Concealed Weapon Permits Going Federal?

[DDMac]

I have only lived in five States since being licensed to drive. The examinations, licensing, violations, and regulations all seemed similar if not the same to me. Reciprocity seems to be reliant on mutually agreed upon education, rules and responses to violations. There is an obvious disparity among States as to use of force law, the need for safety training, how much or no safety training at all. And then there are States that will have none of it anyway. Just does not seem to be a Federal issue.
Mac.

[BigSaucy]

TAB your points are well made and you clearly have a well though out perspective on the subject. Do you believe that states have the power to regulate federal Rights? I am by no means an advanced scholar on the subject so interpretations would be appreciated, though it seems to me 'shall not be infringed' is a directive to all federal and state government bodies. Perhaps that's just wishful thinking on my part?

[TAB]

TAB your points are well made and you clearly have a well though out perspective on the subject. Do you believe that states have the power to regulate federal Rights? I am by no means an advanced scholar on the subject so interpretations would be appreciated, though it seems to me 'shall not be infringed' is a directive to all federal and state government bodies. Perhaps that's just wishful thinking on my part?

States already can regulate your "federal rights" They just can not deny them.

Example:

you can have that million man march if you want too, but you have to get a permit for it. ( time and time again courts at all levels and form every time peroid have ruled this way) 

There is  a great debate on what the 2nd ammendment actually means.  "keep and bare arms" could mean posses and carry, but it could also mean keep and bring to bare.  There are many historic documents that would give credence to both of those.    Arms can also be taken more then one way, It could mean firearms or it could mean weapons of war,   once again there is documents that support both of them.

[ericire12]

Oh geezz, here we go again! I think I am goign to stay out of this 2nd amendment argument.

[twyacht]

Some states simply won't acknowledge a federal law and fight until it dies in committee. Mass. CA. MD, NJ, and some on the fence that will never allow a federal law to interrupt a state wide liberal agenda, Nancy Pelosi will not approve.

[Sponsor]

[tombogan03884]

First it was a bad thing for cops to be able to carry nation wide, Now it's a bad thing for Every law abiding citizen to be able to carry nation wide. TAB, you should stick to dumb commercials that post was funny.

[Solus]

That will happen...  I would also not put it past a couple of states to get rid of thier CCW laws,  but thats not the  reasons why I think its bad.  I think its bad for 2 reasons:

1 If passed it will be struck down, which will shine a bad light on CCW and will become case law for any other bills that come later.

2  The guy is doing this strickly to get votes. Which should piss off all CCW holders. I know he has people on his staff that told him, this bill is crap.


This is not like a DL where there is a nat'l standard every one must meet in order to get one.    Some states have training, other its just pass the back ground check and pay the fee.  Even what they look for in the back ground check varries from state to state. 

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.


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.


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. 

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.

[TAB]

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. 

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?

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...

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.

[tombogan03884]

 Proves Ca. is right about one thing, Paint fumes cause brain damage.  TAB was so unpopular as a kid he wouldn't even play with himself.

[ericire12]

David Vitter (R-LA) on gun control:

   *  Voted YES on prohibiting suing gunmakers & sellers for gun misuse. (Apr 2003)
    * Voted NO on decreasing gun waiting period from 3 days to 1. (Jun 1999)
    * Rated A by the NRA, indicating a pro-gun rights voting record. (Dec 2003)

Source: http://www.issues2000.org/House/David_Vitter.htm