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.
I live in northeastern PA. We border NJ and NY - both with very stringent firearm laws. Many people, from PA and other states, have had problems because they felt that NJ or NY should honor their carry permits. There were two recent cases in NYC with tourist that got in trouble with their carry permits.
I know that NJ also has a restrictions on hollow point ammunition. This could be a problem - even if this new legislation passed. It is possible that people carrying, with the wrong ammunition, could still break local laws.
I support this legislation. I also think that it will be difficult to surmount all of the problems. I wish that our laws were uniform.
There are many examples where different states have different laws but accept each others travelers.
Take car registration. Some states have annual inspections. Some do not but, you don't have to get your car inspected if you travel through an inspection state.
In SC you do NOT need tags for a utility trailer, yet I can tow my trailer in NC which requires tags for the same trailer.
In MD you have to get an emissions inspection annually. Where I live there is no such law yet I can drive through MD and do not have to get its emission inspection
I don't know if it is still true but, at one time different states had different age laws for when you could get a drivers license.
I do know states have different driving restriction for teenagers.
Looks like at least Quick Enough believes that the 2nd amendment says govt can't take away the people's right to own and carry a gun, except felons.
Anybody else?
I didn't say that. I gave 1 example. There are others, such as if you become mentally unstable. I am sure there are others that are acceptable.
So, it looks like at least Quick Enough believes that the 2nd amendment says govt can't take away the people's right to own and carry a gun, except for felons, the mentally unstable, and a few exceptions to be named later.
So, it looks like at least Quick Enough believes that the 2nd amendment says govt can't take away the people's right to own and carry a gun, except for felons, the mentally unstable, and a few exceptions to be named later.
And nobody else dares to comment on it at all.
Game, set, .....
Whats your problem Acorn, fall too far from the patriot tree? The 2nd Amendment protects the peoples rights to keep and bear arms.
The Feds later added the laws restricting Felons and mentally unstable from owning firearms. I have no proplem with this provision. I only care about law abiding citizens with no mental issues.
For those in favor of the passage this bill please e-mail your senators. I know it may not help but we have to try.
The 2nd Amendment protects the peoples rights to keep and bear arms.
Sounds good.
So, how does that comport with many state's laws that prohibit people WITHOUT felony records, mental instability etc., from carrying a concealed weapon, unless they apply for a permit and get "approved"?
So, how does that comport with many state's laws that prohibit people WITHOUT felony records, mental instability etc., from carrying a concealed weapon, unless they apply for a permit and get "approved"?
Nice obscure, rarely used word. Why not say, harmonize or behave? Anyway, many state laws conflict with federal laws. I am sure you know plenty of examples so I will not bother to list them. This country's laws are not perfect by any means but we must try to retain the laws that helped found this country.
Federal laws tend to trickle down to the state level. As you know the saying, " sh_t runs downhill." We need these bills passed on the federal level before states will take notice.
That's right. Says so right in the 2nd amendment, which reads:
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed except by officials in Utah who don't want to allow yahoos from Georgia who have no training at all to carry there."
--------------------------
BTW, how did the framers in 1791 know to write it that way when Utah wasn't even a state at the time?
Did you miss that part? "Well regulated" means I am trained and have demonstrated that I can shoot a gun straight.
I persoally fvor states havig agreements based o that state rules and acceptig the other states. I do not want feds bthe mix on this because they can then set the standards also.States rights and agrreements are best ;IMO.
I don't see a problem now. You can get a Utah permit and a Nevada permit and carry in every state but Illiniois as far as I know.
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.
