Concealed Weapon Permits Going Federal?

[Solus]

Quote from: Solus on Today at 08:36:39 AM
Tab,

In the above quote, you say you "KNOW he has people on his staff"

But in your next response to me you say you do not know this guy and don't know he is doing it just for votes

You blowing a lot of smoke there, Tab.
  Its called sarcism, he is doing it to get votes.

Again, you later say you don't know if he is doing this to get votes...now you are saying he is again..more sarcasm? 
<Sarcasm(A) is stating the opposite of an intended meaning especially in order to sneeringly, slyly, jest or mock a person, situation or thing. It is strongly associated with irony, with some definitions classifying it as a type of verbal irony intended to insult or wound. Sarcasm can also be used in a humorous or jesting way depending on the intent of the person speaking.>

Using this definition of sarcasm, you would be saying he really isn't in this for the votes?

Next, you say this is the worst bill for CCW you have ever seen..

Your reasons are 1. it will be struck down and that will look bad for the CCW cause and 2> because this guy is just doing it for votes (which you then invalidate)

So, the worst bill for the CCW cause you have ever seen is such because it might get struck down. Maybe this is the only CCW bill you have seen...and yes, they it would be the worst.

But this argument just seems like a bunch more smoke to me Tab.
So its ok to support one section of the US cons( CC has never been a right, check your history) by throwing several other sections under the bus?
 Tab, Keep and Bear Arms has always been a right, the current CCW movement is a struggle to restore that right.

And a federal drivers license standard???  I have searched for one and can find  no refference to one, which does not surprise me.
With the states havening so many different traffic laws, Interstate Speed Limits vary from state to state, residential, school zone, 4 lane non-restricted access, all these speed limits vary state to state,. Some states have had Right-Turn-On-Red long before other states.  Mandatory seat belt usage laws do not exist in all states.  Since states test on their laws, I seriously doubt if the test is a federal standard.  Some of the driving tests might require parallel parking, sone don't.
I currently don't have time to find it as I need to goto work... It was not a bill passed by congress, but an agreement made by the states to set a standard.  Basicly what it said was you need to be 16, pass a test on your states laws, latter it was expand to inculde a driving test... I really wish I could have saved the books I had access too in the USCG...

So, an agreement between the states that basically you need to be a certain age, pass a background check, take a safety course and pass a competency test and we're good to go...very much like a DL..no federal involvement required

Tab, untill you can provide a reference to a federal driving license standard, I am going to rule your statement on such is just another great big cloud of smoke you are blowing.


And, Tab, your analogy using Licensed Contractors hired to do a job is so weak, I wonder if you aren't inhaling a bit to much of your own smoke.

Explain to me how its weak?  Its an just about perfect.  Being a contractor is a privlage, just as CC is a privlage not a right.

well, for one, no one is going to be paying a CCW holder to do CCW work.  You seem to want to mix private concerns with commercial concerns often. 

And don't worry to much about the books you read in the USCG.   If they taught you that the Bearing Arms is, in some manner, a privilege,I don't think they were worth keeping.

[pioneer]

Never gonna happen in the present Congress.  It especially won't happen if Obama gets elected.

[TAB]

solus  show me where it says carrying a weapon concealed in a right.

Hell show me one case that says owning a gun a right. 

What you think the 2a means is not law. 

So if we replace CCW with GC, would you still support this bill?

Replacing one thing with something simlar is the best acid test there is.

If your for it for one thing, but not for it for the other... then its not the law your for.

[brosometal]

TAB,

I have a question that has to be in the minds of several people here in light of this and other threads.  There is a bur in your saddle in regards to CCW.  There has to be a specific example in your life that has"poisoned the well".  I think it would go a long way here to explain what it is so there would be a better understanding of your viewpoint. 

This law does a couple of things, especially in an election year.  First, its the practical.  I have a CCW here in FL.  I want to visit, say my aunt in TN or my folks cabin in NC.  As is stands now, my CCW in reciprocated in any of the states I would have to travel through, however I would need to check each state's website and possibly contact the Att. Gen. of each state to see if there are any changes recently due to court cases, injuctions etc.  This law would eliminate a lot of homework for me for a simple trip (someone earlier mention CDLs and over the road truckers).  As written it would not infringe on other states rights just simplify travel between states.  The GC example is close but different.  Regardless of were I travel, once I am gone nothing will remain.  With the GC example there would be some remaining structure or remnat that would remain in that state and have to hold up to said state's unique metorlogical and geological conditions (My folks NC cabin in South FL would not fare well).  Second, it is a shrewd political move.  If, in fact, it can be voted upon, it will be a litmus test for "gun rights".  It may not affect a Nacy Pelosi, but in a close race elsewhere it could me the difference between a pro gun or an anit gun legistator.  It a big picture thing.  Define your opponent in an election year.  In '06 there were several close races that went to conservative Democrats.  With legislation like this, it keeps their feet to the fire. 

All this aside, TAB, let us know what the deal is with you and CCW.

[TAB]

I don't have a prob with CCWs...

I have a prob with some one trying to get around several parts of the US cons.( which this bill would do...)

It would stamp all over states rights,  lets use the GC angle again.   In CA if your a convicted felon you can not get a CL, In OR you can.
Its the same thing with CCW, in some states any crime( some states even infractions will DQ you) on your record will make it so you can not get a permit by law, others you can have misdeaners on your record.    So why should you be alowed to carry in another state where if you were a resident you would be bared from it?  This bill would allow that.  If thats not ignoreing states rights, I don't know what is.

I find that there are 2 types of gun people...

the 1st type reads the USCONS:
 
blah, blah blah

2nd amendment

blah blah blah.


and the  other actually reads the entire text.


Beleave it or not I am very strong beleaver in the USCONS.

As I said I would be fighting this bill if it was about Any lic/permit.  It just happends to be CCW. 

[Sponsor]

[cookie62]

I don't have a prob with CCWs...

I have a prob with some one trying to get around several parts of the US cons.( which this bill would do...)

It would stamp all over states rights,  lets use the GC angle again.   In CA if your a convicted felon you can not get a CL, In OR you can.
Its the same thing with CCW, in some states any crime( some states even infractions will DQ you) on your record will make it so you can not get a permit by law, others you can have misdeaners on your record.    So why should you be alowed to carry in another state where if you were a resident you would be bared from it?  This bill would allow that.  If thats not ignoreing states rights, I don't know what is.

I find that there are 2 types of gun people...

the 1st type reads the USCONS:
 
blah, blah blah

2nd amendment

blah blah blah.


and the  other actually reads the entire text.


Beleave it or not I am very strong beleaver in the USCONS.

As I said I would be fighting this bill if it was about Any lic/permit.  It just happends to be CCW. 

If you use that for DL's then in some states you lose it for number of tickets you get, in other states its a point based system. How is that different?

[TAB]

If you use that for DL's then in some states you lose it for number of tickets you get, in other states its a point based system. How is that different?

becuase you lost your DL in your state.   You were not prevented from getting a DL, you fooked up and lost it.   

Same thing goes for marrage lic... if you legally get married in 1 state your legally married in all states.  Why that works is marrage is an act preformed in a state.  There is no permit to stay married.

[TAB]

See here is the deal with marrage... its not a lic to stay married, its a lic  to get married.  You go to any state in the US to get married you have to get a marrage lic from THAT state.  Don't worry I'm sure this will be taken to court very shortly.  I personally could careless... I also could careless what they deside to call it... civil union, civil commitment, marrage, pair bonding, butt buddy...
They want to spend the rest of thier lives with some, more power too them.  The people of CA voted against gay marrage, it was only a small crack in that bill that allowed it to be struct down... not to worry there is a CA cons amendment on the ballot come november.  The only thing that has pissed me off is that the will of the people of CA was not honored.

Some states have common law marrages, others don't.  Whats the diffrence between common law and other "types" of marrage?

The federal goverment still does not reconise same sex marrages when it comes to tax purposes... some  states do.  And yes the US CONS gives them that right to do so...


 

[tombogan03884]

All this aside, TAB, let us know what the deal is with you and CCW.

It's simple enough, He loves Big Brother and hates personal liberty. Misguided asses like this are the enemies with in that are meant by phrases like "All enemies, foreign and domestic", "5th column", quisling,and collaborator. TAB is probably a screen name for Rosie O'Doughnut or Paul Helmke. Lenin had a name for people like TAB, he called them useful fools.  I call them mindless pinheads spouting party rhetoric because they lack the capacity to actually think for themselves. (Actually I call them shit heads, but this is a family site  ) As many of you know on another thread, after 19 pages of arguments and state laws he came up with the brilliant comment that "No one had shown him a single fact" Then in the thread about CCW helping police, which starts with statistics, someone made the comment that "Numbers don't lie" TAB's reply (predictably ) was "YES THEY DO, I can juggle those statistics to say anything".  This tells us 2 things about TAB 1) He's a liar 2) He's not very good at it.
Open minded people like this show how the left embraces "Diversity".

[Solus]

solus  show me where it says carrying a weapon concealed in a right.

Tab, you have a lack of understanding of the intent and purpose of the US Constitution.
It DOES NOT list what is legal for citizens to do.  It DOES list the limited powers given to the Government by the people.  It does not list any rights given to the people by the government.  Remember NO RIGHTS are granted to the people by the Constit;ution or the Bill of Rights.  Instead certain rights are acknowledged by the Bill of Rights.  Bacause a right is not listed does not mean it does not exist (see the 9th Ammendment)

So, Tab, I don't need to show you where it says CCW is a right.  As long as it does not do actual damage to another, it is a right.

Please remember that the government cannot grant privileges as it has none to grant unless that power was given to it by the people in the constitution. 

So, you need to show us where the Constitution says CCW is not a rigth or, by default, it is.

Hell show me one case that says owning a gun a right. 
See above

What you think the 2a means is not law. 
I guess that is correct.  It is inalienable < inalienable right - that by their nature cannot be taken away, violated, or transferred from one person to another>. So yes it is not law.  It is not dependent upon law

So if we replace CCW with GC, would you still support this bill?
Since this is not a CG forum or issue I am concerned about, it does not require an answer by me.  But see below.

Replacing one thing with something simlar is the best acid test there is.
Tab, your statement is correct.  The key word is similar.  Since licensing CG involves a contract for services to be performed to certain standards in a commercial environment, it is simply foolish to keep repeating that it somehow is similar to an act by an individual that is not bound in any way by contract of any kind to anyone else. 

If your for it for one thing, but not for it for the other... then its not the law your for.
Tab, I don't believe we should have to even need this law.  But we do to undo the effects of other infringement the 2a.

But again, they just are not the same.  If I put up a deck for my buddy for free, and there was some law meant to regulate this, I might be against this law.  But if there was the same law pertaining me changing someone to put up a deck for them, I might be for the law.   These are two different cases.  Just like CCW and GC are even more different.