

"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

The Federal Government is The Ultimate Authority, and the exclusive exerciser of Power.

"nor prohibited by it to the States,"

The Federal Government decides the extend of, and bestows 'powers' to the States.

"are reserved to the States respectively,"

Yes, if the Federal Government does not assert Its Authority by exercising Its exclusive Power then the States by default have said 'power'.

"or to the people."

Alternatively, the people? So much for "We The People". "The People" are an after-thought; the final, not Ultimate, benefactor of Authority, and Power.

WOW!!!! I don't know what to say. Boy!, do you need a lesson on the the Constitution. Probably an entire semester.

The States created the general government. The States can disban the general government. How can the general government be supreme and the bestower of powers if this is the truth, and it is the truth?
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
You think it's the Feds? (snicker) Some folks thinks it's the States (another snicker). <--- PS: Proper spelling, c. 1694. "snigger" was a gross misspelling, courtesy of some incompetent writer around 1706. Don't believe me? Look them up.

Pretty much the only item worth responding to from your post on: Tomato-Tamato.

A number of years ago, an instructor stated to me, "you can break the rules once you know the rules." Rules of single word, and syntax are merely guidelines.

As an example, I will use the single words: Snicker, and Snigger.

Do both 'single words' serve a purpose, meaning, do each of the words serve as a single word concept that is generally defined? Yes. Are both 'single words' function the same, meaning, does the general definition of the word meet at a particular point in application? Yes.

We could go on for days debating whether or not either of the words are, as you refer to one, "Proper spelling." We should hold to a general linguistic model which basically is that if both parties understand the concept, and implication of both 'single words' then the point has been sufficiently made.
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
WOW!!!! I don't know what to say. Boy!, do you need a lesson on the the Constitution. Probably an entire semester.

The States created the general government. The States can disban the general government. How can the general government be supreme and the bestower of powers if this is the truth, and it is the truth?

How strategic of you. So, describe for us what you mean by the "general government."

The example that you gave is not one I am refuting. Yes, the States created the Federal Government. The States established a central (ultimate) Authority that exercises Power. Hmm, how can I state it more clearly than this, got it(!): The Federal Government is Frankenstein, and the States are the parts which make up Frankenstein, and politicians at the time were the mad scientist. Only, in the case of how this Frankenstein has played out, the Federal Government has solidified its position, and has both the monetary and military might to quash individual, and State up-rise. Let's hope, for the sake of us all, that I am wrong.
 

Daylen

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
2,223
Location
America
How strategic of you. So, describe for us what you mean by the "general government."

The example that you gave is not one I am refuting. Yes, the States created the Federal Government. The States established a central (ultimate) Authority that exercises Power. Hmm, how can I state it more clearly than this, got it(!): The Federal Government is Frankenstein, and the States are the parts which make up Frankenstein, and politicians at the time were the mad scientist. Only, in the case of how this Frankenstein has played out, the Federal Government has solidified its position, and has both the monetary and military might to quash individual, and State up-rise. Let's hope, for the sake of us all, that I am wrong.

That's actually a fairly good way to put it... You say you hope you're wrong yet cheer on the advance of tyranny at every turn.
 

ALOC1911

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2011
Messages
70
Location
Troy, AL
They all (states) came to an agreement; the feds didn't legislate it. BIG difference. No offense, but with these statement you make, it sounds as if you are a big government individual; meaning you go to Uncle Sam to get what you want regardless of a states priviledge to control for their own citizens. The Feds are usually not the best place to go for help!

No I'm not for big gov and don't want the gov to get everything they want. I want to get everything I want and what I want is always within reason. It's not unreasonable to for all states to honor each other's licenses no matter how each states chooses to issue them. You can believe you'll never in your lifetime see all states honor each other's licenses without a law like this passing or without some of the states changing how they issue their licenses which is something else I don't want to see happen due to living in a state that's very easy, quick and cheap to get one in. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see all the states agree on reciprocity right now and all of them accept the way they currently issue licenses but that just ain't gonna happen. There are too many states that require all sorts of training etc that will not honor licenses from the ones that don't. My state doesn't require anything but a background check and if you know the people at the sheriff's office they don't even do that and I want it to stay that way with all other states honoring my license at the same time. Do you really think that's gonna happen wihtout a fed law forcing them to?


Are you crazy....what do you think the states have been doing for the last 10 years. Go back and see the difference in 10 years. Passing bad legislation for the sake of getting it done NOW is bad mojo and should be avoided.

Well ya know it sort of does help when they get done while you're still alive.


How do you know it isn't going to happen? It's been happening. Maybe at the speed you want; but that is irrelevant!

Since none of us are getting any younger, I believe it is very relavent that it happen sooner than later cause later will be much, much later.

Think about it this way, do you elect the senators/house members for another state? Why? Then why should we be subject to these other states congressmen if we cannot elect them? That's what happens with this bill. The congressional members from IL or CA now have a say in where you can or can't carry. See what this opens up?

Have you bumped your head? If this bill is passed as is written nobody from anywhere can say where I can or can't carry. I'll say this one more time. All this bill says is if a state offers CC licenses to it's own residents then they must also honor licenses from other states that also offer them to their own residents. States that currently do not offer CC licenses willnot have to accept any from any other state. Nothing more nothing less. The only thing a congressman from IL or CA can say about this bill is whether they want it passed or not by voting for it or against it. If it passes that means license is now good in all other states that offer CC linceses and if it doesn't pass then everything stays the same as it is now which is I've got reciprocity with 22 other states only.
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
That's actually a fairly good way to put it... You say you hope you're wrong yet cheer on the advance of tyranny at every turn.

"Tyranny" is contingent on the perception of being under Tyranny. Reads circular, right; it is - the circularness of this reasoning is merely a product of generalization. First you have the infliction of some 'thing', then this 'thing' is made a concept termed "Tyranny." Then we must confront the notion of "infliction," and determine what is, and is not infliction.


Vote for what ever side of the coin you wish, and pontificate about your so-called "tyranny."
 

Daylen

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
2,223
Location
America
tyranny: oppressive government rule. Definitions are easy to come by, all that is needed is a dictionary.
 
Top