Another state to abolish CCW to have constitutional carry!

[gogoDawgs]

The idea of ANYONE being able to legally carry a firearm concealed without ANY type of check or permit is very troubling to me. I for one am very happy with having a permit system in place so that a background check can be done and a person must complete a class to be able to legally conceal a firearm. I would also not be opposed to a proficiency exam being added as well to the requirements for getting a permit.

Thank you for providing the article. He really ripped up the whole licensing thing. I love how the only people that make that argument seem to be the ones "shredding" it. I never made that analogy, and trust me i'm fully aware ( I've been on this forum long enough) that there are plenty of morons that would pass any and all requirements needed for a concealed carry license then proceed to blow their left nut off while mexican carrying the next week. Since you brought up the driver's license "dilemna" I would be all for a more stringent licensing system in place, even then there would still be accidents though BUT, that DOESN"T mean we scrap the whole system! And thanks to the next poster who pointed out the definition of the 2nd amendment, that means you automatically win any debate or discussion so good for you. Bottom line, I am a firm believer in the 2nd amendment and that more people should own firearms and more people should carry either open or concealed, but I also want to make sure myself and my family are safe and if someone next to me is carrying a concealed weapon and I don't have the choice of whether to leave the area like I do if they are open carrying I would like to know they have shown a basic proficiency in being able to handle that firearm.

First, I wrote that short analogy. How am I 'shredding' it?

Second, the definition of a criminal is that they commit crimes and ignore the law. Be aware no amount of anything will prevent crime. You seek to create more criminals and more crimes by creating laws that don't exist.

Third, anytime anyone inserts a "but" in their argument they do not truely understand or grasp the emptiness of that argument.

Lastly, again note that <broken link removed> , <broken link removed> , <broken link removed> , <broken link removed> , or <broken link removed> either cared to ignore the law or just can't read. They all failed to get permission from the government for their firearm yet they were in possesion of a concealed firearm.

 

[MountainBear]

I would prefer a National CCW permit that did not require anything other than a background check. No training (that should be common sense to get anyway, no sense legislating it), no classes (again, common sense). Run it valid for five years at a time. Charge just the ACTUAL cost of the background check (like the $10 fee for buying a gun) and maybe the cost of the card. Like a $25 fee for five years. Since it is a right that is guaranteed under the federal constitution, do not allow any state or local restrictions (beyond courthouses and a few other locations). That would be what I would consider the best way to handle carry in this country...

 

[keystir]

First: I did not realize you are Nick Smith, It appeared that you copied this article for our reading pleasure. What I was talking about was your premise that somehow because their is a licensing system in place for cars and there are still accidents then by golly this means that licensing for firearms is stupid and we just need to let everybody do whatever they want however they want to do it. I disagree with that argument, just because you can't prevent ALL accidents doesn't mean you can't try to prevent LESS.

Second: I am aware you can't prevent all crime. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to prevent as much as possible. What I seek to do is keep guns out of the hands of criminals while maintaining our 2nd amendment rights.

Third: Zing!!!! Oh snap, you got me there. But, But, But, But, But.... you guys are something else. :woot:

 

[gogoDawgs]

First: I did not realize you are Nick Smith, It appeared that you copied this article for our reading pleasure. What I was talking about was your premise that somehow because their is a licensing system in place for cars and there are still accidents then by golly this means that licensing for firearms is stupid and we just need to let everybody do whatever they want however they want to do it. I disagree with that argument, just because you can't prevent ALL accidents doesn't mean you can't try to prevent LESS.

Second: I am aware you can't prevent all crime. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to prevent as much as possible. What I seek to do is keep guns out of the hands of criminals while maintaining our 2nd amendment rights.

Third: Zing!!!! Oh snap, you got me there. But, But, But, But, But.... you guys are something else. :woot:

Laws do not prevent crime. Laws only punish crime after the fact. I am for laws that punish the misuse of a firearm. It should be illegal to shoot someone when not self defense. It should be illegal to point a firearm at someone when not self defense.

The only way to keep guns out of the hands of criminals is to keep violent felons in prison until they die.

 

[gehrheart]

Sooo,
We should compromise our rights in order to feel safer? Who really needs a search warrant any way, I'm sure the officers were right that I was suspect....
Should we allow the courts to keep going after you after a jury said Na, not guilty, but the DA is not convinced....
Maybe some in government are right and they should be allowed to limit what we talk about on the internet..

Slippery slop when we allow ANY compromise to our rights. They read clear and easy to understand, shall not be infringed is pretty hard not to figure out.

 

[m1gunr]

We have enough laws on the books already that need to be enforced. Judges need to start enforcing the maximum penalty instead of the minimums.

Utah and Kentucky are also looking at constitutional carry.

 

[bnsaibum]

Just a few simple questions for thought;

How do you interpret "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."? Does this right include CC or just OC? If OC were considered a right and CC a privilege, would you consider that infringement?

2nd Amendment:
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.

Keeping and bearing Arms is unambiguously a right which my opinion happens to agree with. I also think that CC should be included in this right, 'but' the 2A does not implicitly state that it is a right.

 

[gogoDawgs]

Just a few simple questions for thought;

How do you interpret "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."? Does this right include CC or just OC? If OC were considered a right and CC a privilege, would you consider that infringement?

2nd Amendment:
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.

Keeping and bearing Arms is unambiguously a right which my opinion happens to agree with. I also think that CC should be included in this right, 'but' the 2A does not implicitly state that it is a right.

Unequivocally both are a right that pre dated the Constitution.

 

[Silver Fox]

This is the kind of evolution I am talking about!!! Go Tennessee!!!

SF-

 

[gehrheart]

Somebody needs to change the title of this thread.
It is very misleading

Fixed it for you!

 

[Stomper]

First: ... I disagree with that argument, just because you can't prevent ALL accidents doesn't mean you can't try to prevent LESS.

The problem with that is, you have to dumb it down to the "lowest common denominator". I submit the example of that former (STUPID) law of 20mph/24/7 in school zones... duh, see any kids around the street at 2am? No? Then pick it up and drive the dang car!

... or better yet, concerning where more "train wrecks" happen more than ANYWHERE... lets' mandate that people should pass a test and given a "permit" or "license" BEFORE they are allowed to procreate or adopt children.

That's the slippery slope... the, "its for your "own good" that we do this, doncha know!" approach, which has gotten us an onerous national/state debt (social security, and Oregon Trail cards come to mind), and the MYRIAD laws that can't POSSIBLY be tracked for the sheer number of them.


Second: I am aware you can't prevent all crime. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to prevent as much as possible. What I seek to do is keep guns out of the hands of criminals while maintaining our 2nd amendment rights.

There only needs to be TWO "gun control" laws...

1.
Those who are convicted of VIOLENT FELONIES may NOT own, nor possess any firearm, unless given a special dispensation.

2.
Thou SHALT NOT commit any type of crime with any firearm...PERIOD.


Third: Zing!!!! Oh snap, you got me there. But, But, But, But, But.... you guys are something else. :woot:

Yeah, ain't we a grand bunch?

 

[Contract_Pilot]

Here is one of Clark County's veterans... he lives in Tennessee and running for sheriff in smith county wonder if he has an opinion.

<broken link removed>