Senate nixes interstate resiprocity of concealed weapons

[pwd72s]

Am I the only one here that would be nervous with the federal government having a database of all the Concealed Carry Permit holders in the country?

[Rick Lee]

You think it doesn't already exist? I've heard they just hand over NICS check records to the Brits, who store it for them and keep them within the law.

[HardDrive]

Originally Posted by Rick Lee

That's what most states already have. But then who would you suggest decide and enforce those requirements? States or the feds?

State. Let the NRA come up with the standards for the safety course. Set a maximum reasonable maximum fee for the course ($150?
). Let buy in be voluntary. Once you have a few blocks of states, presure from the shooting community would push additional states to join.

Here in WA, we are a 'right to carry' state. Just a background check, 30 day wait, and your good to go. I don't think thats a good thing. I don't like the idea of having my time wasted in a safety course, but it would make me feel better about others who are being issued permits.

[Rick Lee]

AFAIK, all the states that require classroom instruction require it to be done by an NRA-certified instructor. I've seen class fees range from $40-$200. But like a drivers license, why should I have to spend money on classes when I already know how to shoot and am well above average?

[BlueSkyJaunte]

Originally Posted by Pazuzu

Yes. I lived there for 8 years, I'm quite aware of the requirements. Why? Do you think that AZ is NOT lenient in it's CCW requirements??

The ONLY state in the Union that doesn't have an egregiously oppressive, unconstitutional concealed-carry law is Vermont.

[jyl]

Why should we have to take your word for it? You had to take a written and driving test for your drivers license, should be no less for a CHL.

AFAIK, all the states that require classroom instruction require it to be done by an NRA-certified instructor. I've seen class fees range from $40-$200. But like a drivers license, why should I have to spend money on classes when I already know how to shoot and am well above average?

[Rick Lee]

Originally Posted by jyl

Why should we have to take your word for it? You had to take a written and driving test for your drivers license, should be no less for a CHL.

Driving is a privilege, not a right. Not so for CCW. However, I'd be happy to take a test, but none is required other than range qualifying.

[jyl]

That is your opinion, but not even the Heller decision establishes any unfettered "right to carry" a concealed weapon.

Too many gun owners have this religious fervour about bearing arms, and refuse to accept any restrictions on guns, no matter how reasonable or modest. That sort of "my way or the highway" zealotry is counter productive. If the Thune bill had included minimum standards for CHLs, maybe it would have gotten two more votes.

I would like to see CHL applicants take a test on the legal use of their weapon, basic safety, and a range test. No need for a class if they can self study. Plus fingerprinting, criminal and other background check. Then they should be good to go. Their CHL should be recognized by every other state, just like the state's own CHL, if the state has a CHL. So if California wanted to stop AZ residents from carrying in CA, CA would have to stop issuing CHLs to their own residents.

Quote de jyl

Why should we have to take your word for it? You had to take a written and driving test for your drivers license, should be no less for a CHL.

Driving is a privilege, not a right. Not so for CCW. However, I'd be happy to take a test, but none is required other than range qualifying.

[Rick Lee]

Would you feel the same way if you were required to take a civics quiz before being allowed to vote?

[jyl]

Casting a vote recklessly or incompetently creates no risk of bodily harm to those around me. Because there is no risk, there is no justification for requiring safety training before voting.

Would you feel the same way if you were required to take a civics quiz before being allowed to vote?

[HardDrive]

Originally Posted by Rick Lee

Would you feel the same way if you were required to take a civics quiz before being allowed to vote?

Rick, I don't worry about you. There are some folks out there, particularly young folks who have never had a parent/leader teach them gun safety and they are not compotent to handle a weapon. My dad taught me from an early age to respect weapons, but sadly that is not taught in many homes.

[m21sniper]

Originally Posted by jyl

Casting a vote recklessly or incompetently creates no risk of bodily harm to those around me. Because there is no risk, there is no justification for requiring safety training before voting.

What if they vote for someone like Chavez, Hussien, Hitler? That can cause millions of us bodily harm.

I think you're way off base with this assertion.

[m21sniper]

Originally Posted by jyl

That is your opinion, but not even the Heller decision establishes any unfettered "right to carry" a concealed weapon.

Too many gun owners have this religious fervour about bearing arms, and refuse to accept any restrictions on guns, no matter how reasonable or modest. That sort of "my way or the highway" zealotry is counter productive. If the Thune bill had included minimum standards for CHLs, maybe it would have gotten two more votes.

I would like to see CHL applicants take a test on the legal use of their weapon, basic safety, and a range test. No need for a class if they can self study. Plus fingerprinting, criminal and other background check. Then they should be good to go. Their CHL should be recognized by every other state, just like the state's own CHL, if the state has a CHL. So if California wanted to stop AZ residents from carrying in CA, CA would have to stop issuing CHLs to their own residents.

I disagree with many of your points, but particularly fingerprinting.

We don't fingerprint people getting driver's licenses, i see no need to fingerprint CCW holders either. Nor does my state.

[Jim Richards]

Originally Posted by jyl

That is your opinion, but not even the Heller decision establishes any unfettered "right to carry" a concealed weapon.

Too many gun owners have this religious fervour about bearing arms, and refuse to accept any restrictions on guns, no matter how reasonable or modest. That sort of "my way or the highway" zealotry is counter productive. If the Thune bill had included minimum standards for CHLs, maybe it would have gotten two more votes.

I would like to see CHL applicants take a test on the legal use of their weapon, basic safety, and a range test. No need for a class if they can self study. Plus fingerprinting, criminal and other background check. Then they should be good to go. Their CHL should be recognized by every other state, just like the state's own CHL, if the state has a CHL. So if California wanted to stop AZ residents from carrying in CA, CA would have to stop issuing CHLs to their own residents.

Hi John,

I'm not one of the "gun owners hav[ing] this religious fervour about bearing arms." I do question whether or not the Supremes are overstepping the wording and intent of the 2nd Amendment. I am not a Constitutional scholar or lawyer, but, I can read and have some education. It looks to me that there is nothing in the amendment that confers any rights to the states allowing them to regulate any aspect of the right to bear arms. I do favor training, and criminal background checks and even checks to see if a person is being treated for psychological disorders. I just don't see state's rights coming into play here, and that's one of the reasons the Senate failed to pass this.

[red-beard]

Originally Posted by BlueSkyJaunte

The ONLY state in the Union that doesn't have an egregiously oppressive, unconstitutional concealed-carry law is Vermont.

Alaska. They will issue you a permit, so that you can carry in reciprocity states. But there is no permet required to carry in the state.

[jyl]

Democracy means the ruler is whoever the majority votes for. So, if harm is done by my vote in aggregate with your vote and everyone else's vote, that is a harm explicitly permitted by the democratic principle.

Quote de jyl

Casting a vote recklessly or incompetently creates no risk of bodily harm to those around me. Because there is no risk, there is no justification for requiring safety training before voting.

What if they vote for someone like Chavez, Hussien, Hitler? That can cause millions of us bodily harm.



I think you're way off base with this assertion.

[stomachmonkey]

Originally Posted by m21sniper

We don't fingerprint people getting driver's licenses.....

Yes we do, in TX you give both thumbs, no prints, no license.

I nearly walked out of their DMV but I'm already in the system so figured WTH do i have to lose at this point.

[red-beard]

TX - FBI background check including finger printing, 8 hours of classroom training on "the law", firearm handling and shooting test, money.

And I'm up for renewal next year. Wow, 5 years goes fast!

[Jim Richards]

Originally Posted by jyl

Democracy means the ruler is whoever the majority votes for. So, if harm is done by my vote in aggregate with your vote and everyone else's vote, that is a harm explicitly permitted by the democratic principle.

Thankfully, we're not a true democracy, but instead, a constitutional republic.

[jyl]

In OR there is no actual shooting/range test required for the CHL. You don't have to demonstrate that you know how to operate your weapon, can handle it safely, or can hit what you're aiming at.