{ 95 comments… read them below or add one }

-8 Vote -1 Vote +1Patricia Blaine
November 18, 2011 at 7:36 am

for their to be 2 tiers of

it should be “there”

Reply

Vote -1 Vote +1Kubusz
November 18, 2011 at 9:42 am

Something the spell check won’t see. Most of us know the difference between their and there, but it was probably an overlooked error. In any case, thanks David for the article and your thoughts. I’m excited about the ability to CC in EVERY state! Happy Thanksgiving ya’ll!

Reply

+10 Vote -1 Vote +1bill
November 18, 2011 at 7:48 am

There is a provision in H.R. 822 that requires the GAO to study the individual staes’ CCW laws to find where they can be streamlined and standardized. This is the back door oportunity for the Feds to add in a federal gun registry, more stringint permitting requirements. The danger in this is the ability for the Feds to make the 2nd amendment right to keep and bear arms nearly inpossible.

As with all federal laws, they always progress to more and more control. There is also the question of the infringement on states’ rights. Some of the Congressmen have already stated their opposition to this bill on constitutional grounds.

I am not in favor of this bill at all.

Reply

+11 Vote -1 Vote +1Jim
November 18, 2011 at 9:38 am

I agree with Bill. The real problems here is the same as hitler did (and alot of other countries) that they develop a database of gun owners. And then one day the Gestapo (Army or National guard) will be at your door saying give us your guns, And we KNOW what you have. It sure worked before world war II for Hitler and all the rest.

Reply

-7 Vote -1 Vote +1Kubusz
November 18, 2011 at 9:43 am

Well we have the NRA looking at this VERY closely. You can trust that they won’t let something like a national registry fly….

Reply

+8 Vote -1 Vote +1Shel
November 18, 2011 at 10:33 am

Look into NRA’s history with the Brady Bill for Handguns, Ga with long runs, Brady bill modified for long guns and as I read, but not researched, the machine gun tax in the 30′s, I would say the NRA is a gun control group posing as a champion for the gun owners.

Reply

+6 Vote -1 Vote +1Glenn Finley
November 18, 2011 at 10:51 am

Shel, I’m beginning to think the same thing. The NRA backed this bill, saying that it would not be the first step to registration and then confiscation. But if the GAO gets involved, there’s probably no stopping the government. And the NRA, in one of its worst moments, backed Harry Reid in the last election. This really irks me since I’m a Life/Benefactor Member of the NRA. Also Life Member GOA, Life/First Family member of Front Sight, and annual member of Texas State Rifle Assoc.

Reply

+2 Vote -1 Vote +1jag57
November 18, 2011 at 8:07 pm

This is a dangerous bill. We do not want the federal government involved in any way in our state concealed carry permits. This bill, as it goes to the Senate, already has been amended, and this could come back to haunt us, as the purpose was to make it easier for LEO’s to verify CCW, but I should think a non drivers license would be enough, since it is a photo id. This goes totally against the 10th amendment. We already have reciprocity in the states that aren’t Communist run.

Reply

-8 Vote -1 Vote +1Gary S
November 18, 2011 at 7:50 am

I’ve personally stopped using the term “illegal alien”, and now use “illegal entrant”. I don’t believe the term “alien” is necessarily proper in this regard.

Reply

+2 Vote -1 Vote +1Richard
November 18, 2011 at 7:53 am

Hi Dave,

I can appreciate your interest and desire to have national reciprocity on concealed carry. I feel that the states have accomplished this for the most part and will likely have updated their specs going forward due to the great interest nationally. I’d like to see the states do this on their own without intervention by the feds. The feds are so overgrown now and not much of what they do is beneficial to you and me, and while their might be a delay before all states reach full reciprocity I feel we’d be better off if the feds stay out of it. If your cool about it, I will carry in states that may not currently accept, and hope I will never have to use it for self defense, and if I do, worry about the lawsuit later. The idea of reciprocity would be a small issue against a self defense issue in my opinion.

I do feel that some training is necessary to help us understand what and when deadly force is warranted. For example, if someone breaks into your house, you need to inquire what their purpose is before you blow them away. If they make a move toward me or my wife or my two daughters, then let ‘em have it with no hesitation.

I am currently wiring my house for an exceptional amount of light to come on inside and out in order to recognize an intruder.

Thank you for your interest on this issue.

Kindest regards,
Dick

Reply

+2 Vote -1 Vote +1Danette Zak
November 19, 2011 at 10:08 pm

Sorry Dick, but if someone breaks into our house we will not hesitate to use our firearms on the intruder/s. Down in Texas, we don’t ask questions first, you might get yourself killed, then what good are ya….

Reply

+9 Vote -1 Vote +1Alan Brown
November 18, 2011 at 8:09 am

You fail to appreciate that once the federal govt get’s their legislatives claws into concealed carry – the laws will be “reviewed” and “revised” …in fact they’re already talking about doing this. So I ask you, do our laws usually move in the direction of more freedom? Or do they move in the direction of more regulation? I do NOT trust the federal govt on this issue and I believe that gun rights advocates will come to regret it. And BTW – I was certainly not surprised that the NRA backed it. It’ll play real well in a 5-star conference setting.

Reply

+4 Vote -1 Vote +1David Morris
November 18, 2011 at 8:39 am

Again, I think that concealed carry is covered by the 2nd Amendment and that our current concealed carry setup is unnecessary. That being said, H.R. 822 doesn’t legislate concealed carry…it just says that states have to recognize each other’s licensees.

As to which direction laws move…I agree with you 100%. I think it’s safe to say that they follow Newton’s 2nd law of thermodynamics, which says that all things tend towards entropy/chaos unless they’re acted upon by an outside force. Since I see freedom and liberty as being orderly and centralized power as being chaotic, we’re almost guaranteed that the status quo will be moving towards centralized power.

Reply

+2 Vote -1 Vote +1Ed
November 18, 2011 at 9:29 am

Hi David,
Actually, freedom is disorganized, chaotic, and quite unruly. Think “frontier”. It is the place where chaos & entropy thrive (at least from our human perspective), fostering innovation, change, danger, and ulitmately serving as the laboratory wherein the world discovers what is real world effective, fooiish, and so on. In the past, when the frontier was at the ragged edge of civilization in a physical sense, this situation was kept somewhat orderly by the fact that many folks were likely to be armed (not just with guns, either- it goes clear back to sticks and stones). Just because our frontier in many cases is now a state of mind, rather than some valley out back of beyond, the operant forces haven’t really changed all that much. The main difference created by the existence of written rules is a false sense of order, due to their attempt to reduce a dynamic universe to a static, inherantly flawed snapshot of a very fast moving drama, which is ultimately largely irrelevant in a SHTF scenario. I for one prefer to account for this proactively and objectively, rather than creating a situation wherein otherwise competant folks get blind sided by their good nature, especially since not “slowing down the herd”, so to speak, encourages more of us to be all that we can be, and to survive and to thrive more effectively in the process. That said, I enjoy your perspective and would like to know your thoughts on the points I have raised.
Best regards,
Ed

Reply

+1 Vote -1 Vote +1David Morris
November 18, 2011 at 9:54 am

Hey Ed, I agree with you 100% and I think it’s simply a matter of us using two different lenses to look at the same thing.

I see freedom/liberty as being difficult to create and maintain…much like a house. In both cases, it takes an outside force to keep the course of time and active enemies from tearing them down. In both cases, the natural progression is to tend towards a pile of debris.

Reply

+2 Vote -1 Vote +1CaptTurbo
November 18, 2011 at 2:58 pm

Freedom and Liberty were certainly not easy to “create” though it should have been easy to maintain if we simply obeyed the Constitution.

Reply

+4 Vote -1 Vote +1jag57
November 18, 2011 at 8:23 pm

What it comes down to, is, where do rights come from. All rights are preexisting, God given, not bestowed on us by a benevolent government entity. What government gives, can just as easily be taken away. I don’t know how other states lost their gun rights, but MO lost gun rights in 1874, a few years after the Civil War, due to a racist, Democrat controlled Legislature, and Governorship, not wanting blacks to be able to defend themselves. We were not able to get CCW, until legislators were term limited out of office and we got a conservative Republican majority.

Reply

+6 Vote -1 Vote +1Paul
November 18, 2011 at 9:48 am

David,

Under the Constitution, no person should have to apply for any type of permit to own or carry a firearm. Criminals will always have access to guns so all of these laws do not work anyway. These laws only restrict law abiding citizens from having access to firearms.

You may also want to look at the UN Small Arms Treaty that Clinton just signed. This tends to make all of our firearms laws moot since we would have to follow the decree of the UN.

Reply

+3 Vote -1 Vote +1jag57
November 18, 2011 at 8:39 pm

I should think any Senator voting for a treaty that goes against the US constitution, as well as our God given rights, would be voted out at the next election. On a more serious note, as I have reminded our Senators and Congressman, this would take us right back to 1776. As I have written before, if I had the power to make one terrorist organization disappear from the face of the earth, and it was a choice between al Qeada, or the UN terrorist organization, it would be the latter, with no hesitation.

The darkest day in American history, was in Dec. 1961, when our military, at the behest of the UN terrorists, participated in the slaughter of innocent men, women, and children, in the Province of Katanga, in the former Belgian Congo. Something else to think about; America has never won a war since WW11; why do you think that is? If you answered, UN terrorist organization, go to the head of the class. I have nothing but contempt for these dirt bags.

Reply

+1 Vote -1 Vote +1Danette Zak
November 19, 2011 at 10:18 pm

The Senate has to ratify the treaty before it becomes “law” for us. BTW, the 2nd Ammendment doesn’t give us the right to bear arms, these are our natural rights as humans, in order to defend and protect ourselves, family and property. The Bill of Rights were just restating our natural right as humans so that Congress/Government wouldn’t try to usurp our natural rights, but as we see, the Bill of Rights didn’t help us much.

Reply

Vote -1 Vote +1lonetrader
November 26, 2011 at 4:17 pm

Where did you get the info that Hilary signed the small arms treaty? That is false. She has no authority to do so. It is bad enough of what is going on but don’t spread flase rumors.It takes away credibility, yours and ours. Stick to the facts and we will all be better off.

Reply

Vote -1 Vote +1David Morris
November 28, 2011 at 9:33 am

Right on. Here’s a blurb I wrote about this very topic in April 20
10 http://secretsofurbansurvival.com/219/the-truth-about-the-un-small-arms-treaty/

Reply

-1 Vote -1 Vote +1John
November 19, 2011 at 3:48 pm

We already have reciprocity between states that allow concealed carry. Each state is a little different but there is reciprocity already. To have to look at this again to streamline it, means that the Feds are telling the states what to do. Where is the state rights there? I think it is unnecessary to redo what is there in place already.

Reply

+3 Vote -1 Vote +1David Morris
November 19, 2011 at 10:04 pm

As a frequent traveler with multiple state permits, I have to disagree with you. The current patchwork is messy, confusing, and changes regularly.

Reply

Vote -1 Vote +1S Barringer
November 20, 2011 at 2:15 pm

Keep the Feds out of it. Giving them a hand in anything to do with weapons is a huge mistake. It’s the camel’s nose under the tent. This is a States rights issue. They’ll take an inch right now, but later, they will take this bill and turn it into a nightmare for all of us. They’ll use some excuse like “protecting you from terrorists” to make their incursions on our rights. I can guarantee it.

Reply

+2 Vote -1 Vote +1William Brown
November 18, 2011 at 8:16 am

Great article. I appreciate the info on the recently House passed Reciprocity Act. It cleared
up some questions. I also appreciated the ‘smoked turkey’ portion. That pork belly drip is a great thought. Most of all I, for one, appreciate the conversation suggestion about being prepared ….. both earthly and Spiritual. I recently wrote an essay titled “Ramblings, Rumblings, Reflections” and many of the contained contents are discussed by those that visit. It is primarily about … is America fading into the sunset as a nation. Thanks for the article. Bill B

Reply

+1 Vote -1 Vote +1Karen
November 18, 2011 at 8:19 am

Thank you for your newsletters. They are very much appreciated by all, I’m sure. This was positive, refreshing, a little humor amd now my salivating glands just shifted into 5th gear. Looking forward to family here as I inject my turkey, along with a lot of basting on the BBQ.
Happy Thanksgiving to you and your family.

Reply

+4 Vote -1 Vote +1Eric R Lewis
November 18, 2011 at 8:19 am

I have to disagree with you about the reciprocity act. I think it IS an example of federal intrusion into both States and Individual rights, and I think it, like many Federal laws, serves to set a precedent upon which future idiots, I mean, lawmakers, will build a case for more heinous, overreaching laws to stifle our 2nd Amendment rights. IF they pass this, they will come back and say that all the arguments were right, that it is setting the rules too low for CC, and that they now have the responsibility to establish those rules for who qualifies for CC themselves, since they have now forced the States to abide by this law. That will intern lead to more stringent qualifications, which in and of itself isn’t a bad thing, but when the idiots, I mean Federal lawmakers are making them up, you can bet they won’t have anything to do with reality or common sense. They will however, have a LOT to do with keeping as many people as possible unarmed as much of the time as possible. If you listened to the committee hearings on this law, you can easily see that there are two things they think are lacking in the law. One, that LEO can’t validate non-state permits instantly. If you don’t think they’ll make that the reason why everybody on the CC list should be in a national DB, I’d like to hear the logic behind your position. Secondly, almost all of the Democrats a) openly deny the validity of studies that show that CC States have lower crime rates, and b) lump gun carrying citizens in with the entire criminal population. As far as they are concerned, if you own a gun, your a burgeoning criminal, and if you want to carry it around with you, you’re up to no good, and are on the verge of killing someone. You and I know that’s NOT true, but you and I aren’t the one writing they laws, they are, so the fact that they are deluded is irrelevant, the laws are going to reflect those deluded opinions when/if they get passed.
Leaving CC laws in the hands of the States, and leaving the reciprocity decisions in the hands of our local lawmakers is the most constitutionally, and the safest bet we have. We have ever so slightly more control and influence on the State level idiots, I mean lawmakers, and that would keep our ability to control these laws a lot closer to hand.

Just my opinion.

Eric

Reply

+2 Vote -1 Vote +1David Morris
November 18, 2011 at 8:33 am

Hey Eric,

Thanks for your comments…I agree with the reasons you made for NOT having a federal database, but I think we’re looking at this bill from two different directions. I still see CC being in the hands of the states, just like drivers’ license requirements are in the hands of the states. I’m not sure how long drivers’ licenses have been around, but there are STILL states that don’t have reciprocity with each other.

As to lawmakers not understanding the history, logic, or facts about gun ownership in general and concealed carry in particular…that’s par for the course. There will always be people who think that everyone but them is too stupid to make their own decisions. (Think of anti-gunners who think it’s OK for THEIR bodyguards to be armed, like Oprah. My wife has a bodyguard who she thinks should be armed:ME. I have a bodyguard who I think should be armed:MY WIFE.) It’s in these people’s best interest to treat anti-gunners like prize mushrooms…keep them in the dark and feed them a steady diet of poo.

I definitely don’t want the Feds to get into the licensing business, but right now it doesn’t look like this bill will be used to try to do that.

Reply

Vote -1 Vote +1Eric R Lewis
November 18, 2011 at 8:58 am

David,
I respect your opinion and I see your points, but I feel that you might be a little too trusting of our leaders, on either side of the aisle….

I don’t know if you have, but if not, I’d encourage you to watch this video, and see how many of these people you think will make the right decision about how to modify and implement this bill into law.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=SqDl9pcqsTU

Reply

+2 Vote -1 Vote +1David Morris
November 18, 2011 at 9:11 am

Actually, the only leaders that I trust are our founding fathers who said not to trust politicians or bureaucrats. It would be more accurate to say that I’m pragmatic.

Conservatives traditionally see things as black and white/all or nothing. Liberals see the long war and appreciate the value of incrementalism and compromising in the short term in order to continue making progress towards the end goal in the long term. This, in my opinion, is one of the biggest reasons why the US is as screwed up as it is…conservatives don’t know how to fight a prolonged war. We demand a perfect solution/candidate/law today and whine and reject anything that isn’t a 100% solution.

Since it’s football season, I’ll give an analogy of two teams with completely different strategies. The conservative team throws a hail Mary on every play, even 4th down, saying that if they can’t get a touchdown, why play. The liberal team grinds it out with runs up the middle, sweeps around the end, short passes, and long passes. They start each drive willing to take 10-30 plays to score. In game after game, the same team wins. Can you guess which one? Can you see why?

This bill is only bad if we see it as the solution. It’s not the solution…it’s a single play in a long war. If we’re quitting after one play and aren’t willing to keep moving the ball forward a few yards at a time, then you’re right…it was a bad play. But if we see it as a single play, then I’d say it was the equivalent of a 20-40 yard pass. Could we fumble on the next play? Yes. Will we? Time will tell.

Reply

Vote -1 Vote +1Eric R Lewis
November 18, 2011 at 9:19 am

I see your point, and I think that’s a great analogy! However I see passage of this bill as one of those plays where the coach tells the kicker to let the play clock run down, at the cost of a 5 yard penalty, so they can reposition the ball for a better kick. The problem is we don’t have a good kicker and we’ve got an absentee coach (it seems) so I guess I just don’t have much faith in the team that’s playing. Either way, you’re correct, we have to keep the long view in sight.

Reply

+1 Vote -1 Vote +1Danette Zak
November 19, 2011 at 10:30 pm

David, An argument against the reciprocity that we have is similar to your state licence idea. My husband and I are truck drivers and the Fed control CDL (Commercial Drivers Licensing). Even though each state dispenses these license, the Fed outline the laws, tests, etc for these license. We have lived in 3 different states, and taken 3 different CDL tests and each of them are exactly the same. So, if in the case of reciprocity, if the Fed set it up for ea state to have reciprocity, then the Fed will dictate the laws, rules and regulations for gun ownership for each of those states. It may not come down the pike right away, but it will be done.

Reply

+3 Vote -1 Vote +1bill
November 18, 2011 at 9:07 am

couldn’t agree more. I think that there will be a constitutional challenge if the law passes.
Certainly it will be an agregious bill once the Senate is thru with it, and I would not put it past Obama to sign it becasue it is a back door into the Feds eliminating our ability to arm ourselves.

Reply

+1 Vote -1 Vote +1Eric R Lewis
November 18, 2011 at 9:31 am

Bill,
You can bet your bottom dollar that if Obama gives this the OK, that is exactly what he plans to do. He’s pretty open about how he feels on this subject, and he comes from (where is he from?) Chicago, where they pretty much have shut down the ability to carry a gun, (odd that they have one of the highest crime rates though…).

Reply

+1 Vote -1 Vote +1Brian E
November 18, 2011 at 8:21 am

Hey David, I’m LE and always travel armed. I put evrything in my gun case, mags, cuffs, knife and belt badge. This usually seems to calm the TSA guys I have dealt with. I also have the weapon broken down in the case. Never had a problem flying and my experiences seem to be the same as you have had. On one trip at JFK I had to go behind a wall and have my bag checked and on the same trip in Billings I told the TSA guys I had a weapon in my suitcase and one of them smiled, said “that’s nice, have a good flight” and that was it.
Stay Safe!
Brian

Reply

+1 Vote -1 Vote +1Nelson Kieffer
November 18, 2011 at 8:21 am

David, that is (this is) the absolute best newsletter you have ever written. It is enlightening & encouraging. Thank you so much.

Again, Thank you, GOD Bless the Morris family this thanksgiving and in 2012 also.

Nelson

Reply

+3 Vote -1 Vote +1Hal Hoffman
November 18, 2011 at 8:25 am

Dave, while it is very good news that the house has passed the bill, the chances of it passing the Senate and surviving an Obama veto are pretty slim. That is not necessarily a bad thing. If enough Democrat Senators (there are quite a few more Democrats up for re-election than Republicans) try to save their hides and vote to pass it (you may see some vote for it knowing full well it will be vetoed) and Obama vetos it, that will be one more nail in the Democrats coffin. Some Democrats will try the old “Two step side step” and vote for initial passage, but find some lame excuse to uphold the veto. In any case, we need to get rid of as many Democrats (Obama being on the top of the list) and as many “RINO” Republicans as we can, without losing any current Repupblican seat to a Democrat.
If we can do the above, we at least have a fighting chance to turn this country around.

Reply

+1 Vote -1 Vote +1Anne
November 18, 2011 at 8:26 am

The Reciprocity Act sounds wonderful. I live in NY state, where you can get a concealed carry permit, but you have to jump through a lot of hoops to do it. And, as you point out, the permit does not require training, so we have the wonderful logic that in this state you cannot legally learn to shoot a handgun until you own it and now you can legally carry it while remaining in complete ignorance. This makes the rest of the citizens so much safer (sarcasm).

I’m going to pass along to the other members of our gun club your suggestion of disassembling the gun for travel. I think that’s a great idea for helping gun-phobes deal with it.

Reply

+1 Vote -1 Vote +1Luc
November 18, 2011 at 8:44 am

You can travel with ammo in your magazines huh? I did that once and the TSA agent got on my case for doing it. They still let me fly but shook their finger at me.

Reply

+1 Vote -1 Vote +1David Morris
November 18, 2011 at 8:55 am

Here’s what the TSA says: http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/airtravel/assistant/editorial_1188.shtm

-Any ammunition transported must be securely packed in fiber (such as cardboard), wood or metal boxes or other packaging specifically designed to carry small amounts of ammunition.
-Firearm magazines/clips do not satisfy the packaging requirement unless they provide a complete and secure enclosure of the ammunition (e.g., by securely covering the exposed portions of the magazine or by securely placing the magazine in a pouch, holder, holster or lanyard).
-The ammunition may also be located in the same hard-sided case as the firearm, as long as it is properly packed as described above.

Your mileage may vary, but I haven’t had a problem with it.

Reply

+2 Vote -1 Vote +1redshoes
November 18, 2011 at 8:48 am

Enjoyed your newsletter. We usually go to a campground in San Diego for Thanksgiving. This will be the first time in almost 5 years that we decided not to no to go.Both the unrest in cities and the economy are factors in our decision to spend this Thanksgiving at home. We don’t shop black Friday; however this year many stores have started their sales early, so one doesn’t have to wait until then for the sales. Re; conceal and carry: I recently read Gullett’s book “Beruit Arizona” which is about operation fast and furious. He asserts that the Federal government is already keeping information on all legitimate gun owners. He says they started doing this as a part of operation fast and furious and that they are actually sharing that information with international bodies and Foreign governments (including Mexico). Considering the corruption in the Mexican government this is like giving the cartels a list of homes where they can obtain guns (in case we do quit giving them to them!). This is a pretty scary thought.

Reply

Vote -1 Vote +1jag57
November 18, 2011 at 8:52 pm

Just what we need, a failed state, like Mexico, having personal information on American citizens.

Reply

Vote -1 Vote +1Sailorman Andy
November 18, 2011 at 8:50 am

Wishing you all a safe and happy Thanksgiving as we remember our heritage.
God Bless, Andy

Reply

+2 Vote -1 Vote +1Ed
November 18, 2011 at 8:52 am

Hi David,
Great newsletter. I disagree with you on our carry laws. I’m sticking with “shall not be abridged.” If we reverted to our God-given, and (theoretically) Constitutionally protected status, proficiency and safety issues would resolve themselves, ala Darwin, and from greater familiarity with firearms as a culture, in fairly short order. Preparedness and survival are ultimately and most effectively served by the exercise of personal responsibility, and our society would ultimately be so as well. Obviously, families and other close-knit groups also benefit from a certain amount of synergistic spinoff. That said, I appreciate all that you do. Keep up the great work.
Best regards,
Ed

Reply

+1 Vote -1 Vote +1Eric R Lewis
November 18, 2011 at 9:25 am

Ed,

I’d +1 this a few more times if it was possible. Trying to take Darwin out of the equation is pretty much the core goal of the Democrats ( and probably the Republicans too) because its what makes a weak and controllable herd of sheep. People think its cruel to suggest that if we let them, the idiots would thin themselves out to a minimal sized herd, but they don’t see how cruel it is that if we don’t let them do this, they prey on all of us, and cost us our rights, our freedom and happiness and for many of us, our lives.

Reply

+8 Vote -1 Vote +1David Morris
November 18, 2011 at 9:29 am

Most people who I talk to agree with me when I say that experiencing pain as a result of making mistakes has been one of the best teachers that I’ve had in my life. If we cushion everyone from ever feeling pain and having to deal with it, recover, and bounce back, why should we ever expect people to grow?

Reply

Vote -1 Vote +1Roger
November 18, 2011 at 8:55 am

David:

Woe be to the fool that tries to break in my home and comes face to face with my Pitbull dog and 9MM pistol. However, that’s as far as it goes here in Illinois and I’m not concerned about National Right to Carry Reciprocity, at least not yet. I am concerned about when, if ever, Illinois will become the 50th and last state in the country to approve concealed carry. Any suggestions?

Roger

Reply

+2 Vote -1 Vote +1David Morris
November 18, 2011 at 8:59 am

The first one that comes to mind is moving, but I realize that there are several factors that may keep you from being able to do that. In the meantime, I’d suggest learning solid empty-hands fighting like Target Focus Training (www.surviveinplace.com/targetfocustraining) and carrying pepper spray and/or a Taser. These are definitely not equivalent substitutes for concealed carry, but they’re the options that I go with when I’m traveling to cities/states/countries that don’t allow concealed carry.

Reply

Vote -1 Vote +1MP
November 18, 2011 at 6:45 pm

Thats how I was, I lived in the western Chicago suburbs and was tired of everything Crook County has been doing to the people for so long. As far as guns are concerned, the laws drove me nuts, they are now even treating air rifles like firearms, if you have a Benjamin .22 air rifle, its a firearm requiring a FOID card and a clean record so if you have daddy’s old Benjamin and you happen to be on the wrong side of the law (record-wise) then you’re a criminal just becasue of the possession of that air rifle. Now my take on the whole national reciprocacy is that it’ll probably pass, for a good reason, it’ll open up the door for a law to be made for states to have to recognize gay marriage licenses next. Only time will tell.

Reply

Vote -1 Vote +1Danette Zak
November 19, 2011 at 10:40 pm

Hey Roger,

Move!! We did. We are Illinoisans that moved to Texas just recently, couldn’t stand the laws nor the 60 percent income tax hike.

Reply

+5 Vote -1 Vote +1Alan
November 18, 2011 at 9:04 am

David,

My problem with instituting training requirements in order to get a conceal carry permit, is that how can training be mandated for a Constitutional Right. In other words will there also be mandated training before someone exercises their right of free speech? How about religion. Will we mandate that a Buddist must receive mandatory religious training in Islam, Christianity, and Judasism before he/she is allow to practice Buddism? I agree at training should be taken and privately we can request that, but how do you mandate it? Maybe there is a way to work it into the licensing, I just don’t know how to do that and what committee will be establish and who will be the decider to determine that the person is properly trained to exercise their 2nd amendment rights. It’s a good idea, but could be complicated to implements and don’t want to see it used as a way of excluding people, like the misdeamnor domestic violence (Lautenberg) amendment has been. Say someone was charged by his spouse of abusing her? It’s always the man that gets charge with domestic violence never the woman in most cases. Then he splits from her or divorses her. Nothing to do with her now. He is still barred from ever owning a firearm simply but the ex-spouse doesn’t want him to. Sounds pretty unfair to me. I know I said a lot, but I trying to show how the execution of laws can often have unintended (or intended) unfair consequences that were not necesisarily foreseen. Alan

Reply

+1 Vote -1 Vote +1David Morris
November 18, 2011 at 9:15 am

I agree, that’s why I said that I believe the 2nd Amendment covers concealed carry and that the permits were above and beyond the basic legal requirement.

Reply

+1 Vote -1 Vote +1Bill Seal
November 18, 2011 at 9:05 am

I have to disagree with you about having some skill level assessment for carry permits. John Lott showed that just the presence of a firearm in the hands of an innocent citizen has a great effect on lowering crime. Also, the greatest effect was in minority and lower income populations. These people would be less likely to pursue extra training because of the cost, but have the most statistically provable benefit from the lawful ability to possess and carry a firearm.

Of course it would be wonderful if all citizens lawfully carried a firearm and were trained in it’s responsible use. But just the existence of the statute dampens violent crime. When a criminal even thinks there’s a possibility that Grandma’s packing heat he’s less likely to snatch that purse.

I personally believe that people who are untrained shoot better instinctively in the heat of the moment than others who are self trained using questionable shooting techniques they learned from watching action flicks or playing video games. I have no evidence to back this up though, it’s just observation.
Please don’t take this disagreement as criticism. I think you’re doing a wonderful job here. Keep up the good work.

Reply

Vote -1 Vote +1David Morris
November 18, 2011 at 9:13 am

Hey Bill,

You might have missed the part where I said that I think that concealed carry is covered by the 2nd Amendment…the other tiers of permits that I suggested were what I’d like to see above and beyond that.

Reply

Vote -1 Vote +1Bill Seal
November 20, 2011 at 2:23 pm

Point taken. I do believe that anyone who chooses to carry should be constantly improving their skills.

Reply

+1 Vote -1 Vote +1Craig V
November 18, 2011 at 10:23 am

Bill,
Sure the presence of a gun makes a big impression on an assailant. However, lack of training could make the situation more dangerous for the carrier. The more comfortable you are with your firearm, the more calm you’ll be under pressure and the less likely the perp will be able to disarm you. Not saying it should be “requiired” but strongly considered by anyone wishing to exercise their rights. Just my 2 cents.

Reply

Vote -1 Vote +1David Morris
November 18, 2011 at 10:36 am

I’ve got to agree, Craig. A little plastic card makes people think they’ve got ability…that’s why I’d like to see all states recognize that concealed carry is a 2nd Amendment right, but offer a little plastic card for people who want to pursue additional training. Right now, people without a permit aspire to getting a permit, but once they have one, MOST don’t have any more skill than before they got the permit.

I’ve taken about a dozen concealed carry classes. One of them had a handfull of students and a student:teacher ratio of 1:1. We went through the shooting portion of the permitting process and when we were three or so hours into it, another group came up to do their shooting portion of the test. They had 25-30 students and 1 instructor. We let them use the bay we were using and started to pack up. By the time we finished packing up, made it out to the parking lot, chatted a little bit, and started to take off, the group of 25-30 were finishing up the shooting part of their certification. Both groups of students got the same permit, even though the level of proficiency was incredibly different.

While I agree that the big group of students should be able to carry concealed under the 2nd Amendment, I don’t think that they should be able to punch a ticket and get an official looking certification.

Reply

Vote -1 Vote +1Bill Seal
November 20, 2011 at 2:33 pm

Craig V, first, thanks for the comment.
Without evidence to the contrary I would believe just that. But probably the most exhaustive statistical research ever done on these questions proved that the presence of a firearm alone makes one safer. Of course any level of skill and comfort with the firearm should make the odds even better.

Reply

+6 Vote -1 Vote +1kc
November 18, 2011 at 9:20 am

I haven’t seen anything good come from the Feds in the last ten years. Everything they put their hands on gets screwed up or changed to someone’s favor other than the citizens of this country. I don’t trust ‘em and don’t want ‘em dinkin’ around in anymore than necessary.

Reply

+5 Vote -1 Vote +1Reddog245
November 18, 2011 at 9:22 am

I get very mixed feelings over the proposed law. First, it shouldn’t be necessary as the 2nd Amendment should override EVERY law. But since we have them, I like the idea, as it only stands to logic if we allow other things, (driving, marriage, businesses) to be reciprical, might as well add that one. But then I get back to States Rights, and how a state should have the right to decide for themselves. But then you have the poor guy living in or going to Illinois that is screwed because the government there doesn’t want any resistance from their subjects. 2nd Amendment? Never heard of it. Yes, I know this is confusing, but it would be simple if the constitution was followed, and we, the people, stood up when it wasn’t.

Reply

+2 Vote -1 Vote +1Eric R Lewis
November 18, 2011 at 9:33 am

Amen!

Reply

+3 Vote -1 Vote +1Kevin
November 18, 2011 at 9:22 am

Just started reading your newsletters a while back and, while they make uncannily good sense, I feel I should mention something about this one for the sake of other readers and you as well.

“carrying a gun on a plane” is NOT a term you should use when talking about airplanes and guns. You stowed your weapon in checked baggage, you did not “carry” it on the plane. While this might seem a harmless semantic turn, someone could readily find themselves in hot soup if they took your words at face value and carried, or tried to, onto a plane. Good packing advice, though, on the disassembly. Keep up the good work.

Reply

Vote -1 Vote +1David Morris
November 18, 2011 at 9:30 am

GREAT point :)

Reply

+2 Vote -1 Vote +1Miss Kitty
November 19, 2011 at 7:51 pm

It IS a great point because I was actually getting confused about it and thinking you meant transporting your firearm and ammo in your carry-on luggage: I was thinking: like, did I miss something? We can carry onto the planes now? It sounded that way to me because of all the references you made to dealing with TSA agents about the firearms. If the weapons were in checked bags, why did you have to deal with TSA?

Reply

+4 Vote -1 Vote +1Regina
November 18, 2011 at 9:27 am

I’m a little slow on this issue. I have always been reluctant to go for concealed carry permit because it puts my name on a database. The existence of a database makes it possible for “law enforcement” or other “agencies” to access my name and location in order to disarm me. I no longer think this is paranoia talking. What’s to prevent this? Principled stewardship at the state level? Give me a break, I’ m a retired state employee.

Reply

+5 Vote -1 Vote +1David Morris
November 18, 2011 at 9:50 am

Regina,

There are several camps on this debate. Personally, I bought several firearms from dealers before knowing about or caring about the threat of databases, so I’m on a list. I’ve gone through SEVERAL FBI background checks for different security related licenses, so I’m on a list. I’ve been on a donor list for the NRA, so I’m on a list. I’ve given money to the JPFO, GOA, and NSSF with my credit card, so I’m on a list. I’ve bought ammo, magazines, and firearms from gun stores with a credit card, so I’m on a list. I’ve competed in multiple shooting competitions with various leagues, so I’m on a list. In other words, the cat’s out of the bag for me…as well as for anyone who is or has served in law enforcement or the military. Despite the fact that I disagree with the need to have a concealed carry permit, I’ve gotten them because, for me, there were more benefits than drawbacks.

Could some agency use one of those lists to come disarm me? Yes. Will they? It’s possible, but I see it being much more likely that crazy laws will be passed…like calling smokeless powder explosive or lead bullets being called environmental hazards that will progressively price most people out of the shooting sports. All it takes is a generation or two of moms not understanding and supporting firearms ownership and use to effectively disarm the country. They don’t have to take our guns…they just have to stigmatize them to the point where people voluntarily stop talking about or using them in public venues (think tobacco).

Reply

Vote -1 Vote +1Miss Kitty
November 19, 2011 at 8:32 pm

I’m not sure that your use of “tobacco” as an analogy here is a good one. It wasn’t just a couple generations of “moms” stigmatizing tobacco use that have led to decreased rates of smoking in adults and to increasing restrictions on smoking in the workplace and public spaces … it was reams of scientific studies, some of them even conducted by tobacco manufacturers and then suppressed when the results didn’t come out as they wanted! Tremendous public education efforts have gone into alerting people to the dangers of smoking and even of second-hand smoke, and in getting smokers to quit. I worked as a Ph.D.-level scientist in the field for many years, and it was heartbreaking to watch so many long-term smokers in our studies dying of lung cancer, heart and artery disease, and dropping dead of respiratory arrest because their lungs were so damaged. We also saw the hazards associated with “smokeless tobacco” in terms of oral cancers. My point is that even research done by the tobacco companies themselves has shown significantly increased morbidity and mortality not just among smokers, but among those exposed to second-hand smoke. For example, children of smoking parents are more likely to develop asthma and have other respiratory illnesses than children of people who do not smoke in the home. Other studies even show the exact same thing in dogs and cats owned by smokers!

Smoking (tobacco) is legal and if people find it a desirable or a necessary part of their lives, then decisions about use are theirs to make, although ideally those decisions would be ones informed by unbiased information about the hazards. The biggest problem for me, ethically, is when other people, children, and other innocent creatures are exposed to secondhand smoke that has the potential to sicken or even to kill them. That is why laws have been passed to restrict public smoking — endanger your own health if you wish, but it is not really fair to force others to have their health endangered as well by your behavior.

So as far as I know, “mommas” have not been the driving force behind getting restrictions placed on smoking in public places and alerting people to the hazards of smoking . It has been doctors and public health workers, and even nonsmokers themselves who have promoted the limitations. If I have misunderstood your point, please clue me in as to what you meant.

Thanks for your good work, and happy turkey day to all!

Reply

Vote -1 Vote +1Pat
November 18, 2011 at 9:35 am

Great thoughts on how to transport your sidearm on an airline. I did this for the first time last year; it turned out to be a no-nevermind. Courtesy, commonsense, and discretion really go far here.

I’ll be flying agin this year with my gun to attend some training, along with some selected friends. I will be sure to pass this on to them.

Reply

Vote -1 Vote +1Arnulfo Tibus
November 18, 2011 at 9:42 am

Dave, very informative. Keep ‘em pouring so legion others more will know. My uncle was the first one of conscripts of the US submarine fleet from Gen. MacArthur’s Philippines and all of us who came later ALL fell in line to be counted LEGALLY. It didn’t matter we had to wait for some time. We just did the coming over to this wonderful USA in a lawful way. I’m not very good in dissecting the finer points of the new reciprocity law. The Gun Owners of America interposed an amendment and I supported it by signing the petiton and having it forwarded to my (Texas) congressman and and senator. I’m a lifetime member of the NRA and I’ll support any pertinent amendment to the law by sister groups to give it more teeth and help help prevent deceitful anti-gun fanatics like Schumer, Feinstein, Boxer, Lautenberg and their ilk mess it up.

Reply

+4 Vote -1 Vote +1Gary
November 18, 2011 at 10:43 am

Good newsletter. I am not in favor of HR 822 for several reasons. It get the feds involved in state business which I don’t like. Every time a law like this gets passed it erodes states rights and gives more power to the feds, contrary to the design of our republic. The fed was supposed to be small and states were to do most of the governing.
The bill as passed has an amendment which tasks GAO to study how well LE will be able to validate a persons permit. My guess is they will come back with a report stating it is difficut and recommend either a national database or biometrics be added to permits. The bill as written doesn’t set up a database, it just opens the door for further review. I never see the feds miss an opportunity to expand/take control of another area of our daily lives.
My FL permit is good in 36 states, not sure I want to be in any of the states that don’t honor it even if they start. They are the goofy west, the NE and liberal IL,WI and MN.
I think the people who did this bill had good intentions but more federal involvement in my daily life I can do without. I fear 5 years from now many of us will be saying I told you so, I hope not but…..

Reply

Vote -1 Vote +1Lee
November 18, 2011 at 11:40 am

Regarding transporting a sidearm on a commercial flight, don’t try it on USA3000. Better still, don’t fly USA3000. They don’t allow passengers to transport firearms in checked luggage. I learned the hard way when I declared my unloaded handgun at the ticket counter in Ft. Lauderdale when checking-in for a flight to Philadelphia. Not only did I have to dash back to my car in the long term lot and lock the encased firearm in the trunk, but the ticket agent came all the way to the gate and harrassed me and my wife as we were attempting to board the flight. That was the only time that I have had a problem transporting my firearm on a commercial flight.

Reply

+2 Vote -1 Vote +1Dan
November 18, 2011 at 11:42 am

As for HR822 – there should be no “permits” required to carry a weapon…period.
…shall not be infringed.

Reply

+1 Vote -1 Vote +1Kim
November 22, 2011 at 12:36 am

Finally some other American (USA) understands what “…shall not be infringed.” means. It means as a law abiding citizen you do not need any permit to carry loaded firearm. That means anywhere, anytime, or anyplace. The first guns laws were imposed in the South after the civil war by democrats that did not want freed slaves to be armed. Now, even our American soldiers on home military bases are NOT ALLOWED TO BE armed. That is what allowed the slaughter of American military personnel at Fort Hood Texas by an ISLAMIC FANATIC. Our soldiers had to be rescued by the local police dept. allowing unarmed American service personnel to be slaughtered. Sir, this is treason against the American people and military. The American Generals and politicians that disarm our military personnel on American home soil are nothing less than TRAITORS!!!!!!

Reply

+1 Vote -1 Vote +1Kim
November 22, 2011 at 12:51 am

If the US Government does not trust American soldiers to have access to locked and loaded firearms on home-soil bases, what makes you think they will trust you either? If you are a Judge, politician, celebrity or a member of “their” group then they trust you to have a firearm. If you are just a common law-abiding American citizen they (those in power) can confiscate your firearms no problem-REMEMBER HURRICANE KATRINA (NEW ORLEANS)?? How about the “Bonus March” of WWl Veterans during the Depression (1934)?? When gun control started the US Constitution ended!! Long live the US Constitution!!

Reply

Vote -1 Vote +1greg masichuk
November 18, 2011 at 11:57 am

Absolutely, If HR822 goes the into law then we are a little closer to getting our Rights back
on track to where they should be.

Reply

+2 Vote -1 Vote +1Gary Cox
November 18, 2011 at 12:02 pm

David,

Pro-gun champion Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) recently introduced a concealed carry recognition bill, H.R. 2900, that allows law-abiding citizens who can legally carry concealed in their home state to carry all across the country, as well.

This bill sort of takes the kinks out of the bill that just passed the house; it allows for citizens of “constitutional carry” states to present a photo ID in lieu of a permit, and also keeps the federal government out of the process. I urge you to review it and give your opinion of it.

Reply

Vote -1 Vote +1Paul L
November 18, 2011 at 12:55 pm

Hey David,
I generally agree with you, but your suggestion #2 of loaded putting magazines in your gun case violates CA law. The firearms must be in one locked case, and the ammunition in a second locked case. Makes no sense, but we are talking about CA and laws.

Your two tier system is exactly what Arizona has now. Anyone who can legally buy (possess) a gun can carry it any place except in government building, bars, and where posted on private property. Our CWP allows us to carry in restaurants and bars as long as we do not drink alcohol.

Your analysis of the differences between conservative and liberal thinking is correct. The Arizona Citizens Defense League started 6 years ago to chip away at the restrictive AZ gun laws one little piece at a time. Now with over 5,000 members, we succeeded in getting our “Constitutional Carry” passed. We just don’t trust the Federal Government, and the liberals like Brady, ;Holder, Clinton, and Obama not to use HR822 as a wedge to standardize concealed carry permission slips. Any such action would cause a :recession to the mean” that would undoubtedly be influenced by Chicago (IL is not a state anymore. It is just a satellite of Chicago) and California that, regardless of the assurances of the NRA (I’m an active Life member of the NRA and committeeman working for the FNRA). Arizonans have worked too hard to retake our 2nd Amendment rights to support HR822, and I’ve written my senators telling them so. Living in Gabbie Gifords district I have not been represented by anyone in the U.S. House for 10 months now so we had no say on HR822.

Reply

Vote -1 Vote +1Buck
November 18, 2011 at 1:30 pm

Sir : I am a concealed carry permittee , or whatever , I support the 2nd amendment wholeheartedly , however I also support states rights and feel the commerce clause is badly abused , most important of all , I hate seeing the feds get a foot in the door of another firearm policy because of the unintended consequences of all federal legislation and the many gun control nuts in the fed . Therefore I am against this legislation and was dissapointed when it passed the house . There is another bill , HR- 2900 that I like better , but it is still a federal level bill .

Reply

Vote -1 Vote +1Cynthia Moak
November 18, 2011 at 1:55 pm

Recall that the first step to the loss of legal gun ownership in many nations like Great Britain and Australia was registration which is what concealed carry accomplishes.

Reply

+1 Vote -1 Vote +1Art Cole
November 18, 2011 at 3:00 pm

As the person who talked of Hitler registering all guns in Germany before world war one, and then had them all confiscated, so that there would be no force in any uprising later on. I also heard of the story, when Japan was getting ready to attack America, and had plans to enter San Francisco’s port, that they didn’t as they had heard that all Americans had guns. I lived in Cuba during the revolution and they also confiscated all guns, so that the underground movement had no arms to rise up against Castro and his forces. One of the reasons that the Bay of Pigs invasion was a fiasco. Their army was on the ground along the coast lines on the Wednesday before the Sunday midnight invasion. I’m fearful of what a gun registering would do, as to the future youth. Give me another 15 to 20 years, and I’m out of here, but what’s going to happen to those who are left behind my going, unless the present governmental situation isn’t turned around.

Reply

Vote -1 Vote +1Kjedi56
November 18, 2011 at 3:09 pm

David, I hate to say it but I totally disagree with you on HR 822. This bill is a perfect example of letting the camel get his nose under the tent flap. The bill allows the federal government to collect more information on gun owners, especially CCW like you and me, than ever before. And have you looked at the amendments that were added on Tuesday before the final vote? It chills me to the bone to see the loopholes this bill will allow for the Federal government to further snoop into our personal affairs. Can you imagine what Attorney General Eric Holder will do with this information? Sorry buddy, I can’t support the bill and I have NO confidence whatsoever that the Senate will make any improvements on it.

Reply

+1 Vote -1 Vote +1CaptTurbo
November 18, 2011 at 3:11 pm

From my perspective, you don’t want the Fed involved with anything related to your concealed carry permits or anything else. The Fed screws up anything and everything it touches, even on the rare occasion that their intentions are good.

Case in point: I’m going through the process of renewing my Merchant Mariner Master’s document (Capt. License) seventh issue. After three weeks of reviewing my qualifications to keep doing what I’ve been doing the last thirty+ years, they have notified me that my credentials have been issued and they will be sending it by UPS.

Keep in mind that this credential is the size of a passport and could / should easily be sent through the US Mail Service which happens to be a terribly mismanaged Federal agency in dire need of work volume. How screwed up is that? The Fed doesn’t even trust its own mail service. OK, Rant over.

Reply

Vote -1 Vote +1T
November 18, 2011 at 3:43 pm

What have you heard about this bill eliminating personal firearms private sales? I’ve heard, and suspect it is true, that every person who uses a firearm will be required to register it to himself and that even hunting with a firearm given, shared, loaned, etc. to the hunter would be illegal.

Reply

Vote -1 Vote +1isBubba
November 20, 2011 at 9:39 pm

That sounds like you’re mixing the U.N. Small Arms Treaty with this bill…

Reply

Vote -1 Vote +1Daryl
November 19, 2011 at 1:05 am

David,
Great article. I do disagree with your view of the proposed reciprocity law. There is no way that the Fed. should be involved in this. Their approach has always been to do their best to disarm the public. Why give them any more control than they already have? As a side, the need to prepare came as a shock today to my neighbors just south of me when a raging wildfire broke out in the upscale area of Reno, NV. 25 expensive homes were destroyed, and 9,500 people were evacuated at 3:00 A.M. The winds were pushing the fire toward several expensive housing developments, and many folks were without power for several hours in very cold weather. Interesting, I had been talking to several of my friends about prepping just last week. Most of them just looked totally unconcerned. My. How things change. Fortunately, no loss of life, but some very scared people, and devasting to those who lost thier homes. It really feels good to be prepared.

Reply

Vote -1 Vote +1James
November 19, 2011 at 8:57 am

First of all, the bill contains enough bad stuff, especially with the amendment that was passed to fully qualify it as anti-gun. Second, the NRA used to be pro-gun, I can’t say that about them any more. The first time I called my rep to ask him to vote against an anti-gun bill and he told me the NRA guy said it was OK was the last time I was a member…and that was about 30 years ago.

In the article and in some of the comments, training before getting a permit or a 2 tiered permit has been mentioned. Take a look at the simple facts. When you do, you find that there are no more problems in states that force training than there are in states that do not force training for a permit. Folks, it ain’t rocket science.

One other thing to mention, Paul Broun has written HR 2900 which is a reciprocity bill with none of the shortcomings of HR 822. Push your senators to kill anti-gun HR 822. Let them know a vote for HR 822 is an anti-gun vote. Push your Representatives to co-sponsor HR 2900, get it to the floor and pass it then push your senators to pass it.

Reply

Vote -1 Vote +1Bill in Colorado
November 19, 2011 at 9:54 am

1. Where I teach the NRA courses, through a gun shop, we have about 22 hours of classroom and 8 hours on the range. Every time a student has a handgun outside the classroom, an individual instructor (all are NRA certified) is with him or her. On the ragne, for the full day, when a student has a loaded handgun, and individual NRA instructor is within a foot and dedicated to that student only. The class has been run this way for almost 20 years and there has never been a gun accident. That’s the way all courses should be run. They obviously can’t be, but that’s beside the point.
2. “Keep in mind that my inlaws immigrated to the US. I’m not anti-immigration.” David, I get SO tired of people prefacing their comments about illegal aliens/entrants with this sentence. It sounds a lot like “Some of my best friends are ______, but …” You all know how that entence was used. We don’t have to make excuses for wanting to keep illegals out and unceremoniously kick them out. Mexico doesn’t make any bones aboutit when they find an “illegal,” even if the person is visitng for just a day!

Thanks for the article on reciprocity; that’s a good set of tips on travel and I like your very accurate football analogy.
Bill

Reply

Vote -1 Vote +1randy
November 19, 2011 at 12:35 pm

I guess there will never be a law some can live with because it will always be part of a greater destructive scheme. Is there a federal database of drivers? If you leave it to the states, you have what you have now. If you’re fine with that – great. I don’t travel much but when I do, it would be nice to not have confiscation for illegal transport be a concern. It would also be nice not to have to pay the fees to several states to pass thru. My parents have relatives all along the eastern seaboard and are now retired. I’d love to see them able to carry without a hassle when they go from state to state, rest stop to rest stop, atm to atm: without concern for being arrested or fined.
Consider the fact that any law that addresses or impacts all states is by nature a federal consideration. If certain states don’t want in, then the citizens of all the other states are denied full exercise of rights/privileges when they get to that state line. Such rights/privileges would then in principle remain a state issue unless overridden by a federal law. I don’t like the fact that my federally protected constitutional rights get denied in illinois because illinois says so. If law gets passed that protects the exercise of my federally protected rights no matter what state I’m in, I’m for it. National database? What’s the NICS? It should be obvious that if you bought a gun anytime since that was in effect, you would be considered a person who could carry – state sanction or not. No one here has anyway of knowing if the records are kept or not. Still got a firearm though.
Take a breath, if you want to move towards a reassertion of constitutional limitations, understand the same mechanism may at times have to be used that infringed on them in the first place. And even more important, if a person can’t make the distinction between gain and loss – what difference does any activity make? If that’s the case – it all sucks and all efforts are in vain. I’m not so cynical. the football analogy with teams is appropriate; it even applies if you’re a backbencher or a fan complaining/loving the way the game is played.

Reply

Vote -1 Vote +1ceschmid
November 20, 2011 at 10:23 am

David,

Good content; practical and “common sense” analysis re: the concealed carry issue. I like how you described how conservatives and liberals think. You are dead on. Politics require compromise. No compromise, no progress – for either side – and the country and people suffer. People can see the cup as half empty or half full. I see this not as a way to eventually take away rights but as a way to gain momentum and majorities to restore and keep rights.

Thanks.

Calvin

Reply

Vote -1 Vote +1Shirley
November 20, 2011 at 10:38 am

I have made my position known everywhere I can. I cannot believe the NRA approves of this action. IT IMPINGES ON STATES RIGHTS!!!!! Haven’t we had enough of OBAMA trying to do just that? Telling Arizona they have not the right to defend their border against illegals for instance. Its under federal jurisdiction? But the feds are not able to do the job obviously. Children, children, the laws of this land are now written in the wind by the elected criminals in office in Circus East.

Reply

Vote -1 Vote +1Bob in Cheyenne WY
November 23, 2011 at 9:12 pm

I’ve never heard the concept about a two tier system for concealed carry. I really like the idea.

Reply

Vote -1 Vote +1Zeroman
December 3, 2011 at 6:33 pm

Wow I guess I am the first to comment on the LaRue Range Day. Myself and a very good friend were there. It was a fantistic time Mark LaRue knows how to throw a great time. I got to shoot my first 1000 yard target ever. I connected on the 750 yard target but could not seem to make that 1000 yard shot. Got to meet Chris Costa(spelling) with Magpul and Dustin Ellerman this season’s Top Shot Winner. Dustin is really a great individual. Anyway, cannot wait for next year!

Reply

Vote -1 Vote +1Big Red
December 10, 2011 at 10:51 am

In relation to Jag’s remark. Wisconsin has also finally got CC thanks to the voters finally getting wise and kicking out Doyle and his leftist cronies. They now have recently passed one of the best if not the best Castle Doctrine laws in the country and governor Walker has signed it or will shortly.

Reply

Vote -1 Vote +1Carol
December 21, 2011 at 8:49 pm

Hi David,

A couple of week-ends ago I went for my license for ccdw class. KY to my understanding had must passed a law I believe went into effect October 2011 making a ccdw license confidential, however neither of two instructors I spoke with were familiar with it. I thought that odd indeed since they of all people would be required to keep abreast of such laws.
They say I have to make the state police knowledgeable that I have a ccdw license. IF our Federal Gov isn’t seeking out gun owners, then why is this state and possibly others requiring our private rights be made public to law enforcement. I must not only pay the Sheriff’s office for them to take a picture for the license and file the certificate when I get it from our capital, but then I must pay additional money to the State police of whom will be doing a back ground check and search on me. Since that was all done by the State when I acquired the gun, why is it then, that State Police must do the same thing again? Do you find that odd? thanks

Reply

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: