• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Concealled Carry Permits and state borders

Should reciprication of permits be mandatory?


  • Total voters
    25
I disagree. Open carry offers a much better chance for a "bad guy" to preplan either taking you out first or to attempt to take your handgun from you. Just as it is wiser to conceal valuables in a parked vehicle, it is better to not advertise that you are armed. I like the option of either, since with our 100 degree weather my OWB holster may not always be covered well.
I want the "bad guy" to attack me first. Give others the opportunity run, or call 911, or help me out. Better he attack me then someone with an injury, recent surgery or with children in tow.

I want the "bad guy" to try to take my gun. Give me clear cause to put a bullet in you, and put a fingerprint or two on my gun to help my legal case, if you have a second. You cannot take my gun off me from behind, even if I stand there and let you, and I won't just stand there and let you. Your wrist will be the first thing I brake.
 
1. Open-carry allows for safer holsters. Most concealed-carry holsters are only level-1 retention. Open carry holsters are retention level-2 & 3.

The need for the added "safety" of the holster is because the gun is in plain sight. One could leave valuables in plain view inside of their vehicle and add expensive security features or simply leave the valuables out of sight as to not temp thieves.

2. It's easier to draw an openly carried gun.

First of all, you need a reason to draw, that may become very difficult if you being shot (because the bad guy noticed your gun) is the reason.

3. Like a poisonous frog with bright skin, I like to let would-be criminals know that attacking me can result in their death. In the service we call openly carried weapons "show of force". When someone attacks me knowing I have a gun, I can safely assume they intend to inflict grave bodily harm. This makes for a cleaner legal case.

I grant you that criminals are basically a lazy sort and prefer soft targets, so that may make them decide not to make their move if they see any armed resistance. However there are those crimianls that will accept a challange and who are also armed, thus guess who gets shot first to show all others that they mean business?

4. Some people still freak out when they see a gay couple holding hands. Would you tell gays that they shouldn't express affection in public so that those rare few won't freak out? Don't gays still have a right to be affectionate in public? Do you also support concealing political and religious views; would you have Christians tuck in that cross, or Buddhist monks leave the orange robe at the temple? IMO it's the person freaking out who is in the wrong.

It is your life, your right and thus your call, you should be able to carry as you see fit- this I can completely agree with.
 
But it says this:

So wouldn't that indicate that they DO recognize an out of state permit, but only under specific circumstances?
If they tell everyone "no" then they miss out on all that tax money.
 
If they tell everyone "no" then they miss out on all that tax money.

Is that the real reason, or just your educated guess?
 
IMO we shouldn't even need permits to carry and all permits should be "shall-issue" not "may-issue" like Maryland and their stupid "Good and Substantial Reason" to exercise your right.

But yes, every state that has permits should recognize other states' permits.

You should have stopped there.

“Shall issue” permits are still permits. We do not need permits to exercise a basic Constitutional right. Period. There is no valid basis for permits to even exist, nor to discuss whether states should respect other states' permits. All states are required by the Constitution to respect our right to keep and bear arms; and there is no legitimate place for any concept of a “permit” to even enter the discussion. By discussing any details of how such permitting should occur, or what states should be required to recognize other states' permits, only gives credence to the completely-illegitimate notion that states have any authority to openly the Second Amendment.
 
The need for the added "safety" of the holster is because the gun is in plain sight.
It's actually because the carrier is more likely to be in fist fights than gun fights and doesn't want to be disarmed while wrestling with someone. Also, you cannot conceal carry an M9 or most other full-size handguns.

First of all, you need a reason to draw.....
As a person who has drawn on people, I am intimately aware of this, and uncertain why you feel that's something which needs to be pointed out.

I grant you that criminals are basically a lazy sort and prefer soft targets, so that may make them decide not to make their move if they see any armed resistance. However there are those crimianls that will accept a challange and who are also armed, thus guess who gets shot first to show all others that they mean business?
Well there's my reason to draw right there.

It is your life, your right and thus your call, you should be able to carry as you see fit- this I can completely agree with.
I don't personally agree with SSM, either, but all options should be available and let mother nature's bad ideas be eaten by her good ones.
 
Last edited:
My state has a ton of requirements for a concealed carry permit, but we also have a castle doctrine, which I was very surprised at.

Requirements:

Required Documents:
1. Approved training course given by a Massachusetts state certified instructor within the last year

2. Completed application
3. Copy of driver’s license or ID card
4. Copy of birth certificate or passport
5. You will be required to justify your request in writing. Make your request as detailed and specific as possible. Valid reasons for requesting a concealed handgun include personal threats, being in a high-risk profession or routinely carrying large amounts of cash.
6. Two passport photographs
7. 2 Fingerprint cards
8. Proof of residency ( may be a utility or cable bill)
9. Report from your home state Bureau of Criminal Records listing your arrest record

10. To receive a Non-Resident LTC you must already possess a permit from your home state
or a permit from another state
11. If you’re a Vermont resident, you must get a letter from the Police Chief in your town attesting to your good character

Castle Doctrine:

Section 8A. In the prosecution of a person who is an occupant of a dwelling charged with killing or injuring one who was unlawfully in said dwelling, it shall be a defense that the occupant was in his dwelling at the time of the offense and that he acted in the reasonable belief that the person unlawfully in said dwelling was about to inflict great bodily injury or death upon said occupant or upon another person lawfully in said dwelling, and that said occupant used reasonable means to defend himself or such other person lawfully in said dwelling. There shall be no duty on said occupant to retreat from such person unlawfully in said dwelling.
 
I do think that someone who has gotten a CCW should be allowed to use it anywhere in the country. But I also see how it's really unfair for people who live in a state that doesn't allow CCW, or makes them very hard to get, that visitors can carry concealed, but residents cannot.

The better solution would be to simply have national shall-issue CCW laws.

A better solution (in fact the only legitimate one) is to obey the Second Amendment, and for the federal government and all state or lower governments to just keep their filthy hands off of the people's right to keep and bear arms.

We all have this right, explicitly affirmed in the Constitution. No government has any legitimate authority to require us to get its permission to exercise this right.
 
if the constitution had not been raped so many times (especially under the turd FDR) I would say each state has the proper power to determine its own firearms laws

but its idiotic to prohibit law abiding citizens from carry concealed weapons in any state
 
My state has a ton of requirements for a concealed carry permit, but we also have a castle doctrine, which I was very surprised at.
5. You will be required to justify your request in writing. Make your request as detailed and specific as possible. Valid reasons for requesting a concealed handgun include personal threats, being in a high-risk profession or routinely carrying large amounts of cash.
:
The correct answer: "I have the Constitutional Right under Amendment 2 to own and carry a personal firearm without any undue burden placed on me by the State."
 
Recently I was listening to my dad tell me about some of the different complications regarding gun laws between Virginia, West Virginia, DC, Pennsylvania, and Maryland. There was one part that struck me somewhat odd...

Apparently, concealled carry permits apply only to the state they're issued in or between states that have agreements to allow them to carry over. And what the laws in individual states vary widely.

Some states, like Arizona, see no difference between the legal notion of "concealled carry" or "open carry", there's just carrying. Others, like Virginia, have concealled and open and generally isn't difficult to get the permit. Others like Maryland have both categories, but are heavily restricted in CCW and seek to deny most requsts. Finally you have places like Illinois that also only has one legal notion of carrying, but that's essentially open carrying as concealled carry is completely illegal.

But why is it that if you cross the border from one state to another you can't assume that the state, in full faith and credit, will consider your permit from another state legal? Is it constitutional that all states aren't bound to reciprication in terms of concealled carry permits? Constitutional or no, do you think they should be bound to such?

I do think that an individual should be subject to the gun laws in the State he/she resides and when traveling those are the laws that apply, not local State law. Although, I would say that ideally the entire country were under Vermont style carry laws.
 
The correct answer: "I have the Constitutional Right under Amendment 2 to own and carry a personal firearm without any undue burden placed on me by the State."

So then you think those requirements are BS, IOW.
 
You should have to demonstrate a need to have a no-gun sign posted on a place open to the public. No-gun signs are exactly the same as 'whites only' signs.
 
The correct answer: "I have the Constitutional Right under Amendment 2 to own and carry a personal firearm without any undue burden placed on me by the State."


I dispute that

under the second amendment as it was properly written and interpreted (pre 14th amendment) the second amendment only curtailed FEDERAL infringement of the right to keep and bear arms

but since the 14th bastardized the entire document, expansion to the states (as is the case with the first, the fourth, etc) means you are currently correct
 
You should have to demonstrate a need to have a no-gun sign posted on a place open to the public. No-gun signs are exactly the same as 'whites only' signs.

Well I'm not saying that I disagree. I'm just wanting to compare my state to others.
 
So then you think those requirements are BS, IOW.

Those requirements are BS. You should require no permit to carry arms.
 
if the constitution had not been raped so many times (especially under the turd FDR) I would say each state has the proper power to determine its own firearms laws.

The Second Amendment says that the right which it affirms “…shall not be infringed.” It does not just say that the federal government may not infringe this right. It says, “…shall not be infringed.” Period. This means that no level of government is allowed to infringe this right.

Even if FDR had not “raped” the Constitution as he did, it would still be a “rape” of the Constitution to allow states, cities, counties, or other smaller levels of government to violate this right.
 
I dispute that

under the second amendment as it was properly written and interpreted (pre 14th amendment) the second amendment only curtailed FEDERAL infringement of the right to keep and bear arms

but since the 14th bastardized the entire document, expansion to the states (as is the case with the first, the fourth, etc) means you are currently correct

So you think it should be left up to individual states to decide their own requirements? What if a state decided to not allow any concealed carry?
 
Why the plural? I pointed out #5, not the entire list.

Yes I think #5 is bull****.

Just #5? I must admit that I'm surprised. I thought you would think most if not all the requirements were BS.
 
The Second Amendment says that the right which it affirms “…shall not be infringed.” It does not just say that the federal government may not infringe this right. It says, “…shall not be infringed.” Period. This means that no level of government is allowed to infringe this right.

Even if FDR had not “raped” the Constitution as he did, it would still be a “rape” of the Constitution to allow states, cities, counties, or other smaller levels of government to violate this right.

IMO FDR only fondled the constitution, Lincoln raped it, Bush pissed on it with Cheney's dick and then Obama wiped his ass with it.

Edit: Whoa none of that was bleeped?
 
Those requirements are BS. You should require no permit to carry arms.

How would you suggest guns that are used in crimes be traced back to the owners then? I can understand keeping some record keeping of who owns what for that purpose.
 
I dispute that

under the second amendment as it was properly written and interpreted (pre 14th amendment) the second amendment only curtailed FEDERAL infringement of the right to keep and bear arms

but since the 14th bastardized the entire document, expansion to the states (as is the case with the first, the fourth, etc) means you are currently correct
My bad.

In that case...."I have the Right, under Part of the First, Article 17, Massachusetts State Constitution, to own and carry a personal firearm without any undue burden placed on me by the State."
 
How would you suggest guns that are used in crimes be traced back to the owners then?
We do not suggest tracking guns back to their owners in the first place, to then be in a position to offer a remedy on how to do it.

Don't do it.

In my state, registration is illegal. If you register a firearm, both you and the entity you register with are criminals. If a gun is used in a crime, the State should either destroy it or place it in auction. There shouldn't even be serial numbers on firearms in the first place.
 
Last edited:
Just #5? I must admit that I'm surprised. I thought you would think most if not all the requirements were BS.
I cannot object to requiring an ID to carry a gun since I support requiring an ID to vote. That would make me a hypocrite.
 
Back
Top Bottom