JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
Messages
1,245
Reactions
426
"Oct. 23--Repeating a controversial statement that Knoxville Mayor Bill Haslam, the Republican Party's gubernatorial candidate, made earlier this week, Lt. Gov. Ron Ramsey said he would sign legislation abolishing the state's conceal carry permit requirements."

"Ramsey further said he has a constitutional issue with the state's conceal carry permit system because it places a limit on an individual's Second Amendment right to bear arms."

Here--- <broken link removed>


I hope that Tenn will join the ranks of VT AK AZ. I like the trend we are starting to see. This is good


And here--- <broken link removed>
 
Last Edited:
is wrong!! They aren't abolishing CCW, they are abolishing any laws restricting it. :s0155:

The "Trade Rating" is low by 3
Not everyone posts it I guess.

Deen
NRA Benefactor/Recruiter
WAC member
SWWAC member
 
Yes it good news, but also the licensing for CCW should remain in place for those who want to pay. The CCW or CHL permit is necessary in some places
fore reciprocity and in others for speeding through Brady Checks.

-sbc


Yes for the time being. I hope someday in my life time for my children it would not be needed for any state.
 
is wrong!! They aren't abolishing CCW, they are abolishing any laws restricting it. :s0155:

The "Trade Rating" is low by 3
Not everyone posts it I guess.

Deen
NRA Benefactor/Recruiter
WAC member
SWWAC member

Your sig is really awkward.
Put a dash/img divider in between your sig and your message body.
Do you copy/paste that in every single post? :huh:
 
I think actions like this are just lip service and easily bite us in the backend. They may abolish the requirements to get a CCW but they then usually do not take the steps necessary to legally protect the right of the individual to actually exercise their 2A rights. They leave way too many loop holes for antis to restrict carry through disturbing the peace laws and so forth. I actually prefer having a set standard for CCW with a clear definition of standards and requirements. That way licensed individuals are better protected against the system.
 
I have this posted in anther forum and am curious to the response here. Note, the organization would work on all carry related issues including Constitutional Carry.

Thoughts?

Would you financially support the establishment of a Washington State group?
Based on recent events of several OC cases as well as harassment of OC'rs by Law enforcement in different areas of the state, a number of OC'rs have expressed interest in formalizing a "Washington Carry" non-profit to identify common issues and develop resources to meet the needs of defending the rights of WA citizens in good standing regarding carry issues.

This poll is the first step in guaging interest and support for the establishment of a non-profit organization. This polling tool will be in place for a number of weeks to allow both active and intermittent posters and readers to express their interest.

If enough interest can be determined from this initial poll, next steps will be taken to determine the highest priority needs to be focused on by the organization through a number of venues including group meetings and online discussion threads. Then, resource needs and the framework for an organizational model to achieve its purpose will be developed.

Would you financially support the establishment of a Washington State group focused on carry related issues that are specific and important to us all under our State Constitution?

Yes?

No?
 
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.
 
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.

"ANYONE"?

Like cop killer Maurice Clemmons? or any other criminal? Do they get a concealed weapons permit? Of course not.

Should firearms or firearm owners be subject to testing to receive a license to carry a firearm?
The Argument Against
Author Nick Smith


No, no, no... it says "....shall not be infringed." no training, no class, no license, nada...the government is to be absent from a citizens right to 'keep' (own) and 'bear' (carry, open or concealed).

Now for one minute let's tear apart this stupid licensing idea.

You take ONE test to drive a car when you are 16 and then NEVER have to prove competency again. The test is simple, multiple choice and teaches you nothing that you can't read on your own. You take ONE driving test and then NEVER have to prove your ability ever again, EVER. Your driver’s license is recognized in any of the 50 states. Therefore, you can have learned to drive in Alaska with very little traffic, yet your license is good in New York, New York or Los Angeles, CA.

You can therefore be 66 years old and have not taken a test, written or physical in 50 YEARS. Do you think cars have changed in the last 50 years? The 'you have to have a license to drive' argument doesn't hold water, it is a joke. How many times driving have you said to yourself; 'that old man shouldn't be driving', 'that woman shouldn't be driving', 'that immigrant shouldn't be driving', 'that teenager shouldn't be driving?' We have all said this to ourselves. The argument simply is ridiculous and is now null and void.

And even with licensing, we still have; drunk drivers, negligent drivers, hit and runs, get away (from crime) drivers, stolen cars, speeding in school zones and more.

YOU SEE THAT LICENSING DRIVERS (AND CARS) DOES NOTHING TO PREVENT CRIME FROM CARS...OR FROM DRIVERS.

We must all simply accept that we choose to live in a free society. In a free society their are inherit risks and there is evil and there is great joy. Part of living in a free society is that we must accept responsibility for our actions. There are things in a free society that people will always not like and will always be opposed to and never agree upon, we must learn to accept that and yet choose to live together in peace and respect.

LIVE FREE OR DIE!
 
Great post gogodawgs!!!!!!!!!

I would think that there would be more gun owners with a kindred spirit when it comes to THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS here at NWFA.

Seems to me a rather large number of us prefers to have that right offered to us in more on the lines of a privilege. That is if we all pay a fee and past some tests.

And some would like us all to go the way they choose too.

Why would you take away our right and make us pay for it?

Why would you want laws made up to constrict our rights?

Should we be happy with what laws we have after our rights are taken away?

If we rock the boat will you ask for more laws to take the rights that we do have away?

Is that freedom? Is that what the 2nd means to you?

I just don't understand why you would choose to bind us instead of letting us do what we should do freely!

What does this mean to you?

Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791.

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.
 
Last Edited:
Thank you for providing the article. He really ripped up the whole licensing thing. :s0155: 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.
 
Well said gogodawgs.!!


There should be NO compromise to any of our bill of rights. I firmly believe that. Period.
No need for CCW
No BATF.
no state restrictions (federal law is to over ride state law so how can a state legally have laws that infringe?)
 

Upcoming Events

Tillamook Gun & Knife Show
Tillamook, OR
"The Original" Kalispell Gun Show
Kalispell, MT
Teen Rifle 1 Class
Springfield, OR
Kids Firearm Safety 2 Class
Springfield, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top