GOP Rep Introduces National Concealed Carry Reciprocity On Day One of
New Congress

http://www.breitbart.com/2nd-amendme...-new-congress/

On Wed, 4 Jan 2017 11:27:00 -0500, burfordTjustice
wrote:

GOP Rep Introduces National Concealed Carry Reciprocity On Day One of
New Congress

http://www.breitbart.com/2nd-amendme...-introduces-na

THIS MESSAGE WAS POSTED BY A TROLL. PLEASE DISCARD IT!

On Wednesday, January 4, 2017 at 11:26:59 AM UTC-5, burfordTjustice wrote:
GOP Rep Introduces National Concealed Carry Reciprocity On Day One of
New Congress

http://www.breitbart.com/2nd-amendme...-new-congress/

My guess is that this is unconstitutional. Can the feds tell states
that they have to recognize another state's carry permit? Sounds
like a state's rights issue. And hypocrisy from those that claim to
be conservative, are against big govt, for state's rights, etc.

On Fri, 6 Jan 2017 08:14:45 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Wednesday, January 4, 2017 at 11:26:59 AM UTC-5, burfordTjustice wrote:
GOP Rep Introduces National Concealed Carry Reciprocity On Day One of
New Congress

http://www.breitbart.com/2nd-amendme...-new-congress/

My guess is that this is unconstitutional. Can the feds tell states
that they have to recognize another state's carry permit? Sounds
like a state's rights issue. And hypocrisy from those that claim to
be conservative, are against big govt, for state's rights, etc.

A driving license, a privilege, is allowed over state lines. Do you
really think a state can deny a constitutional right afforded under
the U.S. Constitution? People that are legal should not have a right
denied by a state -- period.

The Reciprocity Act has been around for a long time, but not passed.
Now is the time.

On Fri, 06 Jan 2017 09:38:26 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Fri, 6 Jan 2017 08:14:45 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Wednesday, January 4, 2017 at 11:26:59 AM UTC-5, burfordTjustice wrote:
GOP Rep Introduces National Concealed Carry Reciprocity On Day One of
New Congress

http://www.breitbart.com/2nd-amendme...-new-congress/

My guess is that this is unconstitutional. Can the feds tell states
that they have to recognize another state's carry permit? Sounds
like a state's rights issue. And hypocrisy from those that claim to
be conservative, are against big govt, for state's rights, etc.

A driving license, a privilege, is allowed over state lines. Do you
really think a state can deny a constitutional right afforded under
the U.S. Constitution? People that are legal should not have a right
denied by a state -- period.

The Reciprocity Act has been around for a long time, but not passed.
Now is the time.

I agree with the concept but the problem in a practical sense is CCW
training is mostly about the law and if the self defense laws are
different in each state you would pretty much have to be certified in
each state. If they said that after said training you were good to go,
I would agree it is OK.
You could probably break this down into 3 or 4 classes. It would range
from Texas where you can use force top protect property to dark blue
places where you can't even use force to defend yourself from
intruders in your own bedroom. (obligation to retreat).
My best buddy from school did time in Maryland for killing an intruder
with his bare hands. The prosecution argued that between punch 1 and 2
(the fatal one) he could have run out the door.

wrote in message news
On Fri, 06 Jan 2017 09:38:26 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Fri, 6 Jan 2017 08:14:45 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Wednesday, January 4, 2017 at 11:26:59 AM UTC-5, burfordTjustice wrote:
GOP Rep Introduces National Concealed Carry Reciprocity On Day One of
New Congress

http://www.breitbart.com/2nd-amendme...-new-congress/

My guess is that this is unconstitutional. Can the feds tell states
that they have to recognize another state's carry permit? Sounds
like a state's rights issue. And hypocrisy from those that claim to
be conservative, are against big govt, for state's rights, etc.

A driving license, a privilege, is allowed over state lines. Do you
really think a state can deny a constitutional right afforded under
the U.S. Constitution? People that are legal should not have a right
denied by a state -- period.

The Reciprocity Act has been around for a long time, but not passed.
Now is the time.

I agree with the concept but the problem in a practical sense is CCW
training is mostly about the law and if the self defense laws are
different in each state you would pretty much have to be certified in
each state. If they said that after said training you were good to go,
I would agree it is OK.
You could probably break this down into 3 or 4 classes. It would range
from Texas where you can use force top protect property to dark blue
places where you can't even use force to defend yourself from
intruders in your own bedroom. (obligation to retreat).
My best buddy from school did time in Maryland for killing an intruder
with his bare hands. The prosecution argued that between punch 1 and 2
(the fatal one) he could have run out the door.

***Then is time to kill ******* Judge' no options!

On Fri, 06 Jan 2017 13:49:12 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 06 Jan 2017 09:38:26 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Fri, 6 Jan 2017 08:14:45 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Wednesday, January 4, 2017 at 11:26:59 AM UTC-5, burfordTjustice wrote:
GOP Rep Introduces National Concealed Carry Reciprocity On Day One of
New Congress

http://www.breitbart.com/2nd-amendme...-new-congress/

My guess is that this is unconstitutional. Can the feds tell states
that they have to recognize another state's carry permit? Sounds
like a state's rights issue. And hypocrisy from those that claim to
be conservative, are against big govt, for state's rights, etc.

A driving license, a privilege, is allowed over state lines. Do you
really think a state can deny a constitutional right afforded under
the U.S. Constitution? People that are legal should not have a right
denied by a state -- period.

The Reciprocity Act has been around for a long time, but not passed.
Now is the time.

I agree with the concept but the problem in a practical sense is CCW
training is mostly about the law and if the self defense laws are
different in each state you would pretty much have to be certified in
each state. If they said that after said training you were good to go,
I would agree it is OK.
You could probably break this down into 3 or 4 classes. It would range
from Texas where you can use force top protect property to dark blue
places where you can't even use force to defend yourself from
intruders in your own bedroom. (obligation to retreat).
My best buddy from school did time in Maryland for killing an intruder
with his bare hands. The prosecution argued that between punch 1 and 2
(the fatal one) he could have run out the door.

You make a point of individual state laws.

"The Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act (LEOSA) is a United States
federal law, enacted in 2004, that allows two classes of persons—the
"qualified law enforcement officer" and the "qualified retired law
enforcement officer"—to carry a concealed firearm in any jurisdiction
in the United States, regardless of state or local laws, with certain
exceptions."

I don't know every state law but I can carry under the current LEOSA
law, codified in federal law.

AFAIK self defense is allowed in every state and ruled upon by SCOTUS.

The Reciprocity Act is about "carry".

On Fri, 06 Jan 2017 11:43:08 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Fri, 06 Jan 2017 13:49:12 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 06 Jan 2017 09:38:26 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Fri, 6 Jan 2017 08:14:45 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Wednesday, January 4, 2017 at 11:26:59 AM UTC-5, burfordTjustice wrote:
GOP Rep Introduces National Concealed Carry Reciprocity On Day One of
New Congress

http://www.breitbart.com/2nd-amendme...-new-congress/

My guess is that this is unconstitutional. Can the feds tell states
that they have to recognize another state's carry permit? Sounds
like a state's rights issue. And hypocrisy from those that claim to
be conservative, are against big govt, for state's rights, etc.

A driving license, a privilege, is allowed over state lines. Do you
really think a state can deny a constitutional right afforded under
the U.S. Constitution? People that are legal should not have a right
denied by a state -- period.

The Reciprocity Act has been around for a long time, but not passed.
Now is the time.

I agree with the concept but the problem in a practical sense is CCW
training is mostly about the law and if the self defense laws are
different in each state you would pretty much have to be certified in
each state. If they said that after said training you were good to go,
I would agree it is OK.
You could probably break this down into 3 or 4 classes. It would range
from Texas where you can use force top protect property to dark blue
places where you can't even use force to defend yourself from
intruders in your own bedroom. (obligation to retreat).
My best buddy from school did time in Maryland for killing an intruder
with his bare hands. The prosecution argued that between punch 1 and 2
(the fatal one) he could have run out the door.

You make a point of individual state laws.

"The Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act (LEOSA) is a United States
federal law, enacted in 2004, that allows two classes of persons€”the
"qualified law enforcement officer" and the "qualified retired law
enforcement officer"€”to carry a concealed firearm in any jurisdiction
in the United States, regardless of state or local laws, with certain
exceptions."

I don't know every state law but I can carry under the current LEOSA
law, codified in federal law.

AFAIK self defense is allowed in every state and ruled upon by SCOTUS.

The Reciprocity Act is about "carry".

The point is, once you get into the dark blue states where there is
virtually no CCW now, they have "the obligation to retreat" written
into their law so a "self defense" can be called murder if there was
any possible way to run away. They are even dodgy about protecting
others. Some define it is imminent fear of death, not even bodily
harm. Basically if a "reasonable person" thinks they will just be beat
"half" to death, it is not self defense to use deadly force,
particularly with a weapon.

On Friday, January 6, 2017 at 3:28:00 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Fri, 06 Jan 2017 11:43:08 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Fri, 06 Jan 2017 13:49:12 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 06 Jan 2017 09:38:26 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Fri, 6 Jan 2017 08:14:45 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Wednesday, January 4, 2017 at 11:26:59 AM UTC-5, burfordTjustice wrote:
GOP Rep Introduces National Concealed Carry Reciprocity On Day One of
New Congress

http://www.breitbart.com/2nd-amendme...-new-congress/

My guess is that this is unconstitutional. Can the feds tell states
that they have to recognize another state's carry permit? Sounds
like a state's rights issue. And hypocrisy from those that claim to
be conservative, are against big govt, for state's rights, etc.

A driving license, a privilege, is allowed over state lines. Do you
really think a state can deny a constitutional right afforded under
the U.S. Constitution? People that are legal should not have a right
denied by a state -- period.

The Reciprocity Act has been around for a long time, but not passed.
Now is the time.

I agree with the concept but the problem in a practical sense is CCW
training is mostly about the law and if the self defense laws are
different in each state you would pretty much have to be certified in
each state. If they said that after said training you were good to go,
I would agree it is OK.
You could probably break this down into 3 or 4 classes. It would range
from Texas where you can use force top protect property to dark blue
places where you can't even use force to defend yourself from
intruders in your own bedroom. (obligation to retreat).
My best buddy from school did time in Maryland for killing an intruder
with his bare hands. The prosecution argued that between punch 1 and 2
(the fatal one) he could have run out the door.

You make a point of individual state laws.

"The Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act (LEOSA) is a United States
federal law, enacted in 2004, that allows two classes of persons€”the
"qualified law enforcement officer" and the "qualified retired law
enforcement officer"€”to carry a concealed firearm in any jurisdiction
in the United States, regardless of state or local laws, with certain
exceptions."

I don't know every state law but I can carry under the current LEOSA
law, codified in federal law.

AFAIK self defense is allowed in every state and ruled upon by SCOTUS.

The Reciprocity Act is about "carry".

The point is, once you get into the dark blue states where there is
virtually no CCW now, they have "the obligation to retreat" written
into their law so a "self defense" can be called murder if there was
any possible way to run away. They are even dodgy about protecting
others. Some define it is imminent fear of death, not even bodily
harm. Basically if a "reasonable person" thinks they will just be beat
"half" to death, it is not self defense to use deadly force,
particularly with a weapon.

Where's Kurt on the constitutionality of this? He's our resident
expert. Would be interesting to see his opinion.

Per burfordTjustice:
GOP Rep Introduces National Concealed Carry Reciprocity On Day One of
New Congress

http://www.breitbart.com/2nd-amendme...-new-congress/

Do any states issue "Open Carry" permits?

Got to wonder how that would play out in the same context.
--
Pete Cresswell

On Fri, 06 Jan 2017 16:13:04 -0500, "(PeteCresswell)"
wrote:

Per burfordTjustice:
GOP Rep Introduces National Concealed Carry Reciprocity On Day One of
New Congress

http://www.breitbart.com/2nd-amendme...-new-congress/

Do any states issue "Open Carry" permits?


NV, AZ, and TX are open carry. No permits needed. Concealed carry does
require a permit. Check your state laws.

Got to wonder how that would play out in the same context.

Some states require you to inform an officer you have a gun when
stopped, but not all do. Some state don't require the officer to ask
if you have a weapon.

In article ,
says...

Do any states issue "Open Carry" permits?


NV, AZ, and TX are open carry. No permits needed. Concealed carry does
require a permit. Check your state laws.

You are wrong, at least about Texas. It's now called a LTC (License to
Carry).

--
RonNNN

On Fri, 6 Jan 2017 15:28:49 -0600, RonNNN wrote:

In article ,
says...

Do any states issue "Open Carry" permits?


NV, AZ, and TX are open carry. No permits needed. Concealed carry does
require a permit. Check your state laws.

You are wrong, at least about Texas. It's now called a LTC (License to
Carry).

I'll refresh myself.

In NV we don't need no stinking permit.

In article ,
says...

On Fri, 6 Jan 2017 15:28:49 -0600, RonNNN wrote:

In article ,
says...

Do any states issue "Open Carry" permits?


NV, AZ, and TX are open carry. No permits needed. Concealed carry does
require a permit. Check your state laws.

You are wrong, at least about Texas. It's now called a LTC (License to
Carry).

I'll refresh myself.

In NV we don't need no stinking permit.

Just to clarify, we can carry "long guns" without a permit, but handguns
require a permit, with a few exceptions.

--
RonNNN

On 01/06/2017 11:49 AM, wrote:
I agree with the concept but the problem in a practical sense is CCW
training is mostly about the law and if the self defense laws are
different in each state you would pretty much have to be certified in
each state. If they said that after said training you were good to go,
I would agree it is OK.

I took a CCW class a few years back out of curiosity since I never
bothered to get the permit. It was mostly firearm selection, safety, and
practical range time and very light on the legal aspects.

Maybe that's why this state doesn't have many reciprocal agreements

On 01/06/2017 02:24 PM, Oren wrote:
On Fri, 06 Jan 2017 16:13:04 -0500, "(PeteCresswell)"
wrote:

Per burfordTjustice:
GOP Rep Introduces National Concealed Carry Reciprocity On Day One of
New Congress

http://www.breitbart.com/2nd-amendme...-new-congress/

Do any states issue "Open Carry" permits?

NV, AZ, and TX are open carry. No permits needed. Concealed carry does
require a permit. Check your state laws.


MT is open carry with no permit. Concealed carry without a permit is
legal outside of incorporated areas with the exception of lumber camps.
There have been a few attempts to do away with the permit for concealed
but they've never made it through.

That leads to some ambiguity. if I am going hiking and have a shoulder
holster on and am wearing a jacket when am I in an incorporated area?
Some of the small towns are incorporated, some aren't.

There are some other nuances. 'Concealed' means concealed on your
person. A firearm in a backpack is not considered on your person. Not
being a lawyer and not wanting to get to know any, I wouldn't push the
boundary of 'is a firearm in a Bianchi fanny pack on your person or not?

On 01/06/2017 03:08 PM, RonNNN wrote:
Just to clarify, we can carry "long guns" without a permit, but handguns
require a permit, with a few exceptions.


Texas has always confused me. Despite the hype it doesn't have much of a
cowboy mentality. We gave it our best shot:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montan...ms_Freedom_Act

As long as one man could carry it and the bore was less than 1.25 inches
you were good to go. The bore size limitation only applied to smokeless.
Notably a Democratic governor signed the law. Montana Democrats are a
little different...

On Fri, 6 Jan 2017 16:08:18 -0600, RonNNN wrote:

Just to clarify, we can carry "long guns" without a permit, but handguns
require a permit, with a few exceptions.

NV required a "blue card" for each handgun registered. It was only two
counties. Long guns didn't/don't require a permit or registration. The
blue card has now been abolished. No gun is "registered" with the
local sheriff. Old records have to be destroyed. Open carry of any
weapon is legal. You do have to have a CCW to conceal a handgun. NV
is a preemptive state now. Only the state can make a gun law. Older
city laws were grand fathered in at preemption, BUT some cities refuse
to enforce their local law because an arrest would mean a challenge in
court and the law would violate state law. And be overturned.

If you visit NV, bring your handgun, you don't have to get a temporary
permit from the sheriff now. Fly to Vegas and carry. Concealed if NV
has reciprocity with your state.
--
I like Guns and Titties

On 01/06/2017 04:13 PM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per burfordTjustice:
GOP Rep Introduces National Concealed Carry Reciprocity On Day One of
New Congress

http://www.breitbart.com/2nd-amendme...-new-congress/

Do any states issue "Open Carry" permits?

Got to wonder how that would play out in the same context.


To my knowledge any place open carry is allowed there is no permit needed.
I actually prefer open carry to concealed.

Per madadmin:
To my knowledge any place open carry is allowed there is no permit needed.
I actually prefer open carry to concealed.

Maybe it's different in the Western states where normal people carry
firearms in public.

But here in Southeastern Pennsylvania (about 23 miles West of
Philadelphia) I feel more at ease when people are carrying their weapons
out of sight - i.e. I am not aware of their presence.

When I see somebody with a Glock on their hip walking around in plain
sight and no badge, all I can think of is "Is this nut case going to
*do* something or is he harmless?".

Ignorance can be bliss - or, at least, freedom from anxiety...
--
Pete Cresswell

On 01/06/2017 09:38 AM, Oren wrote:
On Fri, 6 Jan 2017 08:14:45 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Wednesday, January 4, 2017 at 11:26:59 AM UTC-5, burfordTjustice wrote:
GOP Rep Introduces National Concealed Carry Reciprocity On Day One of
New Congress

http://www.breitbart.com/2nd-amendme...-new-congress/

My guess is that this is unconstitutional. Can the feds tell states
that they have to recognize another state's carry permit? Sounds
like a state's rights issue. And hypocrisy from those that claim to
be conservative, are against big govt, for state's rights, etc.

A driving license, a privilege, is allowed over state lines. Do you
really think a state can deny a constitutional right afforded under
the U.S. Constitution? People that are legal should not have a right
denied by a state -- period.

The Reciprocity Act has been around for a long time, but not passed.
Now is the time.


1+

On Sat, 7 Jan 2017 09:43:16 -0800, T wrote:

The Reciprocity Act has been around for a long time, but not passed.
Now is the time.


1+

+2
Specially regarding Cannabis legalization.

As to the stupid federal law allowing "retired law enforcement
officers" allowed to carry concealed weapons, I really can't see any
advantages. They can't work outside their juristiction, and they are
retired .... maybe they think their lives are worth more than anyone
else's ?
[]'s
--
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy - Google 2012

On Fri, 06 Jan 2017 20:28:53 -0800, Oren wrote:

I like Guns and Titties

I know a guy that could help you. Not allergic to anesthetics
or silicone implants, are you ?
Good. In 3 weeks you'll be wearing a bra.
[]'s
--
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy - Google 2012

On 01/07/2017 10:42 AM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per madadmin:
To my knowledge any place open carry is allowed there is no permit needed.
I actually prefer open carry to concealed.

Maybe it's different in the Western states where normal people carry
firearms in public.

But here in Southeastern Pennsylvania (about 23 miles West of
Philadelphia) I feel more at ease when people are carrying their weapons
out of sight - i.e. I am not aware of their presence.

When I see somebody with a Glock on their hip walking around in plain
sight and no badge, all I can think of is "Is this nut case going to
*do* something or is he harmless?".

Ignorance can be bliss - or, at least, freedom from anxiety...


I agree with you. If I see anyone openly carrying a firearm, cop or
civilian, they definitely get on my radar. I often carry in the back
country but even then I leave the gun in my pack until I'm clear of the
trail head to avoid making the granola crowd nervous. Even in that
setting if I meet someone who is armed I note both the firearm and which
is their strong hand.

I even do that in the movies. When I watch the Donnie Wahlberg character
in 'Blue Bloods' my brain says 'left handed'.

On 01/07/2017 09:43 AM, T wrote:
On 01/06/2017 09:38 AM, Oren wrote:
On Fri, 6 Jan 2017 08:14:45 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Wednesday, January 4, 2017 at 11:26:59 AM UTC-5, burfordTjustice
wrote:
GOP Rep Introduces National Concealed Carry Reciprocity On Day One of
New Congress

http://www.breitbart.com/2nd-amendme...-new-congress/


My guess is that this is unconstitutional. Can the feds tell states
that they have to recognize another state's carry permit? Sounds
like a state's rights issue. And hypocrisy from those that claim to
be conservative, are against big govt, for state's rights, etc.

A driving license, a privilege, is allowed over state lines. Do you
really think a state can deny a constitutional right afforded under
the U.S. Constitution? People that are legal should not have a right
denied by a state -- period.

The Reciprocity Act has been around for a long time, but not passed.
Now is the time.


1+

and well sated too

On 01/07/2017 10:38 AM, Shadow wrote:
As to the stupid federal law allowing "retired law enforcement
officers" allowed to carry concealed weapons, I really can't see any
advantages. They can't work outside their juristiction, and they are
retired .... maybe they think their lives are worth more than anyone
else's ?

Retired and off duty cops with concealed guns are stopping
crime all the time. More guns, less crime.

As far as pot goes. It is stupid to use. But, probably
less harmful to society than alcohol. We will see.
At least pot heads do not tend to drive and slaughter
innocents by the thousands.

I will make an exception on the stupid remark for
those who legitimately need it for medical reasons, like
to treat the side effects of chemo.

Do you realize how much safer pot is than the one
use additive designer opiates the allopaths prescribe?
What is the statistic, sometime like three times
the deaths to designer opiates than all the illegal
drugs combined? YIKES !!!!

My thoughts are that society should not stop folks
from taking drugs, as it is a fools errand. But
society should regulate the hell out of your behavior
under the influence. Drug test for jobs, lose your
car and go to jail if driving under the influence,
don't use around kids, no excuse for criminal behavior,
yada, yada, yada.

Back when drugs were legal, social pressure was far more
effective than prohibition.

On Sat, 7 Jan 2017 12:08:14 -0800, T wrote:

On 01/07/2017 10:38 AM, Shadow wrote:
As to the stupid federal law allowing "retired law enforcement
officers" allowed to carry concealed weapons, I really can't see any
advantages. They can't work outside their juristiction, and they are
retired .... maybe they think their lives are worth more than anyone
else's ?

Retired and off duty cops with concealed guns are stopping
crime all the time. More guns, less crime.

Of course. Not because they are retired or were cops. The
stupid part is a Federal law that says they can carry concealed
weapons, even if they went absolutely barmy since they retired, but an
honest working citizen does not have that right.


As far as pot goes. It is stupid to use. But, probably
less harmful to society than alcohol. We will see.
At least pot heads do not tend to drive and slaughter
innocents by the thousands.

I will make an exception on the stupid remark for
those who legitimately need it for medical reasons, like
to treat the side effects of chemo.

Do you realize how much safer pot is than the one
use additive designer opiates the allopaths prescribe?
What is the statistic, sometime like three times
the deaths to designer opiates than all the illegal
drugs combined? YIKES !!!!

I am a doctor. You are preaching to the pope.. (assuming the
pope believes all that rubbish in the bible - I doubt it)

My thoughts are that society should not stop folks
from taking drugs, as it is a fools errand. But
society should regulate the hell out of your behavior
under the influence. Drug test for jobs, lose your
car and go to jail if driving under the influence,
don't use around kids, no excuse for criminal behavior,
yada, yada, yada.

Back when drugs were legal, social pressure was far more
effective than prohibition.

Yes, but refusing to employ someone just because they drink
tea is absurd. Totalitarian, almost.
Oh, but Fox News says tea is OK ? OK, if Fox News says it is,
it must be.
Cannabis , OTOH, is deadly. No proof required. Ban it, make
users socially unacceptable. Jail them. And drink tea.
[]'s
--
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy - Google 2012

trader_4 wrote in news:b3e613cc-67b7-4e0b-be4f-
:

On Wednesday, January 4, 2017 at 11:26:59 AM UTC-5, burfordTjustice wrote:
GOP Rep Introduces National Concealed Carry Reciprocity On Day One of
New Congress

http://www.breitbart.com/2nd-amendme...uces-national-
concealed-carry-reciprocity-day-one-new-congress/

My guess is that this is unconstitutional. Can the feds tell states
that they have to recognize another state's carry permit?

Yes, they can, and no legislation is needed. Article IV, Section 1, of the Constitution states
"Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial
Proceedings of every other State." If Illinois is required by this section to recognize my
Indiana marriage certificate and my Indiana driver's license, why not my Indiana handgun
license as well?

Sounds like a state's rights issue. And hypocrisy from those that claim to
be conservative, are against big govt, for state's rights, etc.

Just want everybody to follow the Constitution, and stop ignoring it. That's all.

On 01/07/2017 04:59 PM, Shadow wrote:
On Sat, 7 Jan 2017 12:08:14 -0800, T wrote:

On 01/07/2017 10:38 AM, Shadow wrote:
As to the stupid federal law allowing "retired law enforcement
officers" allowed to carry concealed weapons, I really can't see any
advantages. They can't work outside their juristiction, and they are
retired .... maybe they think their lives are worth more than anyone
else's ?

Retired and off duty cops with concealed guns are stopping
crime all the time. More guns, less crime.

Of course. Not because they are retired or were cops. The
stupid part is a Federal law that says they can carry concealed
weapons, even if they went absolutely barmy since they retired, but an
honest working citizen does not have that right.


As far as pot goes. It is stupid to use. But, probably
less harmful to society than alcohol. We will see.
At least pot heads do not tend to drive and slaughter
innocents by the thousands.

I will make an exception on the stupid remark for
those who legitimately need it for medical reasons, like
to treat the side effects of chemo.

Do you realize how much safer pot is than the one
use additive designer opiates the allopaths prescribe?
What is the statistic, sometime like three times
the deaths to designer opiates than all the illegal
drugs combined? YIKES !!!!

I am a doctor.

Uh oh. I talk smack about your profession a lot. I have
T2 and a lot of people in my life have been killed by
the leading killer (death by medical). I can be really
critical at times.

I am drug free and totally under control for
over three years, no thanks to the GP I went to. What a
load of crap I was fed. Fortunately the ER allopath that
diagnosed me was the only one that gave me accurate and
honest information, so I new something was wrong with my
GP allopath. I liked the guy too.

When I broke my wrist, the ER gave me some weird designer opiate
for the pain. I never take an allopathic drug without first researching
it. It was a one time use addiction opiate. I
just suffered with the pain. I eventually got use to it.
Kind of like hitting your thumb with a hammer. All I
needed was a broken wrist AND an opiate problem! The
guy did a great job setting my wrist. No pins required.
But, he really blew it with the designer opiates.

You are preaching to the pope.. (assuming the
pope believes all that rubbish in the bible - I doubt it)

My thoughts are that society should not stop folks
from taking drugs, as it is a fools errand. But
society should regulate the hell out of your behavior
under the influence. Drug test for jobs, lose your
car and go to jail if driving under the influence,
don't use around kids, no excuse for criminal behavior,
yada, yada, yada.

Back when drugs were legal, social pressure was far more
effective than prohibition.

Yes, but refusing to employ someone just because they drink
tea is absurd. Totalitarian, almost
Oh, but Fox News says tea is OK ? OK, if Fox News says it is,
it must be.
Cannabis , OTOH, is deadly. No proof required.

There is proof, if you can get by the hype. I don't
think prohibition helps the matter. What do they say,
85% of studies are pay for results.

Ban it, make
users socially unacceptable. Jail them. And drink tea.
[]'s


We are definitely going to see what happens with pot.
IMO, using it is stupid, but so is using tobacco and alcohol.
Alcohol has turned our roads into killing fields.
There is no moral difference between legal and illegal drugs,
just a legal difference.

Hemp, on the other hand, you can't get high off it, gets
mixed in with pot all the time. Hemp is a great cash crop, if
folks would stop confusing it with pot. Hemp pollen ruins pot. Chuckle.

On Sat, 07 Jan 2017 12:42:00 -0500
"(PeteCresswell)" wrote:

I feel more at ease when people are carrying their weapons
out of sight - i.e. I am not aware of their presence.

Ignorance can be bliss -

Of course in an emergency you would never ask for or expect
help from someone carrying a gun?

On Sat, 7 Jan 2017 12:30:33 -0700
rbowman wrote:

I often carry in the back
country but even then I leave the gun in my pack until I'm clear of
the trail head to avoid making the granola crowd nervous.

That is pathetic and has ZERO educational value.

On Sat, 07 Jan 2017 12:42:00 -0500, "(PeteCresswell)"
wrote in

When I see somebody with a Glock on their hip walking around in plain
sight and no badge, all I can think of is "Is this nut case going to
*do* something or is he harmless?".

+1 on that from a Life Time NRA member. I highly doubt anyone who
needs to boost their self-image by open carry.

On Sat, 7 Jan 2017 20:27:47 -0800, T wrote:

On 01/07/2017 04:59 PM, Shadow wrote:
On Sat, 7 Jan 2017 12:08:14 -0800, T wrote:

On 01/07/2017 10:38 AM, Shadow wrote:
As to the stupid federal law allowing "retired law enforcement
officers" allowed to carry concealed weapons, I really can't see any
advantages. They can't work outside their juristiction, and they are
retired .... maybe they think their lives are worth more than anyone
else's ?

Retired and off duty cops with concealed guns are stopping
crime all the time. More guns, less crime.

Of course. Not because they are retired or were cops. The
stupid part is a Federal law that says they can carry concealed
weapons, even if they went absolutely barmy since they retired, but an
honest working citizen does not have that right.


As far as pot goes. It is stupid to use. But, probably
less harmful to society than alcohol. We will see.
At least pot heads do not tend to drive and slaughter
innocents by the thousands.

I will make an exception on the stupid remark for
those who legitimately need it for medical reasons, like
to treat the side effects of chemo.

Do you realize how much safer pot is than the one
use additive designer opiates the allopaths prescribe?
What is the statistic, sometime like three times
the deaths to designer opiates than all the illegal
drugs combined? YIKES !!!!

I am a doctor.

Uh oh. I talk smack about your profession a lot. I have
T2 and a lot of people in my life have been killed by
the leading killer (death by medical). I can be really
critical at times.

I am drug free and totally under control for
over three years, no thanks to the GP I went to. What a
load of crap I was fed. Fortunately the ER allopath that
diagnosed me was the only one that gave me accurate and
honest information, so I new something was wrong with my
GP allopath. I liked the guy too.

When I broke my wrist, the ER gave me some weird designer opiate
for the pain. I never take an allopathic drug without first researching
it. It was a one time use addiction opiate. I
just suffered with the pain.

Good. Taking opiates for a temporary condition is nuts. I lost
two colleagues because of that. When you can prescribe for yourself,
the danger is multiplied. One died from a small kidney stone, and one
from a "bad back". Both were under 40.

I eventually got use to it.
Kind of like hitting your thumb with a hammer. All I
needed was a broken wrist AND an opiate problem! The
guy did a great job setting my wrist. No pins required.
But, he really blew it with the designer opiates.

You are preaching to the pope.. (assuming the
pope believes all that rubbish in the bible - I doubt it)

My thoughts are that society should not stop folks
from taking drugs, as it is a fools errand. But
society should regulate the hell out of your behavior
under the influence. Drug test for jobs, lose your
car and go to jail if driving under the influence,
don't use around kids, no excuse for criminal behavior,
yada, yada, yada.

Back when drugs were legal, social pressure was far more
effective than prohibition.

Yes, but refusing to employ someone just because they drink
tea is absurd. Totalitarian, almost
Oh, but Fox News says tea is OK ? OK, if Fox News says it is,
it must be.
Cannabis , OTOH, is deadly. No proof required.

There is proof, if you can get by the hype.

It's all hype. Pot can give you cancer, if you smoke over 20 a
day, just like cigarettes. But it won't mess with your heart, and it's
non addictive, unlike nicotine.

I don't
think prohibition helps the matter. What do they say,
85% of studies are pay for results.

Ban it, make
users socially unacceptable. Jail them. And drink tea.
[]'s


We are definitely going to see what happens with pot.
IMO, using it is stupid, but so is using tobacco and alcohol.
Alcohol has turned our roads into killing fields.
There is no moral difference between legal and illegal drugs,
just a legal difference.

Hemp IS pot. The only difference is how much THC each strain
has, but it's basically the same plant. (there are 3 species, but all
of them are "hemp", and "pot").
You might find it interesting to look up the history of hemp.
I think even Levis were made of it, until the booze industry stepped
in and prohibited the culture.
[]'s

Hemp, on the other hand, you can't get high off it, gets
mixed in with pot all the time. Hemp is a great cash crop, if
folks would stop confusing it with pot. Hemp pollen ruins pot. Chuckle.


--
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy - Google 2012

On Saturday, January 7, 2017 at 10:17:21 PM UTC-5, Doug Miller wrote:
trader_4 wrote in news:b3e613cc-67b7-4e0b-be4f-
:

On Wednesday, January 4, 2017 at 11:26:59 AM UTC-5, burfordTjustice wrote:
GOP Rep Introduces National Concealed Carry Reciprocity On Day One of
New Congress

http://www.breitbart.com/2nd-amendme...uces-national-
concealed-carry-reciprocity-day-one-new-congress/

My guess is that this is unconstitutional. Can the feds tell states
that they have to recognize another state's carry permit?

Yes, they can, and no legislation is needed. Article IV, Section 1, of the Constitution states
"Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial
Proceedings of every other State." If Illinois is required by this section to recognize my
Indiana marriage certificate and my Indiana driver's license, why not my Indiana handgun
license as well?

IDK, if Colorado issues a license enabling you to smoke pot, must all
the other states recognize that? States right now issue licenses to
practice law or conduct real estate transactions, yet they are not
universally recognized by all the other states. And if such right does
exist, why hasn't one of the guns rights groups brought such a case
to the courts?


Sounds like a state's rights issue. And hypocrisy from those that claim to
be conservative, are against big govt, for state's rights, etc.

Just want everybody to follow the Constitution, and stop ignoring it. That's all.

Then bring the case for the right you claim is already there.

On Sun, 8 Jan 2017 09:39:02 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Saturday, January 7, 2017 at 10:17:21 PM UTC-5, Doug Miller wrote:
trader_4 wrote in news:b3e613cc-67b7-4e0b-be4f-
:

On Wednesday, January 4, 2017 at 11:26:59 AM UTC-5, burfordTjustice wrote:
GOP Rep Introduces National Concealed Carry Reciprocity On Day One of
New Congress

http://www.breitbart.com/2nd-amendme...uces-national-
concealed-carry-reciprocity-day-one-new-congress/

My guess is that this is unconstitutional. Can the feds tell states
that they have to recognize another state's carry permit?

Yes, they can, and no legislation is needed. Article IV, Section 1, of the Constitution states
"Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial
Proceedings of every other State." If Illinois is required by this section to recognize my
Indiana marriage certificate and my Indiana driver's license, why not my Indiana handgun
license as well?

IDK, if Colorado issues a license enabling you to smoke pot, must all
the other states recognize that? States right now issue licenses to
practice law or conduct real estate transactions, yet they are not
universally recognized by all the other states. And if such right does
exist, why hasn't one of the guns rights groups brought such a case
to the courts?
Those are cases of things that are specifically allowed in that
particular state.
I think the real estate license may be the best example if you were
going to have reciprocity. A real estate license says you understand
that state's real estate laws well enough to arrange contracts.
A CCW reciprocity would mean you understood the state law well enough
to know when using you gun was legal and that varies widely across
state lines. An excellent example would be the Maryland Virginia
border. A "good shoot" in Virginia will get you time in the big house
across the bridge.

On 01/08/2017 04:31 AM, burfordTjustice wrote:
On Sat, 7 Jan 2017 12:30:33 -0700
rbowman wrote:

I often carry in the back
country but even then I leave the gun in my pack until I'm clear of
the trail head to avoid making the granola crowd nervous.

That is pathetic and has ZERO educational value.


So educate me, troll.

On Sun, 8 Jan 2017 11:22:55 -0700
rbowman wrote:

On 01/08/2017 04:31 AM, burfordTjustice wrote:
On Sat, 7 Jan 2017 12:30:33 -0700
rbowman wrote:

I often carry in the back
country but even then I leave the gun in my pack until I'm clear of
the trail head to avoid making the granola crowd nervous.

That is pathetic and has ZERO educational value.


So educate me, troll.


No

On 01/08/2017 12:30 PM, burfordTjustice wrote:
On Sun, 8 Jan 2017 11:22:55 -0700
rbowman wrote:

On 01/08/2017 04:31 AM, burfordTjustice wrote:
On Sat, 7 Jan 2017 12:30:33 -0700
rbowman wrote:

I often carry in the back
country but even then I leave the gun in my pack until I'm clear of
the trail head to avoid making the granola crowd nervous.

That is pathetic and has ZERO educational value.


So educate me, troll.


No

Yeah, I forgot your specialty is one line copy'n'paste links from
Breitbart rather than intelligent discussion.

On Sunday, January 8, 2017 at 1:04:19 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sun, 8 Jan 2017 09:39:02 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Saturday, January 7, 2017 at 10:17:21 PM UTC-5, Doug Miller wrote:
trader_4 wrote in news:b3e613cc-67b7-4e0b-be4f-
:

On Wednesday, January 4, 2017 at 11:26:59 AM UTC-5, burfordTjustice wrote:
GOP Rep Introduces National Concealed Carry Reciprocity On Day One of
New Congress

http://www.breitbart.com/2nd-amendme...uces-national-
concealed-carry-reciprocity-day-one-new-congress/

My guess is that this is unconstitutional. Can the feds tell states
that they have to recognize another state's carry permit?

Yes, they can, and no legislation is needed. Article IV, Section 1, of the Constitution states
"Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial
Proceedings of every other State." If Illinois is required by this section to recognize my
Indiana marriage certificate and my Indiana driver's license, why not my Indiana handgun
license as well?

IDK, if Colorado issues a license enabling you to smoke pot, must all
the other states recognize that? States right now issue licenses to
practice law or conduct real estate transactions, yet they are not
universally recognized by all the other states. And if such right does
exist, why hasn't one of the guns rights groups brought such a case
to the courts?
Those are cases of things that are specifically allowed in that
particular state.

Just like concealed carry.

I think the real estate license may be the best example if you were
going to have reciprocity. A real estate license says you understand
that state's real estate laws well enough to arrange contracts.
A CCW reciprocity would mean you understood the state law well enough
to know when using you gun was legal and that varies widely across
state lines. An excellent example would be the Maryland Virginia
border. A "good shoot" in Virginia will get you time in the big house
across the bridge.

Agree. But the issue is it up to the states to decide which state's
they will have reciprocity with or is it the federal govt right to
force it down their throats. Doug thinks it's a constitutional right.
If so, it's very strange that NRA or other gun rights groups haven't
brought a case demanding all states recognize any CCW from any other
state.

On Sunday, January 8, 2017 at 8:40:21 AM UTC-5, VinnyB wrote:
On Sat, 07 Jan 2017 12:42:00 -0500, "(PeteCresswell)"
wrote in

When I see somebody with a Glock on their hip walking around in plain
sight and no badge, all I can think of is "Is this nut case going to
*do* something or is he harmless?".

+1 on that from a Life Time NRA member. I highly doubt anyone who
needs to boost their self-image by open carry.

I just watch the news and see people in action everyday and am certain
there are plenty of people who would use open carry to boost their
self-image.