Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As it is it's impossible for most people to carry in several states. I do think it should be possible for a person to carry in any state without buying multiple licenses if they're even issued to non-residents. Should be no different than how all states must recognize driver's licenses, marriages, etc. Perhaps once we get incorporation of the Second Amendment this will be fixed but we'll see. Once we do laws like those in NY, NJ, CA, MA, RI, HI, IL, WI that prevent people from carrying a gun will drop like lead in water.
So you are saying that you count on NOTHING but the Police to protect you????
IMHO THAT is playing Russian Roulette with your own life.
It's my life to do so, just like it's yours to do as you choose.
I don't live in the US unless I have to so I don't have extreme fear of criminals.
I was recently in Georgia and visiting my home state for about a month and I didn't feel safe at all.
If anyone has a link to the actual votes,please post it...I can not find it for some reason.
Here are a few buttholes that NEED to be remembered the next time you go to the voting booth or the next time you are a victim of a crime where carrying a gun on your person may have stopped it.
You should also remember the Dems that tried to HELP pass this too.
"This is a grave threat to public safety," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.). "Concealed-weapons laws that work in rural states may not be suitable in urban areas. What's good for Iowa or Alaska may not be good for California or New York." Feinstein was joined by Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) in voting against the measure.
Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) called the measure "probably the most dangerous" gun legislation since Congress allowed the federal assault-weapons ban to expire in 2004.
I'm with you here. You know I have moved many times over the last 5 years. I currently live abroad. The last week before I moved out of my apartment, an incedent occured that made me decide that when I move back to the states, I'm going to keep a gun in my house. Just in the last 5 years I have lived in San Francisco, LA, Northern Virginia and Chile. I have driven across the country 3 times. What happens when I want to bring a gun with me next time I move? It looks like I'll have to leave it behind or risk going to jail for illegally transporting a firearm.
Diane Feinstein is a bonehead! What she doesn't recognize is that there are rural and urban areas in every state and there is nothing wrong with having a gun in an urban area as long as you aren't using it to rob people or shoot people. As for Boxer, I usually agree with her, but I'm not with her on this issue.
I understand what you are saying DC,but this is a common sense issue like the CDL was and the CDL law pretty well busted that door down years ago didn't it?
I don't think that the CDL is an equivocal issue. I understand what you're saying, that different states had different standards to qualify people to drive, and so on. But the CDL issue was one of reciprocity. States still have different standards to qualify drivers, and states have different laws and regulations regarding the rules of the road. When someone driving from Arkansas enters New York, however, they don't bring along with them the laws from Arkansas. The implicit intent of the reciprocity is that the Arkansas driver will obey the laws of New York, even if the laws of New York revoke his driving privilege, or be cited for law-breaking.
My understanding, and I may be wrong, is that the concealed-carry permit didn't convey a similar reciprocity. It essentially said that the gun carrier operates in a bubble, his home state laws apply to him, not the laws of the state into which he has traveled. For instance, in Arkansas the laws may be much less stringent than the laws of New York City, which I understand are quite strict in regards to concealed-carry. But this legislation would have allowed the Arkansan to follow the less stringent laws of his home state in order to carry his own weapon outside the state.
It's my life to do so, just like it's yours to do as you choose.
I don't live in the US unless I have to so I don't have extreme fear of criminals.
I was recently in Georgia and visiting my home state for about a month and I didn't feel safe at all.
Location: Democratic Peoples Republic of Redneckistan
11,078 posts, read 15,080,865 times
Reputation: 3937
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfields
I'm with you here. You know I have moved many times over the last 5 years. I currently live abroad. The last week before I moved out of my apartment, an incedent occured that made me decide that when I move back to the states, I'm going to keep a gun in my house. Just in the last 5 years I have lived in San Francisco, LA, Northern Virginia and Chile. I have driven across the country 3 times. What happens when I want to bring a gun with me next time I move? It looks like I'll have to leave it behind or risk going to jail for illegally transporting a firearm.
Diane Feinstein is a bonehead! What she doesn't recognize is that there are rural and urban areas in every state and there is nothing wrong with having a gun in an urban area as long as you aren't using it to rob people or shoot people. As for Boxer, I usually agree with her, but I'm not with her on this issue.
I agree with you,she IS a bonehead and we face the same crap in the state that I live in...Chicago has all the population,but takes up just a tiny part of the state...just because they can't get their heads out of their asses up there on their criminals,we have to live by the rules of a major metro area in a town of 200
I don't think that the CDL is an equivocal issue. I understand what you're saying, that different states had different standards to qualify people to drive, and so on. But the CDL issue was one of reciprocity. States still have different standards to qualify drivers, and states have different laws and regulations regarding the rules of the road. When someone driving from Arkansas enters New York, however, they don't bring along with them the laws from Arkansas. The implicit intent of the reciprocity is that the Arkansas driver will obey the laws of New York, even if the laws of New York revoke his driving privilege, or be cited for law-breaking.
My understanding, and I may be wrong, is that the concealed-carry permit didn't convey a similar reciprocity. It essentially said that the gun carrier operates in a bubble, his home state laws apply to him, not the laws of the state into which he has traveled. For instance, in Arkansas the laws may be much less stringent than the laws of New York City, which I understand are quite strict in regards to concealed-carry. But this legislation would have allowed the Arkansan to follow the less stringent laws of his home state in order to carry his own weapon outside the state.
No, it would have simply allowed the person from Arkansas with a permit there to carry in NY. Any specific NY rules about method of carry (open carry is illegal in NY) and off limits places would have applied. Currently only someone who is a resident of NYC with a NYC permit (rarely issued except to well connected people) can carry in NYC (not even a person from the rest of NY state with a permit can carry in NYC). A person travelling even through several pro-gun states may need multiple licenses to carry.
If anyone has a link to the actual votes,please post it...I can not find it for some reason.
Here are a few buttholes that NEED to be remembered the next time you go to the voting booth or the next time you are a victim of a crime where carrying a gun on your person may have stopped it.
You should also remember the Dems that tried to HELP pass this too.
"This is a grave threat to public safety," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.). "Concealed-weapons laws that work in rural states may not be suitable in urban areas. What's good for Iowa or Alaska may not be good for California or New York." Feinstein was joined by Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) in voting against the measure.
Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) called the measure "probably the most dangerous" gun legislation since Congress allowed the federal assault-weapons ban to expire in 2004.
I'm a CCW holder and routinely carry in my vehicle, on occasion across state lines. When travelling, I don't think I have ever had the need to remove my weapon from the vehicle. It appears that this bill would have basically been a cramdown for Wisconsin, Illinois and DC (which are the only entities in the United States that do not provide some form of concealed carry permitting) forcing them to recognize out of state permits for concealed carry. I'm not sure it was a good idea to begin with and I doubt that the bill would have affected a meaningful number of Americans.
As much as I want to knee-jerk "ANTI GUN BAD!!! BOXER/FEINSTEIN BAD!!!", I don't think that was a reasonable proposal.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
