Concealed Carry Permits Are Life Savers

[TAB]

If it gets shot down ,it will be because people like YOU let it.

oh you mean people that actually support the  entire USCONS rather then one small part of it? 


lets not forget that this law would let other states super seed other states laws.


For example, If for what ever reason you could not get a CCW in your state.  Yet you can get a out of state lic, in say UT or FL.   There by letting thier laws super seed your states law... yeah thats a good thing for this country and no state would be pissed about that     

The ends DO NOT justify the means. 

[tombogan03884]

  Just exactly WHAT part of "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" do you not understand ?

[PegLeg45]

oh you mean people that actually support the  entire USCONS rather then one small part of it? 


lets not forget that this law would let other states super seed other states laws.


For example, If for what ever reason you could not get a CCW in your state.  Yet you can get a out of state lic, in say UT or FL.   There by letting thier laws super seed your states law... yeah thats a good thing for this country and no state would be pissed about that     

The ends DO NOT justify the means. 

I believe it is "reciprocity" legislation. That would mean you have to qualify in your home state first. If you have a license in your home state, you would be able to carry legally in any other state providing they allow CCW.

[ericire12]

I believe it is "reciprocity" legislation. That would mean you have to qualify in your home state first. If you have a license in your home state, you would be able to carry legally in any other state providing they allow CCW.

Bingo! Just like a drivers license. You would have to abide by the laws of the state you are visiting, but they would not be able to deny you the right to carry. Probably would also force it to be honored in all states...... just like a drivers license.

[TAB]

I believe it is "reciprocity" legislation. That would mean you have to qualify in your home state first. If you have a license in your home state, you would be able to carry legally in any other state providing they allow CCW.

Does not matter which side you take.  If you take the "well atleast he can carry argument"  then you have screwed up the power of states.   If you take the "we will just stop issuing out of state CCWs"  then you have screwed thousands of people that can't get CCW in thier home state.   pick a side, we all lose.

I for one would rather see CA get rid of CCW then have its power removed by the federal goverment.( you can take that any way you like)  keeping the federal goverment out of the affiars of the states was a founding concept of this country.

[Sponsor]

[fullautovalmet76]

Does not matter which side you take.  If you take the "well atleast he can carry argument"  then you have screwed up the power of states.   If you take the "we will just stop issuing out of state CCWs"  then you have screwed thousands of people that can't get CCW in thier home state.   pick a side, we all lose.

I for one would rather see CA get rid of CCW then have its power removed by the federal goverment.( you can take that any way you like)  keeping the federal goverment out of the affiars of the states was a founding concept of this country.

TAB,
In the early part of the 20th century there were numerous state laws restricting speech and other elements of the 1A. Over time the 14A was interpreted by the courts to mean that our civil rights can not be abridged by state laws and are good in all states. In other words, it used to be that I could print what I wanted in say, FL, but GA would put me in jail if I printed it there.

Therefore, the 2A is a part of our civil rights and states have a very heavy burden to show why it is necessary to restrict our rights. In fact, SCOTUS upheld the lower court ruling in DCVH in that strict scrutiny has to be applied to the 2A; I'll double-check the decision to be sure about that one. This level of scrutiny is the same as applied to the 1A and is very difficult for restrictions to be placed.

Remember the constitution is about the individual and not the state. In fact, states do not have rights at all. They only have "rights" as to what the people delegate to it. The rights of the individual is the primary focus of that document and the rights of the individual must be preserved ahead of any of those delegated to the state.

[TAB]

Actually it deals with the rights of states in several places.  Even the recent DC v Heller rulling said that restriction on carry were fine.

To date the 2a has never been incorperated to the states.   Infact the only reason why we had a case in DC is the federal goverment has juristiction over it.  If it had happend some place else the out come could have been drasticly diffrent.

[ericire12]

If it had happend some place else the out come could have been drasticly diffrent.

No it wouldnt..... The ruling stated that STATES did not have the right to impose such guns bans..... it did not limit the ruling to DC only..... thats why it is considered such a precedent ruling

[fullautovalmet76]

Actually it deals with the rights of states in several places.  Even the recent DC v Heller rulling said that restriction on carry were fine.

This is true; I did forget the majority did say that carrying firearms could be restricted. This hasn't been tested yet, but how far is too far? If they apply strict scrutiny, it will have to be very limited restrictions.

I do understand where you are coming from about state's rights. A civil war was fought over that issue and over 600,000 people died because of it.

[tombogan03884]

Does not matter which side you take.  If you take the "well atleast he can carry argument"  then you have screwed up the power of states.   If you take the "we will just stop issuing out of state CCWs"  then you have screwed thousands of people that can't get CCW in thier home state.   pick a side, we all lose.

I for one would rather see CA get rid of CCW then have its power removed by the federal goverment.( you can take that any way you like)  keeping the federal goverment out of the affiars of the states was a founding concept of this country.

TAB, your argument is bullsh!t, States rights have been a joke since 1865. In case your school didn't cover it , the quick run down is that the Civil war was fought to decide who had more power, State Government, or Federal. Slavery (which was dying economically any way) was simply the most publicized symptom.
To paraphrase Grant at Appomattox, We won, you lost, now go home.