Too Bad That'll It'll Never Get Out Of The Senate...

[Bob Denman]

http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/06/politics/gun-restrictions-house-vote-concealed-carry/index.html


With better background checks: I see no reason why my license to Carry Concealed shouldn't be recognized across the Nation.
After all: my marriage and drivers licenses are both good everywhere, and look at all of the trouble that EHEY cause! :roflblack:

[vided]

:agree: 10 fold :thumbup::thumbup:

[Easy Rider]

But we can't AFFORD to do better checks......or to close the "loopholes" and make illegal sales "iron clad".....because the priority is on tax cuts for the wealthy individuals and corporations. :mad:

Do we really want to have the "gun" discussion here ??

The problem is multi-faceted. We screwed up big time about 30 years ago when most of the government funding for mental health care stopped.
THEN we allowed the "legitimate" gun lobby to create a mess where even the universally agreed upon restrictions almost can't be enforced.
Guns themselves are not THE problem. But the mass proliferation of guns certainly IS a significant part of the problem.

A good start would be to stop referring to gun laws as "control" and instead call it what it is: restrictions.

Being mostly on the outside of the heated part of the debate, I was shocked when leafing through a sporting magazine in a waiting room a few weeks ago and seeing several ads for "weapons of mass destruction", one of which was one that claimed to be able to fire something like 15 12ga rounds in 8 seconds. Every deer hunter in the US certainly needs one of those. :lecturef_smilie:

[Bob Denman]

I hope you realize that this Bill is attached to one that'll improve the background checks?
Coupled with THAT: I'm all for it! :thumbup:

[wyliec]

There's nothing wrong with Bob's post. There's only a problem when we, as members of SL's, make it that way.

[Bob Denman]

Thanks!
I'm referring to law-abiding citizens being allowed to carry across State lines... :thumbup:
What is a "Weapon of Mass Destruction" anyway? :dontknow:

The right to carry issue has been problematic for years. Full-time RVers are put in the position of not being allowed to protect themselves; because they are constantly crossing into different States. :banghead:
Folks who travel cross-country to visit relatives are in the same situation.
We used to travel in Pennsylvania for outdoor 2700 matches. We were legal to bring our target pistols; but not our carry pieces.
Think about it: You see someone from another State carrying a box full of target pistols, and you know that they don't have along one for personal protection...
And someone else gets out of an in-State vehicle with the same box...

Who would YOU rob? :yikes:

[slick999]

http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/06/politics/gun-restrictions-house-vote-concealed-carry/index.html


With better background checks: I see no reason why my license to Carry Concealed shouldn't be recognized across the Nation.
After all: my marriage and drivers licenses are both good everywhere, and look at all of the trouble that EHEY cause! :roflblack:


I agree,I think it has a chance.

[Bob Denman]

:thumbup: I certainly hope that you're right! :clap:
I would LOVE to be wrong! :D

[PrairieSpyder]

http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/06/politics/gun-restrictions-house-vote-concealed-carry/index.html


With better background checks: I see no reason why my license to Carry Concealed shouldn't be recognized across the Nation.
After all: my marriage and drivers licenses are both good everywhere, and look at all of the trouble that EHEY cause! :roflblack:

:agree:

I wonder if that means NY, CA and other states that "technically" have CC, will have to honor my permit from Kansas. And what about the states that don't have CC but do allow open carry?

[Orange Spyder Man]

if you can REMEMBER ? ... THE 2ND ADMENDMENT................................... if politicians pick & choose the laws they prefer rather than enforcing the laws our country was built on... we might as well as be living in Russia, Iran or North Korea ...................nuff said

osm

[Machinegunner]

You still won't be able to carry on airlines, in schools, in government buildings. So where is the problem with law abiding citizens carrying across state lines. If there is no problem with them carrying in their state, why would it be a problem if they cross a state line??? They have to obey the laws of what ever state they happen to be in.

[Bob Denman]

:agree:

I wonder if that means NY, CA and other states that "technically" have CC, will have to honor my permit from Kansas. And what about the states that don't have CC but do allow open carry?

That's how it supposed to work... :thumbup:
But wait until they get done with "amendments" to it! :gaah:

[UtahPete]

http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/06/politics/gun-restrictions-house-vote-concealed-carry/index.html With better background checks: I see no reason why my license to Carry Concealed shouldn't be recognized across the Nation. After all: my marriage and drivers licenses are both good everywhere, and look at all of the trouble that EHEY cause! :roflblack:
I agree. States' rights is bull**** anyway.

[vided]

would this mean a person with a nys full carry be able to travel to nyc?

[Bob Denman]

I don't think that it is going to remove those local restrictions: it'll just make the States all agree to accept each other's permits as valid in their own... :thumbup:
(Reciprocity...)

[UtahPete]

would this mean a person with a nys full carry be able to travel to nyc?
Sure. And, you'll be able to drive your ATV down Broadway too.

[Bob Denman]

Sure. And, you'll be able to drive your ATV down Broadway too.
If I can do that, while drinking a cold beer: :yes::yes::yes::yes::yes: :2thumbs:

[UtahPete]

If I can do that, while drinking a cold beer: :yes::yes::yes::yes::yes: :2thumbs:
I don't know any state that allows that. Yet. Shouldn't have any trouble getting that law passed in Wyoming though, then you'll be good to go; every state will have to recognize that (if you have a Wyoming driver's license)

[Bob Denman]

:joke::joke::joke::joke:

I was joking: I take my ATVing seriously! :thumbup:

[UtahPete]

:joke::joke::joke::joke: I was joking: I take my ATVing seriously! :thumbup:
So was I. My droll sense of humor doesn't seem to translate to written form very well.

[Bob Denman]

:roflblack: they rarely do... :gaah:

[UtahPete]

:roflblack: they rarely do... :gaah:
Sorry about that.nojoke

[Bob Denman]

:D fuggitabowtit... :thumbup:

[Easy Rider]

I hope you realize that this Bill is attached to one that'll improve the background checks?
Coupled with THAT: I'm all for it! :thumbup:

Improving background checks is just plugging one small leak in the dam; there are other much larger ones.

Like a "private" party being able to sell guns to anybody, even in places like gun shows, without ANY checks at all.
Then there is the ability to order an entire gun one piece at a time with no restrictions.

[Easy Rider]

T
What is a "Weapon of Mass Destruction" anyway? :dontknow:
Who would YOU rob? :yikes:

If you had actually read my whole post, there was one good example.

And that "criminal taking time to think out who might be the least risky target" is largely devoid of any real substance.........BECAUSE the criminal almost always has the barrel in your face before you know it and whether or not you are "carrying" makes no difference. Once he has the drop on you, reaching for your piece is MORE likely to get you killed.

Most of the pro-gun arguments are based more on emotions than on facts.

[Bob Denman]

The Private Sale loophole has been exaggerated... nojoke
Most private party transfers are between individuals who know one another.
Or better yet: they're related!
I think that I know my family and friends well enough to know which ones should (or shouldn't!) handle firearms. :thumbup:
Ordering guns online... that's just a myth. :lecturef_smilie:
You'll still need to have your background checked out.

[PrairieSpyder]

It shouldn't be unlawful to buy or sell or gift a lawful item. :lecturef_smilie:

[Rogue Hawk]

...because the priority is on tax cuts for the wealthy individuals and corporations. :mad:

Do you have an unbiased source for this claim?

[Bob Denman]

He doesn't...

[newbert]

But we can't AFFORD to do better checks......or to close the "loopholes" and make illegal sales "iron clad".....because the priority is on tax cuts for the wealthy individuals and corporations. :mad:

Do we really want to have the "gun" discussion here ??

The problem is multi-faceted. We screwed up big time about 30 years ago when most of the government funding for mental health care stopped.
THEN we allowed the "legitimate" gun lobby to create a mess where even the universally agreed upon restrictions almost can't be enforced.
Guns themselves are not THE problem. But the mass proliferation of guns certainly IS a significant part of the problem.

A good start would be to stop referring to gun laws as "control" and instead call it what it is: restrictions.

Being mostly on the outside of the heated part of the debate, I was shocked when leafing through a sporting magazine in a waiting room a few weeks ago and seeing several ads for "weapons of mass destruction", one of which was one that claimed to be able to fire something like 15 12ga rounds in 8 seconds. Every deer hunter in the US certainly needs one of those. :lecturef_smilie:

Finally - Someone with common sense.

[ARtraveler]

Did not take long to get a bunch of comments. We will have to wait and see what Congress does--I for one, am not going to hold my breath.

On paper--looks and sounds good. Add amendments (and that is what happens to everything) and it becomes a muddy mess.

That is what happens when the foxes are in charge of the chicken coop. :thumbup:

[UtahPete]

Do you have an unbiased source for this claim?
Anyone who doesn't have their head up their a** :joke:

[Fatcycledaddy]

Being mostly on the outside of the heated part of the debate, I was shocked when leafing through a sporting magazine in a waiting room a few weeks ago and seeing several ads for "weapons of mass destruction", one of which was one that claimed to be able to fire something like 15 12ga rounds in 8 seconds. Every deer hunter in the US certainly needs one of those. :lecturef_smilie:

Nothing anywhere in the 2nd amendment is about hunting deer, it is about the right to defend oneself.


Do you have an unbiased source for this claim?
Anyone who doesn't have their head up their a**

That counts you out as a source!

[UtahPete]

http://www.spyderlovers.com/forums/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by UtahPete http://www.spyderlovers.com/forums/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.spyderlovers.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1321264#post1321264)
Do you have an unbiased source for this claim?
Anyone who doesn't have their head up their a**

That counts you out as a source!

That's fair...forgot my :joke:

[Rogue Hawk]

Anyone who doesn't have their head up their a** :joke:

That is certainly compelling evidence.

[Bob Denman]

:lecturef_smilie: I think that the personal attacks and hysteria from BOTH sides can be dialed-back a bit... nojoke

[UtahPete]

Anyone who doesn't have their head up their a** :joke:
Maybe I should have said 'anyone who isn't being willfully ignorant' nojoke

[ES44AC]

It always is amazing how hard it is to pass something for "law abiding citizens " . The government will pass laws easily that help the Criminally insane, Common Criminals and Drug addicts avoid having to follow the law.

[UtahPete]

It always is amazing how hard it is to pass something for "law abiding citizens " . The government will pass laws easily that help the Criminally insane, Common Criminals and Drug addicts avoid having to follow the law.
Wouldn't it be nice if all laws had a sunset clause, which would force lawmakers to rethink social policy every 10 years or so?

And, all lawmakers had meaningful term limits.

[kep-up]

If you had actually read my whole post, there was one good example.

And that "criminal taking time to think out who might be the least risky target" is largely devoid of any real substance.........BECAUSE the criminal almost always has the barrel in your face before you know it and whether or not you are "carrying" makes no difference. Once he has the drop on you, reaching for your piece is MORE likely to get you killed.

Most of the pro-gun arguments are based more on emotions than on facts.

Really? But not the anti-gun arguments, I suppose. :hun:

[rpatsh]

This is how it should be!

156188

[IdahoMtnSpyder]

It won't happen during the lifetime of anyone here today, well except maybe those under 30, but when the population of this country reaches the area of about one billion people in 50 to 100 years from now popular sentiment will change. The 2nd amendment will be repealed, or at least amended to allow only hunting and competition firearms which must be stored in a gun club safe. No more home storage.

[johnsimion]

Where a state issues an actual CCW, it makes sense to honor it nationwide. What I read, however, is that if a state allows CCW without issuing any permit, the law would require reciprocity on that, too. I object to that part because it would create an enforcement nightmare for the police. If I'm a cop and stop somebody who is carrying but has no physical CCW permit or is at least in some database I could look up, how do I know if he is really authorized in his home state or not? I'd have to know the laws of all 50 states. That seems like a needless burden on the police. Simple solution - require reciprocity only if the carrier can produce a physical permit - states not currently requiring a CCW permit could easily issue a courtesy authorization for their citizens to carry with them when out of state.

[mowin]

It won't happen during the lifetime of anyone here today, well except maybe those under 30, but when the population of this country reaches the area of about one billion people in 50 to 100 years from now popular sentiment will change. The 2nd amendment will be repealed, or at least amended to allow only hunting and competition firearms which must be stored in a gun club safe. No more home storage.

X2. But I think this is coming a lot sooner than we think.

[Bob Denman]

Where a state issues an actual CCW, it makes sense to honor it nationwide. What I read, however, is that if a state allows CCW without issuing any permit, the law would require reciprocity on that, too. I object to that part because it would create an enforcement nightmare for the police. If I'm a cop and stop somebody who is carrying but has no physical CCW permit or is at least in some database I could look up, how do I know if he is really authorized in his home state or not? I'd have to know the laws of all 50 states. That seems like a needless burden on the police. Simple solution - require reciprocity only if the carrier can produce a physical permit - states not currently requiring a CCW permit could easily issue a courtesy authorization for their citizens to carry with them when out of state.

:agree: For a Nationwide Right to Carry Law to actually work: the investigatory process will need to be uniform, consistent, and equally applied. :thumbup:

[kep-up]

It won't happen during the lifetime of anyone here today, well except maybe those under 30, but when the population of this country reaches the area of about one billion people in 50 to 100 years from now popular sentiment will change. The 2nd amendment will be repealed, or at least amended to allow only hunting and competition firearms which must be stored in a gun club safe. No more home storage.

I believe this is the UK as we speak.
If you are urban and wealthy enough to belong to a shooting/hunting club, you may own a firearm, as long as you store it at the club and use it at the club. If you can't afford to belong to a club, you can't in reality own a firearm. (or a crossbow)
If you are rural and own a farm you may keep a .22 or a shotgun in your home, with special permission, for the control of rodents and other animal pests.

Classless society? Not so much.

If I am incorrect, I invite correction by my British friends.
My daughter and her family will be moving to England again in July and this information will help my decisions about a gift to my grandson.

[Machinegunner]

I read that Alaska has no CCW permit needed to carry in the state, but to travel to other states you have to obtain the state CCW permit. I think that is required from other states with in state carry.

[ARtraveler]

I read that Alaska has no CCW permit needed to carry in the state, but to travel to other states you have to obtain the state CCW permit. I think that is required from other states with in state carry.

I do not know what the actual laws about CCW are here. I don't do it and I do not pack a gun everywhere I go.

Most of the people here do pack a gun. Not uncommon to go into a restaurant and see someone that has a holster on. Add all the CC stuff, and it going to increase a lot.

I have learned to avoid certain neighborhoods, never get into a argument or road rage with anyone. Most of these things end up in shootouts. We have at least one of those a day now. Anchorage Bowl population--about 300,000. Sometimes, I think we are in Chicago.

[ES44AC]

I CCW everywhere I go and I don't support business that doesn't allow me to carry. I do wish NC would put our pictures on the CCW, that's the only thing that is wrong with ours.

[Easy Rider]

Most private party transfers are between individuals who know one another.
Ordering guns online... that's just a myth. :lecturef_smilie:
You'll still need to have your background checked out.

Sure Bob. ALL of those people who attend gun shows know or are related to one another. :yes:

And I wish you would try to read and comprehend all of the information in a post before replying to it.
I said that you can order a whole gun, almost any kind, IF you order it one piece at a time and then put it together yourself.
That is NOT a myth.

[Easy Rider]

Really? But not the anti-gun arguments, I suppose. :hun:

For starters, most are not "anti-gun" but PRO effective gun regulations.

Then......do a little simple and easy research yourself. Take note of the news stories about people getting killed with guns......while another crime is NOT occurring. Then add up the news stories about "law abiding" citizens stopping a crime in progress by using their piece.

Just accidental shootings of friends and family occur about 10 times more often than shooting criminals.

Add in shootings that occur to ALL people who are not committing another criminal act at the time and it goes up to about 100 to 1. (Yes that is a guess.)

[Saluda]

Simply due to the fact that most media is anti-gun, you will see few if any occurrences where a gun was used to stop or prevent a crime. NRA magazine does a nice job of giving you examples in every issue.

I'm also betting that due to the anti gun sentiment, many people that prevent a crime or issue (with a gun) don't report it. If you are an innocent survivor they want to put you through hell. Criminals, them we make excuses for and take care of.

As far as statistics, people seem to make them up to enforce their anti gun position. Three different articles, three different figures.

[Bob Denman]

For starters, most are not "anti-gun" but PRO effective gun regulations

For whom is it effective? The criminals that know they won't be facing an armed victim???

I prefer to keep them guessing! :thumbup:

[Easy Rider]

Simply due to the fact that most media is anti-gun, you will see few if any occurrences where a gun was used to stop or prevent a crime.

Absolute and total BS.

In my area, all the media outlets jump all over any story where that happens.

And I watch FOX a lot. How do you explain THEM not reporting same ??

NO, never mind.
This "I've got my mind made up, don't confuse me with facts" gets old really quickly.

[Saluda]

[QUOTE=Easy Rider;1321505]Absolute and total BS.

What I stated is accepted and proven many times over. Believe as you wish. Thank you NRA.

I love certain people, they believe that I say it so that means it's true.

[Bob Denman]

There's no doubt that not everyone is mentally and emotionally equipped to be around firearms.
But I find it amazing that the folks who seemingly aren't: are also the ones who yell the loudest about restricting the rights of those that are...
If you don't want to own one: don't! nojoke

[Saluda]

As suggested in many NRA articles, I have attempted to have frank discussions with many people (reasonable ones) who are either on the fence or anti gun. It's amazing how many feelings and opinions are influenced and enforced by lies and non truths that are told over and over. When given facts and figures, many develop different opinions than originally believed.

There is hope, things seem to be changing for the better. Now if we could address the people with issues that are being ignored by our government (to save some money), maybe we could reduce the amount of tragic ocurrences these people commit.

[Bob Denman]

Believe it or not: HIPPA regulations are the culprit... :gaah:
Allow Law Enforcement Agencies the opportunity to look into a person's mental health history, and you'll catch an awful lot of the problems! :thumbup:

[Saluda]

Believe it or not: HIPPA regulations are the culprit... :gaah:
Allow Law Enforcement Agencies the opportunity to look into a person's mental health history, and you'll catch an awful lot of the problems! :thumbup:

That I believe.

[kep-up]

Absolute and total BS.

In my area, all the media outlets jump all over any story where that happens.

And I watch FOX a lot. How do you explain THEM not reporting same ??

NO, never mind.
This "I've got my mind made up, don't confuse me with facts" gets old really quickly.

Ayup, sure does. Therefore I will not discuss this any further with you.

[Easy Rider]

Thank you NRA.


Well THAT pretty well tells the whole story here.
THIS is why I avoid these discussions; totally pointless.

[Bob Denman]

And yet you're still tAlking...

[UtahPete]

As suggested in many NRA articles, I have attempted to have frank discussions with many people (reasonable ones) who are either on the fence or anti gun. It's amazing how many feelings and opinions are influenced and enforced by lies and non truths that are told over and over. When given facts and figures, many develop different opinions than originally believed.

There is hope, things seem to be changing for the better. Now if we could address the people with issues that are being ignored by our government (to save some money), maybe we could reduce the amount of tragic ocurrences these people commit.
If the NRA is your source of information, it's you that needs to be exposed and open to reasonable arguments from the other perspective I think. nojoke

[Saluda]

One source of many, and I am. I just admitted to that. Please don't assume.
Just when I thought someone was becoming very reasonable.

[UtahPete]

One source of many, and I am. I just admitted to that. Please don't assume. Just when I thought someone was becoming very reasonable.
Then I apologize. I misunderstood.

[Saluda]

No problem.

[Machinegunner]

You can buy all the parts to assemble a gun over the internet EXCEPT THE RECIEVER. It is considered the firearm and must be transferred through a licensed dealer. It is legal for a person to build his own gun. If one has the mechanical ability to machine the receiver, it is legal. Most people do not have the ability ore the machines.

[Orange Spyder Man]

Like a "private" party being able to sell guns to anybody, even in places like gun shows, without ANY checks at all.
Then there is the ability to order an entire gun one piece at a time with no restrictions.[/QUOTE]

me thinks you are off in your above post... all the gun shows I have attended in Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas the vendors HAVE TO DO CHECKS WITH ATF ... and some parts of a gun you can buy with any check... but if you buy a lower receiver for a rifle, shotgun a ATF check is necessary...

osm

[IGETAROUND]

Believe it or not: HIPPA regulations are the culprit... :gaah:
Allow Law Enforcement Agencies the opportunity to look into a person's mental health history, and you'll catch an awful lot of the problems! :thumbup:

The only time this information is available, as it should be, is if someone has been involuntary committed by a probate judge to treatment for their mental illness.

To be the devils advocate, perhaps we should lift HIPPA regulations so that we can screen for those with hypertension, diabetes or heart failure as unsafe conditions to allow purchase and ownership of a firearm.

It is a very slippery slope when you want to lift HIPPA to deny a select class of individuals from purchase or ownership of most anything; firearms, contraceptives, morning after contraception or most anything else you might consider limiting someone's right to purchase or own.

I am not anti gun, but the carnage in this "world leader" of a country that we live in is absolutely atrocious. No on complains other than about the cost of new safer automobiles that are lowering highway death rates and saving the lives of their occupants. Will stop now and wait for the flaming to begin.

Al

[Bob Denman]

"Slippery slop"?

So is NOT dealing with giving the decision-makers the necessary information to make correct assessments of a person who want to buy a firearm. nojoke

I'm all for personal freedom and privacy. I just want my family and friends to have the freedom from living in fear, and the right to keep criminals (and the criminally insane) out of their private homes. :2thumbs: