• 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 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.
 
Jerry said:
1. Open-carry allows for safer holsters. Most concealed-carry holsters are only level-1 retention. Open carry holsters are retention level-2 & 3.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.


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?


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.
 
ChrisL said:
But it says this:

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

Is that the real reason, or just your educated guess?
 

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.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
The need for the added "safety" of the holster is because the gun is in plain sight.
Click to expand...
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.

ttwtt78640 said:
First of all, you need a reason to draw.....
Click to expand...
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.

Well there's my reason to draw right there.

ttwtt78640 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.


Castle Doctrine:

 

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
 
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 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.
 
Jerry said:
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."
Click to expand...

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.
 
Jerry said:
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."
Click to expand...


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
 
Jerry said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

Those requirements are BS. You should require no permit to carry arms.
 
TurtleDude said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 

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?
 
Jerry said:
Why the plural? I pointed out #5, not the entire list.

Yes I think #5 is bull****.
Click to expand...

Just #5? I must admit that I'm surprised. I thought you would think most if not all the requirements were BS.
 

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?
 
Ikari said:
Those requirements are BS. You should require no permit to carry arms.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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."
 
ChrisL said:
How would you suggest guns that are used in crimes be traced back to the owners then?
Click to expand...
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:
ChrisL said:
Just #5? I must admit that I'm surprised. I thought you would think most if not all the requirements were BS.
Click to expand...
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…