- Joined
- May 1, 2013
- Messages
- 119,676
- Reaction score
- 75,622
- Location
- Outside Seattle
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Interesting...good to bring up: there are states that dont require a permit to cc....what happens with those states/people?
Like with gay marriage.
Much like I think a marriage liscence granted in one state should be respected and treated as legitimate in another state, regardless of the second states stance on whether or not they would've issued said liscence, I would think the same thing here.
Interesting...good to bring up: there are states that dont require a permit to cc....what happens with those states/people?
To my understanding, those people would not be covered becuase they've not been issued some form of public record.
IF national reciprocity was enforced by the feds, what you'd likely see is states that don't require a permit to CC to begin issuing permits that likely simply affirm the persons ability to conceal carry as opposed to being inherently required to do so in that state. Essentially, you don't need a permit to CC in that state, but the state will issue you a permit as a public record noting you have the ability to conceal carry in that state.
Also a note...if a state does not allow for CC in typical fashion and has no such permit process, then they would not be forced to reciprocate. It would only be if the state has some kind of permit process allowing for CC.
Cool, and if I dont know the property owner's wishes, I do what I want. I most certainly never assume a person hates Christians, gays, guns, etc.
If a business forbids weapons, distributing poltical fliers etc then I do not do those things at that business, or I simply dont enter it. This is for two reasons:If it's a business, again, they arent responsible for my right to life...*I am*. And unless they are planning on guaranteeing it, I will exercise my right *privately*. Let's face it, if they have security, it's to protect them and *their property.* Not my life.
You are confusing a business owner's inability to discriminate on the basis of a protected group with your inability to practice whatever amendment freedom you feel like on private property.
If a business forbids weapons, distributing poltical fliers etc then I do not do those things at that business, or I simply dont enter it. This is for two reasons:
A- I respect the property rights of others as a philosophy
B- Practical- I know that some owners take property rights very seriously. A hypothetical, a gun banning owner would be unlikely my cocnealed weapon, but it could happen. I dont want to be caught in an escalating situation that I could have avoided had I just stayed off the property in question. Win or lose, I could still lose in the end.
So I am carrying my First Amendment rights with me at all time. If I exercise them, and you dont like what I say, you can ask me to leave. However you have no idea what my opinion is on any issue until I express it. Same with my religion. I am a Christian....if you object to Christians in your home, and dont know I'm a Christian....I am still exercising my right to practice my religious beliefs....but if you see my cross necklace and object, you can ask me to leave.
Same thing if I am concealing my firearm. If you learn, somehow, that I am carrying it, you can ask me to leave. And I would. My firearm is no different than my 'beliefs'
Liberty is exercisable and the various levels of govt can remove it for cause and do so all the time.
when we look at rights, we have to use basic common sense
you have no exerciseable rights on my property, 99.9% of the time i would not care what you do own their property.....<---------common sense.
however you have no right to carry a firearm on my property, pray, [meaning to perform some kind of ceremony] protest on my property , say bad things about me of others on my property.
if you do things i dont like i ask you to leave, if you refuse i call the law and they arrest you........i cannot touch you to enforce my property unless you pose a threat to me or others.
Slightly tangential...is that your personal choice on your property?
rights can be infringed for a person, when they violate the rights of other people or threaten the health and saftey of the public.
but the"right itself" for the people cannot be infringed.
when property belongs to me, i make the descions about it unless, ..again it violaltes the rights of others or threaten the health and safety of the public......because without doing those 2 two things government has no authoirty to act.
I dont understand your distinction.
Perhaps I wasnt direct enough (not usually a problem I have however).
Do you allow people carrying firearms on your property?
If not, what do you do to prevent it?
if i didnt want you to carry on my property i would ask you to leave my property...if you refuse i call the law.
Government is to secure rights, it cannot prevent some rights violations from happening, but it can others by regulations.
You didnt answer my question. Do you allow people to carry on your property? (And yes, I realize that you probably do not know if a person is carrying or not)
yes i would allow them on my property in general , if i had a bad feeling about an indidual i would tell them no.
Thank you.
I would do the same in general, not even related to guns. Just IMO.
The ability to excersize any amendment freedom (carry a weapon, hold a church service, hold a poltical protest etc.) is always at the discretion of the property owner. As no one is obligated to enter the property, there is no restriction on rights, and any threats to safety are taken voluntarily.
I guess where I'm coming from is that if a permit must be issued then I'd prefer that the states choose how/whether to do so than to hand that authority over to the feds as well. I like the option of moving to a state where they believe in liberty if I need to but if this whole thing is dictated by the feds we'll all be screwed.
Which is why I favor "full faith and credit" RECOGNITION of other state's permits, rather than a Fed Permit.
Exactly, unless he or a business owner can guarantee my right to life on their property.
Which is why I favor "full faith and credit" RECOGNITION of other state's permits, rather than a Fed Permit.
I'd go for that.
If SCOTUS came down with a decision that said "Under Article IV, Section 1, if a state allows Constitutional Carry for the citizens of that state then all other states have to recognize that right for those citizens" I'd be fine with that.
Well, come to think of it, I'd hate it because we'd have Californians lining up at the state line to come here and that would suck.:lol:
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?