AZretired
Member
Just as another note the Real ID driver's license are not mandated either. Three states still don't issue them.
Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
Justifying Concealed Carry Reciprocity
- Thread starter richardw
- Start date
What I meant by that comment is that St. Louis County PD throws the fed retirees in with their retirees. For free . . .
Sorry for the question but a quick google did not show me which three states that do NOT issue drivers licenses. Please enlighten me. THanks
REM 3200
US Veteran
As I've posted before, what the Feds give, they can take away by the stroke of a pen.
He/she is talking about REAL ID compliant licenses . . .
Here's probably more than you ever wanted to know about the subject. I realize it's Wikipedia, but it'll do for this discussion. Missouri just recently received an extension so we can continue to board airplanes in 2018 while the state verification process is under review . . . :
REAL ID Act - Wikipedia
Dvan34
Member
An LEOSA card? Where I live I receive a business card from the qualifying agent, his personal information indicating the date, and the caliber of pistol/s. I depend on my ID as a retired officer. Nothing very formal. My ranger officer is a retired former CA Highway Patrol officer.
126 replies with as many opinions. #127: The Bill of RIGHTS spells out in very clear ENGLISH a list of (individual) "God given, INALIENABLE rights". Carrying a weapon is protected, not granted by the 2nd amendment. Anyone should be able to carry a firearm anywhere anytime as long as there is an absence of criminal intent. Folks need to start reading and stop interpreting the 2nd amendment. $.02. Joe
I'd reserve optimism until congress commences to impeaching activist justices who mete out agendas, not justice.
Pettifoggers who use law as a weapon to deny maximum individual liberty oughta have had their bar cards punched as invalid.
I think you are correct. If a state says no shot pistols, or no 15 round mags, and you think the permit you have in a different state will let you carry such a gun, you are wrong and going to be carrying illegally.
I think the law is a nightmare that will ensure anyone not an expert on the gun law of every state he passes through will have an opportunity to run into lock up.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Old TexMex
Member
Well, if you travel internationally, interstate, to the courthouse or the post office, any school or business that has a legal designation as a gun free zone.....you have to be aware of those restrictions. So what’s the difference.
Believing in states rights as I do, I’m going to accept it. And then I’m going to do whatever is appropriate to get special dispensation, if it’s at all possible.
Believing in states rights as I do, I’m going to accept it. And then I’m going to do whatever is appropriate to get special dispensation, if it’s at all possible.
Flyingfool
Member
Some people or I have read that the constitution only gives ownership rights and not the right to carry.
I could not disagree with this statement more!
First let us look at a few definitions of the word “bear” or “to bear”.
To bear
I think from dictionary.com
To bear:
1. (of a person) carry
Collins dictionary. transitive verb
1. If you bear something somewhere, you carry it there or take it there.
transitive verb
2 If you bear something such as a weapon, you hold it or carry it with you.
On the other hand to posses means: again collins dictionary: possess:
1. If you possess something, you have it or own it.
2. to hold as property or occupy in person; have as something that belongs to one; own
3. To put (someone) in possession of property, facts, etc.; cause to have something specified
Collins thesaurus:
1. carry, take, move
a surveyor and his assistant bearing a torch
2. hold, carry, pack
the constitutional right to bear arms
3. support, carry, shoulder
The ice was not thick enough to bear the weight of marching men.
4. display, have, show
———
In general “to bear” means that person or object has within itself (to bear the weight of) or on it self (to bear fruit). It is something that is physically with, on or intrinsic to the person or object)
To bear does NOT simply mean to possess which generally means simply to own, or to have. Bearing means to have with or on their person.
The 2nd amendment states: in the second half:
“... right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Notice the specific use of the words “to keep and bear”. This CLEARLY is specific language to differentiate the difference between owning (to keep); And “to bear” which clearly means an intent above and beyond simply to own (to possess or keep) and to actually guarantee the right of the people to have on their person (to bear).
And “shall not be infringed” would further imply that no state can inhibit, reduce or remove that right.
Collins dictionary for definition of “infringed”: verb
1. If someone infringes a law or a rule, they break it or do something which disobeys it.
2. If something infringes people's rights, it interferes with these rights and does not allow people the freedom they are entitled to
Therefore the reciprocity law should not even have to be written, or be necessary, if we actually had a supreme court and government leaders that actually knew and enforced the US constitution!
———
And you are right that a permit to carry should not be compared to marriage or professional licenses. As these other permits are a privilege, NOT a RIGHT guaranteed in the constitution. There is no other constitutional right granted in the constitution that is limited within the USA to even need a “permit” in the first place. So if any permit or license is to be honored in all 50 states it should be the something that is granted within the US constitution. There is no marriage or profession license grated in the constitution.
This is what makes this all the more frustrating. We have to have a federal law passed to grant permission to do what the constitution already grants as a right. While things like drivers permits and marriage licenses are simply accepted in all 50 states.
And what ever happened to the “equal protection clause” that is so generously and liberally used for other things. Yet for 2nd amendment there is no equal protection from one state to another?
The problem is that we have no government or elected officials that know or willing to enforce the constitution. And the issue of a state not following federal law. Well that is the same government with no balls to enforce or use their constitutional powers.
The feds can get the states to conform. All they have to do is cut off federal funding. NJ wpild buckle in a second if the feds witheld transportation and education funding.
I could not disagree with this statement more!
First let us look at a few definitions of the word “bear” or “to bear”.
To bear
I think from dictionary.com
To bear:
1. (of a person) carry
Collins dictionary. transitive verb
1. If you bear something somewhere, you carry it there or take it there.
transitive verb
2 If you bear something such as a weapon, you hold it or carry it with you.
On the other hand to posses means: again collins dictionary: possess:
1. If you possess something, you have it or own it.
2. to hold as property or occupy in person; have as something that belongs to one; own
3. To put (someone) in possession of property, facts, etc.; cause to have something specified
Collins thesaurus:
1. carry, take, move
a surveyor and his assistant bearing a torch
2. hold, carry, pack
the constitutional right to bear arms
3. support, carry, shoulder
The ice was not thick enough to bear the weight of marching men.
4. display, have, show
———
In general “to bear” means that person or object has within itself (to bear the weight of) or on it self (to bear fruit). It is something that is physically with, on or intrinsic to the person or object)
To bear does NOT simply mean to possess which generally means simply to own, or to have. Bearing means to have with or on their person.
The 2nd amendment states: in the second half:
“... right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Notice the specific use of the words “to keep and bear”. This CLEARLY is specific language to differentiate the difference between owning (to keep); And “to bear” which clearly means an intent above and beyond simply to own (to possess or keep) and to actually guarantee the right of the people to have on their person (to bear).
And “shall not be infringed” would further imply that no state can inhibit, reduce or remove that right.
Collins dictionary for definition of “infringed”: verb
1. If someone infringes a law or a rule, they break it or do something which disobeys it.
2. If something infringes people's rights, it interferes with these rights and does not allow people the freedom they are entitled to
Therefore the reciprocity law should not even have to be written, or be necessary, if we actually had a supreme court and government leaders that actually knew and enforced the US constitution!
———
And you are right that a permit to carry should not be compared to marriage or professional licenses. As these other permits are a privilege, NOT a RIGHT guaranteed in the constitution. There is no other constitutional right granted in the constitution that is limited within the USA to even need a “permit” in the first place. So if any permit or license is to be honored in all 50 states it should be the something that is granted within the US constitution. There is no marriage or profession license grated in the constitution.
This is what makes this all the more frustrating. We have to have a federal law passed to grant permission to do what the constitution already grants as a right. While things like drivers permits and marriage licenses are simply accepted in all 50 states.
And what ever happened to the “equal protection clause” that is so generously and liberally used for other things. Yet for 2nd amendment there is no equal protection from one state to another?
The problem is that we have no government or elected officials that know or willing to enforce the constitution. And the issue of a state not following federal law. Well that is the same government with no balls to enforce or use their constitutional powers.
The feds can get the states to conform. All they have to do is cut off federal funding. NJ wpild buckle in a second if the feds witheld transportation and education funding.
The Constitution does not give (or grant) ANY rights.
Equal protection under the law has nothing to do with state vs. state. It means laws (within their applicable jurisdiction) are applied equally to all people. The reciprocity bill violates this.
Last edited:
Flyingfool
Member
Yeah, thats why they call the first ten amendments, which ARE the constitution the bill if RIGHTS.
Also that is why in the amendment itself it says “the RIGHT of the people”.
Nope nothing about RIGHTS there! I must be reading some other piece of fiction!
The constitution does not “grant” rights. It ensures that the rights cannot be infringed or taken away. So it in essence codifies the rights.
Equal protection for the primary law of the nation is not needed. The US constitution applies equally to all states by definition!
Also that is why in the amendment itself it says “the RIGHT of the people”.
Nope nothing about RIGHTS there! I must be reading some other piece of fiction!
The constitution does not “grant” rights. It ensures that the rights cannot be infringed or taken away. So it in essence codifies the rights.
Equal protection for the primary law of the nation is not needed. The US constitution applies equally to all states by definition!
Clearly 200 some odd years of jurisprudence do not agree with you. All one has to do is discuss the various restrictions and permits across the several states with regard to voting to crash your theories . . .
Last edited:
Perfect explanation of the Second.
But, it also shows how actual the wording of a law doesn't mean that's what you actually end up with once the government and the courts are done working and interpreting it. Muggins point is so valid in that you can explain the Second as clear and concise as you want but, you will still lose in court. Even the "learned" justices on the Supreme don't see it so simply and they are NOT going to change.
Notice also that the Second did not have any exceptions to the word "arms"? For example, they didn't say except cannons, which existed at the time of writing.
You hear the fore fathers did not foresee automatic weapons, cartridges, magazines etc etc. Yet, the same people who use this point think that other amendments protect, radio, TV, phones, computers. I guess the forefathers saw those coming.
Point being just because the reciprocity bill says something doesn't mean that's what we are going to get.
Hardly!
But, it also shows how actual the wording of a law doesn't mean that's what you actually end up with once the government and the courts are done working and interpreting it. Muggins point is so valid in that you can explain the Second as clear and concise as you want but, you will still lose in court. Even the "learned" justices on the Supreme don't see it so simply and they are NOT going to change.
Notice also that the Second did not have any exceptions to the word "arms"? For example, they didn't say except cannons, which existed at the time of writing.
You hear the fore fathers did not foresee automatic weapons, cartridges, magazines etc etc. Yet, the same people who use this point think that other amendments protect, radio, TV, phones, computers. I guess the forefathers saw those coming.
Point being just because the reciprocity bill says something doesn't mean that's what we are going to get.
Hardly!
Last edited:
For good reason.
I qualify per LEOSA in the great state of Maryland at the Maryland Police and Corrections Training Center (MPCTC.) Though I don't know the stats, I daresay they qualify the majority of Maryland LEOSA applicants. Have done so every year since 2006. Each session consists of classroom review of applicable statutes, real life application, and a safety briefing before actual qualification courses. There is a written test, too.
I have learned over the years that a number of otherwise qualified applicants have been denied by the MPCTC because they were a danger to themselves and others as demonstrated on the range. Hope it never happens to me but I can live with the decision to disqualify me; I could not live with harming another due to my failures or negligence.
Be safe.
I qualify per LEOSA in the great state of Maryland at the Maryland Police and Corrections Training Center (MPCTC.) Though I don't know the stats, I daresay they qualify the majority of Maryland LEOSA applicants. Have done so every year since 2006. Each session consists of classroom review of applicable statutes, real life application, and a safety briefing before actual qualification courses. There is a written test, too.
I have learned over the years that a number of otherwise qualified applicants have been denied by the MPCTC because they were a danger to themselves and others as demonstrated on the range. Hope it never happens to me but I can live with the decision to disqualify me; I could not live with harming another due to my failures or negligence.
Be safe.
ChattanoogaPhil
Member
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2009
- Messages
- 14,601
- Reaction score
- 20,622
Annual government mandated culling operations...
Another chilling illustration why to keep the Feds away from anything to do with national carry schemes.
Sadly, can only give one "Like" per post.
I'd comment on the propriety of LEOSA, but it's off topic.
I'd comment on the propriety of LEOSA, but it's off topic.
......
So if anyone here believes we need a federal concealed carry standard with magazine restrictions, NRA sanctioned training and proficiency qualifications this is your bill. I wouldn't even rule out having to re-qualify every five years when the feds get it all hammered out.
I guess a lot of people these days believe that federal standards like NFA, GCA and Brady are a good thing. I'm not sure how we ever survived without them.
Oh, rest assured there are people here who believe in mandatory training, licensing fee’s and such.
One has even suggested if shut in grandma has no money for either training or a license, well......oh, that’s too bad.
Remember all the past threads?
Yep. A lot of alleged gun rights advocates are really gun privilege advocates.
Similar threads
