The bill would do NOTHING to help in this situation. IL completely bans carry, and even having it loaded in the passenger compartment is a crime.
By the way, It's Paducah, KY.
Reciprocity - There is hope
- Thread starter kraigwy
- Start date
The bill would do NOTHING to help in this situation. IL completely bans carry, and even having it loaded in the passenger compartment is a crime.
By the way, It's Paducah, KY.
Pasifikawv
Member
Good point: The reciprocity bill that failed did not mandate that all states must allow CCW. It only allowed that states that did issue CCW permits would honor CCW permits from any other state.
Illinois and Wisconsin are the only states that prohibit any/all concealed carry. The failed reciprocity bill wouldn't have made any difference in those two states and concealed carry would still be unlawful in those states.
Hoplophile
Member
And what form of poll test would you require to exercise a fundamental constitutional right?
There is no difference in "bad shootings" between states that have training requirements than states that do not.
I am a certified instructor. I believe an individual who chooses to carry a firearm (open or concealed) for the purpose of personal protection has a moral obligation to get the best training he/she can afford.
But the state has no business imposing a poll test on ANY fundamental right.
All "rights" are subject to limits. Just yell "fire" in a movie theater, and you will understand.
I am every bit as well-trained as most members of this Forum (or anyone/anywhere) yet still undergo requalifications. Frankly, I do so without reservations, regrets, or worries that my Constitutional rights are somehow infinged upon.
Be safe.
I am every bit as well-trained as most members of this Forum (or anyone/anywhere) yet still undergo requalifications. Frankly, I do so without reservations, regrets, or worries that my Constitutional rights are somehow infinged upon.
Be safe.
I think that the right to vote is a closer related example than yelling "fire". The idea that one State can require stricter requirements to vote than another State has pretty much been put to bed, though there are some local variations in voting procedures. Basically every American has been born with the right to vote, when certain minimal (age and residency for example) requirements are met. Although you can do things in life that cause you to loose the right to vote.
The 2nd Amendment should apply to me equally if I'm in my native Ohio or in more controlling States like Il, NJ, NY or Maryland. I do not give up my US citizenship when I cross the State line, I should not have to give up any of the rights of citizenship.
The 2nd Amendment should apply to me equally if I'm in my native Ohio or in more controlling States like Il, NJ, NY or Maryland. I do not give up my US citizenship when I cross the State line, I should not have to give up any of the rights of citizenship.
Absolutely agree there should be consistency but as long as some states continue to believe there should be no restrictions/qualifications whatsoever, there will be some states that find their unwillingness to apply any standards whatsover unworkable.
In particular, those states that will issue a CCW permit to someone who isn't even a resident of their state seem to be having negative feedback.
In particular, those states that will issue a CCW permit to someone who isn't even a resident of their state seem to be having negative feedback.
Florida began issuing out of state permits because before they did so the Florida criminal element was smart enough to target victims with out of state plates. To my knowledge there are no States with "no restrictions/qualifications whatsoever". I think even the least restrictive States like Alaska and Vermont have age and residency restrictions. Given the lack of press about rampant crime and/or improper use of handguns in those States the indication is that their policies are working.
So yes, I'd agree that to be permitted to carry a handgun there should be some restrictions. Age and citizenship restrictions should apply. 21 unless a member or honorably discharged member of the military.
Personally I feel we'd be better off if a person had to prove they could actually read a ballot before they were allowed to vote. However courts have long ruled that literacy tests for voting were unconstitutional. Also , when I cross State lines I do not have to change or hide my religion and I do not loose any other Rights guaranteed by the Constitution except one. The 2nd Amendment should be given the same considerations as other Rights of Citizenship.
EVERYONE would benefit from firearms safety training. Heck, when I was in school basic firearms safety was a required class from 6th through 8th grade and optional 10 through 12th grade. The State Department of natural Resources conducted the classes and you had to have a note from your parents to get out of them.
However if you start saying that specific training and qualification is required for CCW where do you draw the line? Why not require training to purchase and/or use ANY firearm? I don't think that is a road we want to start down and CCW is the first step.
So yes, I'd agree that to be permitted to carry a handgun there should be some restrictions. Age and citizenship restrictions should apply. 21 unless a member or honorably discharged member of the military.
Personally I feel we'd be better off if a person had to prove they could actually read a ballot before they were allowed to vote. However courts have long ruled that literacy tests for voting were unconstitutional. Also , when I cross State lines I do not have to change or hide my religion and I do not loose any other Rights guaranteed by the Constitution except one. The 2nd Amendment should be given the same considerations as other Rights of Citizenship.
EVERYONE would benefit from firearms safety training. Heck, when I was in school basic firearms safety was a required class from 6th through 8th grade and optional 10 through 12th grade. The State Department of natural Resources conducted the classes and you had to have a note from your parents to get out of them.
However if you start saying that specific training and qualification is required for CCW where do you draw the line? Why not require training to purchase and/or use ANY firearm? I don't think that is a road we want to start down and CCW is the first step.
Vermont has no restrictions regarding lawful carry whether open or concealed by anyone from anywhere. None. And one can read the law to say that my minor children or wards under the age of sixteen, with my permission ("OK, have fun and don't shoot anybody!) can carry as well. There are however, pursuant to the Gun Control Acts of 1968 and 1986, residency and age restrictions on purchase.
Here is some interesting reading which doesn't take long. The Office of the Attorney General of Vermont | Gun Laws
Well, there was one recently here: Tinmouth man expected to recover from accidental shooting - WCAX.COM Local Vermont News, Weather and Sports-. Then there are the hunting season AD/ND's with turkey hunting being especially dangerous. If you want to see where the future generation of such shooters will come from, go hang around the gun sales counters of a big seller like the Kittery Trading Post on a weekend afternoon.
How 'bout this for minimal "quals" for CCW?
-Shoot the same course/score as is required for your local/state police.
-Submit your fingerprints. (let's add DNA sample.)
-Not beat/assault your spouse...ever. i.e. No conviction. PERIOD.
-Not be a drunk/druggie.
Be safe.
-Shoot the same course/score as is required for your local/state police.
-Submit your fingerprints. (let's add DNA sample.)
-Not beat/assault your spouse...ever. i.e. No conviction. PERIOD.
-Not be a drunk/druggie.
Be safe.
5BeansintheWheel
Member
Why should I be finger printed? That is bull, let us agree to having a tracking device stapled to our fore head while we are at it.
So, you've spent your life...presumably as an adult...without ever having been fingerprinted? Unusual, in my estimation.
Next, question: Why are you so afraid of being 'printed?
Be safe.
Next, question: Why are you so afraid of being 'printed?
Be safe.
5BeansintheWheel
Member
What is so unusual about it? I am not a convicted felon and Pa does not require fingerprints for a license to carry firearms or to purchase firearms. Philthy may require fingerprints for a LTCF, but I may be wrong on that because they are not my issuing county.
It is not about being afraid of being printed. It is more about enough is enough with restrictions and privacy invasion from the gov. Why do they need my prints?
Sadly it seems so many gun owners are willing to give up a mile to gain an inch when it comes to this stuff. The only way I will support this "National Carry" is if my Pa LTCF ( and I think this is bull also) is good in all 50 states or they go Vermont style.
Why should my daughter need to "shoot the same course . . . . . . . as local/state police"? She needs her little 442 for when she is going in/out of a restaurant/grocery/movie theater, or if she happens to have a breakdown or flat tire. She isn't going to be assaulting a crack house, or even approaching a car in a traffic stop.
I don't have a whole lot of problem with your other requirements, since having a GWL (Georgia Weapons License) means I don't have to undergo a background check every time I buy a gun.
D, your posts just illustrate why I don't want the Federal Government involved in any way with my Georgia Weapons License. You have a bad habit of applying Maryland logic to those of us in less "progressive" states like Georgia, Florida, Texas, Tennessee, etc. To paraphrase Lewis Grizzard, we really don't give a damn how you do it in Baltimore. With your attitude, I understand why MD has some of the most "progressive" gun laws in the US.
5BeansintheWheel
Member
Thank you, I did not want to say it. Had a hunter from NJ tell me he thought there should be a 12 day waiting period for a handgun, but not his slug gun for deer.
Good points/questions, redlevel. Please allow me to explain...
The "quals" I cited are basically those used for LEOSA. I suspect any national reciprocity would entail similar. The "same course" required is a very basic course that in Maryland is the OFF DUTY course for current LEO. 60 rounds; night and day fire. It is not a course that would equip one for real policing. More of a self defense course, actually. It does include reloads, cover/concealment, off-hand shooting, and varying distances.
The fingerprinting would help ensure the person being permitted is the actual person applying. e.g. Not a wanted person, felon, or other disqualified person.
Perhaps most important is that these are NOT Maryland criteria. As stated, they are LEOSA related which is a Federal statute. IMHO, any national reciprocity would require national standards being met.
Be safe.
The "quals" I cited are basically those used for LEOSA. I suspect any national reciprocity would entail similar. The "same course" required is a very basic course that in Maryland is the OFF DUTY course for current LEO. 60 rounds; night and day fire. It is not a course that would equip one for real policing. More of a self defense course, actually. It does include reloads, cover/concealment, off-hand shooting, and varying distances.
The fingerprinting would help ensure the person being permitted is the actual person applying. e.g. Not a wanted person, felon, or other disqualified person.
Perhaps most important is that these are NOT Maryland criteria. As stated, they are LEOSA related which is a Federal statute. IMHO, any national reciprocity would require national standards being met.
Be safe.
Prints would be needed to ensure the person issued the permit is the actual person requesting it and not wanted or otherwise disqualified. That's all.
Be safe.
Be safe.
So someone who is disabled and cannot fire a LEUSA course would be automatically ineligible for a CCW? And conversely, if the course is not essential for someone who is disabled, why is it essential for someone not disabled?
Ohio requires proof of approved training, which is usually the NRA Basic Pistol course with additional information specific to Ohio laws added. A specific amount of range time, though no qualifying scores. Background check with finger prints, no record of domestic violence or drug abuse. We also have provisions for an emergency permit if the person is under threat and we are a Shall Issue State.
So most of what your proposing my wife and I have already done. I just don't think LEO level range qualification is practical or beneficial. Whatever Federally required background check we go through to purchase a handgun from a FFL should be sufficient to issue a permit to carry a handgun.
Ohio requires proof of approved training, which is usually the NRA Basic Pistol course with additional information specific to Ohio laws added. A specific amount of range time, though no qualifying scores. Background check with finger prints, no record of domestic violence or drug abuse. We also have provisions for an emergency permit if the person is under threat and we are a Shall Issue State.
So most of what your proposing my wife and I have already done. I just don't think LEO level range qualification is practical or beneficial. Whatever Federally required background check we go through to purchase a handgun from a FFL should be sufficient to issue a permit to carry a handgun.
Similar threads
