Just saw this on Foxnews.com

[OldCurlyWolf]

Now heres my real problem with this picture!!!
If they are left to right, south to north, then their shadow is pointing the wrong way!
Even at the middle of summer, the sun will be south of them, the shadow of them Has to point north, to the right of white shirt guy...

ADulay posted the wrong picture or something. upon investigation you are correct. The line between the men is a North-South line. The guy in the white shirt is in Arizona and the guy in the vest is in New Mexico.

If you look at the lettering around the perimeter of the circle, UNDER GOD is in the quadrant of the man without the vest. That is the lettering in the Arizona Quadrant.

IN FREEDOM is in the quadrant of the man with the vest. That is the lettering in the New Mexico Quadrant.

Check out the picture here:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3c/FourcornersMonument.jpg

 

[Aknazer]

My concern would be hr308. This is a bill to restrict magazine size to 10 rounds. How does anyone feel about that being tacked on? I personally wouldn't like it. I'm not saying they will, but I wouldn't be surprised.

I'm not worried about that as it hasn't gone anywhere and could likely be challenged in court. Plus I don't think it has the votes as it's like trying to bring back the "assault weapons" ban. Just toxic for all but the most liberal of places imo.

 

[Phoenix David]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...to-make-gun-permits-valid-across-state-lines/


House of Representatives - POLITICS
House Weighs Bill to Make Gun Permits Valid Across State Lines

By Shannon Bream

Published September 13, 2011

AP

...snip

"Despite his record, he then used his Florida permit to carry a loaded gun in Philadelphia," Ramsey said. "He eventually shot a teenager thirteen times in the chest killing him on the street."

...snip

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...rmits-valid-across-state-lines/#ixzz1XtKKkHcK

So if he hadn't had that Florida permit he wouldn't have killed that kid? So the crime of carrying concealed without a permit would have deterred him from committing the crime of murder? Is this dude on drugs or just stuck on stupid?

 

[Phoenix David]

Unless you are from Arizona; didn’t Brewer pass no permit required to pack there, so zoners won't be able to participate (anywhere outside of Arizona) if the law passed.

We still have permits, they are just optional for in state carry

 

[1245A Defender]

After Even More Further Review!!!!

As much as I don't like the Feds getting involved in any of this, it would appear the "822" is at least a good solution to the problem at hand.

The two guys shown below are in an interesting quandry.

Both of them are armed with identical weapons (H&K LEM Compacts in .40S&W) but the guy in the white shirt is about as illegal as can be while the guy in the blue vest is 100% legal.

They're standing at the famous "Four Corners" marker and the legal guy is standing in Arizona while the criminal element is standing in Utah.

That's just crazy and really needs to be addressed at some level for sure.

Every other piece of paper or license in their pockets is valid on either side of the line EXCEPT for the carry permits. This needs to be fixed for sure.

AD (I'm the legal guy)

Now heres my real problem with this picture!!!
If they are left to right, south to north, then their shadow is pointing the wrong way!
Even at the middle of summer, the sun will be south of them, the shadow of them Has to point north, to the right of white shirt guy...

ADulay posted the wrong picture or something. upon investigation you are correct. The line between the men is a North-South line. The guy in the white shirt is in Arizona and the guy in the vest is in New Mexico.

If you look at the lettering around the perimeter of the circle, UNDER GOD is in the quadrant of the man without the vest. That is the lettering in the Arizona Quadrant.

IN FREEDOM is in the quadrant of the man with the vest. That is the lettering in the New Mexico Quadrant.

Check out the picture here:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3c/FourcornersMonument.jpg

The OP stated that he, blue vest was in arizona and legal,
and that white shirt was in utah, and Illegal!
That was totally Wrong,,, Both arizona and utah Honor ALL permits, both resident and non resident!
BUT,,,
Actually it is white shirt standing in arizona, while blue vest is standing in new mexico.
white shirts permit, from any state is honored in arizona,
blue vest is standing in new mexico, and his permit from florida is honored in new mexico.
So he made a goofy post on the law and on their location!
Nobody was breaking the law, assuming that white shirt actually does have a permit!
NO WAIT WHAT?? Arizona has constitutional carry!!! white shirt does Not Need a permit to conceal in arizona!!!

the camera was pointing south for the pic,
the sun was in the SW, and the shadow is pointed to the NE, so im guessing it was taken at about 4 in the afternoon...

 

[BaconMan]

According to some while you have the two states correct, you are not standing at the corner, but are 2.5 miles west of the true corner. It seems there was a mistake in 1868.

It was mistakenly set where it is, but since the first surveyor is never wrong, even when he was wrong, the corner is going to stay where it is.:banghead:

Apparently the feller in white does not have a CC license in either AZ, UT or any other state Utah recognizes.

I took my little ones there a few years ago and now I find out it really is not the true spot......

It would be nice, but Obama is from Illinois.....I would expect him to say one thing and do another....I'm not trying to start anything....I was just thinking about that black state on the OC map.....

 

[OC4me]

I don't see how this being passed would allow for concealed carry in Illinois. It seems that if you have a permit that by this legislation you would be able to carry in another state with that permit following the laws regarding permitted carry in the visited state. Could someone explain how it would allow carry in Illinois?

It won't because the bill only allows for reciprocity in the states/jurisdictions that have provisions for their own citizens to carry. Illinois is the only state that has no such provision. However, once Illinois passes a concealed carry law then you could.

Interestingly, I think that Washington DC has a little-known may-issue carry license provision on the books, but these licenses are never issued. If I am correct, that might be enough, however to make concealed carry legal in DC (for non-residents). That would be very interesting indeed! I think I'll go post a question in the DC forum area.

 

[mrjam2jab]

Interestingly, I think that Washington DC has a little-known may-issue carry license provision on the books, but these licenses are never issued. If I am correct, that might be enough, however to make concealed carry legal in DC (for non-residents). That would be very interesting indeed! I think I'll go post a question in the DC forum area.

DC repealed that statute in 2009....right after Heller.

 

[Fisherman]

Because far too many in positions of authority (judges, LE, prosecutors, governors, legislators) are unable to read and understand simple English.



Oh, I agree! that's the way it should work. That's the way the Framers intended for it to work. That's what the original state legislators agreed to way back when.

Unfortunately, it all goes back to the fact that some people can't understand basic English, and far too many people do not understand that when it comes to curbing criminal behavior, this doesn't work:

[video=youtube;oOtfjcIfuYo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOtfjcIfuYo[/video]

Welcome to California!

Yeah. I remember that scene. Fools surrendering without a fight. That's what it'll get you almost every time. I prefer the original to the one with Tom Cruze. Can't stand that punk.

 

[silver]

I dont know about the rest of you guys, but i personally will be writing my representatives asking them to kill the bill. Should i make it past them, i will send a similar email to my senators.

I deeply dislike this bill on as it is a vast expansion of federal power. if we give them this, what will they do next? increase age limits? cut off certain public areas (like city parks perhaps) nation wide? There is no telling what a 3 headed dragon like this could morph into if we release one of the heads.

I do support the underlying intent of the bill, don't get me wrong, but i deeply disagree with the federal government expanding ANY power, the federal government should be protecting and securing the borders, and that is about it.

 

[Fisherman]

I dont know about the rest of you guys, but i personally will be writing my representatives asking them to kill the bill. Should i make it past them, i will send a similar email to my senators.

I deeply dislike this bill on as it is a vast expansion of federal power. if we give them this, what will they do next? increase age limits? cut off certain public areas (like city parks perhaps) nation wide? There is no telling what a 3 headed dragon like this could morph into if we release one of the heads.

I do support the underlying intent of the bill, don't get me wrong, but i deeply disagree with the federal government expanding ANY power, the federal government should be protecting and securing the borders, and that is about it.

This is what I'm worried about as well. I'm seriously afraid about the potential consequences of this bill.

 

[c45man]

This legislation is going nowhere. Bad economy, high unemployment, and the Obama Jobs Bill, which will take up the majority of the time in the congress. If you think I am wrong, please post why one would think that such a piece of legislation would get past the senate controlled by the democrats, or for that matter, why it would be signed into law by OBama.

The democrats control the executive branch of government and 1/2 of the legislative branch. With that in mind, this piece of legislation would be twisted with so many restrictions, the pro gun lobby, which was supposed to benefit, would be the very force to kill the whole idea and legislation attatched to it.

This thread makes interesting discussion, but there is no reality to the subject at hand.

 

[silver]

You may be absolutely right c45..for now, but once both houses are republican controlled,(33 of the seats are up in '12, but I didn't check exactly who they belong to currently) this thing might just squeeze through. As i mentioned, I disagree with this bill and have found the delay that the obama jobs bill will cause with this the only good thing to come out of it. However, with all the supporters this bill has gained, it will lay dormant, but not removed from consideration, untill "more important matters" have been seen to. When they do move it along, id be willing to bet they wait till ohbummer's out until they do (and i pray to god he is gone in 2012, hopefully replaced by bachman or perry! bc we cant handle another stimulus or bailout), so looking for his mark on the paper probably wouldn't be an issue.

that being said i do not disagree that this bill would be twisted tighter than a wet towel by the democrats as they attempt to get every last anti-gun string attached to it as possible, which is exactly why i do not like it at all. I do however, for the reasons mentioned in the above paragraph, disagree that there is no reality to the subject at hand.

 

[MilProGuy]

This legislation is going nowhere. Bad economy, high unemployment, and the Obama Jobs Bill, which will take up the majority of the time in the congress. If you think I am wrong, please post why one would think that such a piece of legislation would get past the senate controlled by the democrats, or for that matter, why it would be signed into law by OBama.

The democrats control the executive branch of government and 1/2 of the legislative branch. With that in mind, this piece of legislation would be twisted with so many restrictions, the pro gun lobby, which was supposed to benefit, would be the very force to kill the whole idea and legislation attatched to it.

This thread makes interesting discussion, but there is no reality to the subject at hand.

Excellent points!

I agree, that there is no reality to the subject at hand.

 

[PointofView]

The government contrivance of permit for a fee in the otherwise lawful exercise of an enumerated Right is unconstitutional. Such constructs clearly degrade such Inalienable Rights to that of a state granted privilege. Rights are not 'privileges'.

That said... if we must endure this odorous permit nonsense as a privilege, then full reciprocity is in order under the 14A until the intent of the 2A is no longer regulated or denied.

What this would accomplish is introduce lawful carry in such areas as are presently 'may issue' or 'no issue'. Citizens of those states who cannot carry with their own state permit (for lack of) could carry with their out-of-state non-resident permit(s).

In other words... force them to recognize the 2A and knock off the hoplophobic/political Micky Mouse B.S.

Much like making lawful citizens obtain PROOF in a state issued ID to vote? Rights are not privileges. The idea is the same but support for services provided by the government are not free. There is a cost to doing a background check (which I agree with). I would say you could build the ability to CC in as part of purchasing a firearm. If you are not deemed by whatever litmis test was put in place by YOUR elected officials to obtain a CC, you should also have failed the ability to CC. You can say it is your right and blah blah, but then reality kicks in when people who have multiple felonies and a history of mental illness go and acquire weapons. You elect officals to act on your behalf and each state shapes its policy in law/regulation for CC. Many people fail to recognize that some services cost money, and these services in some cases are pay as you go, such as a background check for gun ownership. The constitution is the law of the land and is supplemented by many other laws and interpreted by the appointed and elected judicial system. Voting is the essense of our ability to express ourselves in regards to law and should not have any cost involved to individuals directly, CC is on the other hand an option that is not supported one way or another by the constitution. Voting = encouraged Gun Ownership = right (indifferent to most people)

 

[Daylen]

Voting is not a right, it is a privilege.

 

[thebigsd]

Voting is not a right, it is a privilege.

Take a look at the 15th and 19th Amendments of the Constitution. It is clearly called the "right to vote."

http://www.ushistory.org/documents/amendments.htm#amend01

 

[JimMullinsWVCDL]

 

[thebigsd]

View attachment 7323

Lol. Isn't that how it always goes?

 

[Jared]

What the Federal Government giveth, the Federal Government can take away....plus.

This is typical of uninformed gun owners. The Federal Government isn't giving anything. It's a notwithstanding law (if it passes), similar to FOPA of 1986.

They aren't giving anything, it doesn't void out state issued permits and create a federal license.

The Federal Government has the power via the 14th amendment to pass legislation to protect fundamental rights if necessary.

The 10th amendment has no play here since it is a power forbidden to the states since firearms are an issue of a fundamental right.

Gun owners really are their own worst enemy.