Bill Introduced To Allow Carry Permits to Cross State Lines Like Drivers License - Page 9 - SIG Talk
SIG Talk Gun Forum

Bill Introduced To Allow Carry Permits to Cross State Lines Like Drivers License

This is a discussion on Bill Introduced To Allow Carry Permits to Cross State Lines Like Drivers License within the News forums, part of the SIG Talk category; Originally Posted by Steve40th If all judges followed the rule of law, and not interpret it to their agenda driven financiers, then we wouldnt need ...


Go Back   SIG Talk > SIG Talk > News

News News Articles that SIG Talk Members wish to share and from the firearms industry.

Like Tree157Likes
Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-13-2017, 02:00 PM   #121
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Birmingham, AL
Posts: 6,289
Likes Received 4237
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve40th View Post
If all judges followed the rule of law, and not interpret it to their agenda driven financiers, then we wouldnt need to take cases to the scotus.
Like Roe vs Wade, the whole case was a lie, and about privacy, not abortion.
No, if the people would stand up to corruption and deal with the ones who are perpetrating the lawlessness, we wouldn't have to run to the federal courts, but the truth is the federal courts are even more activists than the local courts, and they're just as corrupt. The problem is they're harder to hold accountable than local legislators and judges. Buttom line, though, is that the reason lawyers bypass the states and run straight to the federal courts is to circumvent the sovereignty of the states. And, the federal courts are only too willing to take the extra power, instead of saying "no, you need to take this to the state legislature". No judge will ever refuse to hear a case when it means they are going to be given more power. Roe v Wade never should have been heard by the SCOTUS. It had no jurisdiction over that matter, but did it refuse to hear the case? No. Of course, we have Lincoln to thank for all this. It was his agenda that trashed the constitution and grabbed more power for the federal government.
GCBHM is offline  
Register

Welcome to the SIG Talk Forum dedicated to SIG Sauer Pistols and SIG Sauer Rifles.

We welcome everyone and the community is free to join so register today and become part of the SIG Talk Forum!

Old 04-13-2017, 02:07 PM   #122
Senior Member
 
Steve40th's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Charleston South Carolina
Posts: 6,034
Likes Received 5696
Quote:
Originally Posted by GCBHM View Post
No, if the people would stand up to corruption and deal with the ones who are perpetrating the lawlessness, we wouldn't have to run to the federal courts, but the truth is the federal courts are even more activists than the local courts, and they're just as corrupt. The problem is they're harder to hold accountable than local legislators and judges. Buttom line, though, is that the reason lawyers bypass the states and run straight to the federal courts is to circumvent the sovereignty of the states. And, the federal courts are only too willing to take the extra power, instead of saying "no, you need to take this to the state legislature". No judge will ever refuse to hear a case when it means they are going to be given more power. Roe v Wade never should have been heard by the SCOTUS. It had no jurisdiction over that matter, but did it refuse to hear the case? No. Of course, we have Lincoln to thank for all this. It was his agenda that trashed the constitution and grabbed more power for the federal government.
Some, just do it the old way.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/united-st...024121994.html
Steve40th is offline  
Old 04-13-2017, 02:08 PM   #123
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Birmingham, AL
Posts: 6,289
Likes Received 4237
Yeah, I saw that...horrible.
GCBHM is offline  
 
Old 04-13-2017, 05:27 PM   #124
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Colorado
Posts: 7,293
Likes Received 4227
Quote:
Originally Posted by GCBHM View Post
I'm not mad, brother, just tired of debating it. You're going to believe what you want regardless of the truth. You don't understand that by vesting more power in the federal government that what is actually delegated to it (for a reason) you're literally forfeiting your rights. Once the federal government gets the power, illegitimate or not, it will never give it back. So here is what's going to happen, as the result of that brainwashing. Either the progressives are going to push until they get a civil war, or the federal government is going to collapse under the weight of its own power. Either way, we'd better agree to disagree on these issues and stick to getting along where guns are concerned. We're going to need them before it's all over.
Was this a serious post or an attempt at some levity?

How exactly do you get along with someone that willfully chooses to not believe the truth nor understands the consequences of willful abdication of responsibility and as such advocates for such?

You actually want that person in collusion with yourself?
indeed

I fail to understand how it is a bad thing that our gov't retain legitimate authority? My understanding of our Constitution and its properly derived laws, which is limited, is that the exercise of legit authority is what keeps our system from collapse. That seems a universal principle of sound governance.
InOverMyHead is offline  
Old 04-13-2017, 07:07 PM   #125
Senior Member
 
Scorpionbowl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: USA
Posts: 326
Likes Received 216
I said essentially in an earlier post in this thread what GCBHM was conveying. Take the Constitution out of the discussion if you would (I know that sounds wrong) and just look at what specific states AGs and then liberal federal court judges are capable of. A Federal 50 state reciprocity law is a non starter. Just sticking with the issue of guns and not getting bogged down in marijuana laws, immigration, Transgender restrooms, or other lightning rod issues, states are going to legislate the way they legislate. It doesn't even have to be the will of the voters in many cases. One AG from a once great state eliminated AR15 platforms in the middle of the night last summer based on vague and non specific language in the 1995 AWB Federal law. ONE person made that decision and the Republican governor stuck his head in the sand. No referendum, no ballot measure, nada. Other states in the meantime have little or no restrictions on "Assault Weapons", silencers, etc. The bottom line is that you have only so many years to play with your toys, whatever they might be. Choose a state wisely. You wanna smoke chronic, you know where to live. You want to live in a big brother city and be a dude in a dress, you know where to go. You want gun rights that are in line with the existing threat level (from guess who?), you know where NOT to live. As soon as our last child flips their HS mortarboard in the air, I'm driving home and planting the For Sale sign in the front of the property. 50 state reciprocity is a waste of time, will be a lawyers fantasy land, and a pipe dream (no offense to Colorado intended). Here's a toast to the Republic lasting that long. Cheers!
Scorpionbowl is offline  
Old 04-13-2017, 07:53 PM   #126
Senior Member
 
Scorpionbowl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: USA
Posts: 326
Likes Received 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by bumper View Post
It probably goes without saying that states like CA will do everything they can to avoid having to recognize CCW's issued by other states, just like they are doing there best to thumb their collective noses at Trumps plan to eliminate sanctuary cities.

What I think it will take is a Federal reciprocity statute, and I do think that has a good chance of passing. Some states, like CA will perhaps attempt to balk. If there is an aggrieved party, then it will go through the courts. Hopefully there will be a more reasonable SCOTUS by then - there should be.

I was a cop in CA for a decade, had one of the few CCW's in Vallejo before I moved to NV, own a business and pay taxes there to this day, yet I cannot legally carry there. That defies logic, boggles the mind, and chaps my hide . . . but, ya know what? There's not much that doesn't surprise me coming out of CA . . .
Hey Bumper, I had read this post earlier in the week and forgot to ask you. You were in Vallejo. You remember The Horse and Cow and Gentleman Jim's?
Scorpionbowl is offline  
Old 04-14-2017, 03:52 AM   #127
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Birmingham, AL
Posts: 6,289
Likes Received 4237
Quote:
Originally Posted by InOverMyHead View Post
Was this a serious post or an attempt at some levity?
It was meant to be a genuine conveyance of the fact that I'm not angry over this, but that I'm not going to continue to debate something just to keep on. Surely you see how that is a colossal waste of time. You very clearly do not want to understand anything about this for wanting to get what you want. There is nothing I can do to even persuade you to even consider the actual truth, so it's time to move on. My hope is that we can do so amicably.

Quote:
Originally Posted by InOverMyHead View Post
How exactly do you get along with someone that willfully chooses to not believe the truth nor understands the consequences of willful abdication of responsibility and as such advocates for such?
It's a simple matter of choice, really. You agree to disagree and look for other common ground. Did you really have to be told that?

Quote:
Originally Posted by InOverMyHead View Post
You actually want that person in collusion with yourself?
indeed
If there is common ground on which to stand, sure. At the very least you agree to part ways peacefully, as men, with the understanding that no two people are always going to agree on everything. Frankly, I'm really somewhat surprised by the fact that you're actually looking to be so contentious about it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by InOverMyHead View Post
I fail to understand how it is a bad thing that our gov't retain legitimate authority?
It isn't a bad thing that the government retain "legitimate" authority, but your understanding of "legitimate" vs my understanding of it differs. You simply do not understand that giving the general government power to regulate the private ownership and use of guns in any capacity is a direct conflict of interest. You seem to think that it wants to safeguard and protect your right to keep and bear arms, but it doesn't. I'll say that again. It does not! But, again, you are free to believe whatever you will. Just don't come crying when it decides that you need to register your guns and hand them over for the good of the nation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by InOverMyHead View Post
My understanding of our Constitution and its properly derived laws, which is limited, is that the exercise of legit authority is what keeps our system from collapse. That seems a universal principle of sound governance.
You have no understanding of this. What you believe is exactly what they want you to believe, which is that we need the government to protect us. We don't. It won't. The sooner you get that the better off you'll be. In the meantime, I don't feel the need to continue to debate something that is dead. The horse is dead. Let us agree to disagree and be gentlemen about it.

Last edited by GCBHM; 04-14-2017 at 03:54 AM.
GCBHM is offline  
Old 04-14-2017, 03:57 AM   #128
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Birmingham, AL
Posts: 6,289
Likes Received 4237
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scorpionbowl View Post
I said essentially in an earlier post in this thread what GCBHM was conveying. Take the Constitution out of the discussion if you would (I know that sounds wrong) and just look at what specific states AGs and then liberal federal court judges are capable of. A Federal 50 state reciprocity law is a non starter. Just sticking with the issue of guns and not getting bogged down in marijuana laws, immigration, Transgender restrooms, or other lightning rod issues, states are going to legislate the way they legislate. It doesn't even have to be the will of the voters in many cases. One AG from a once great state eliminated AR15 platforms in the middle of the night last summer based on vague and non specific language in the 1995 AWB Federal law. ONE person made that decision and the Republican governor stuck his head in the sand. No referendum, no ballot measure, nada. Other states in the meantime have little or no restrictions on "Assault Weapons", silencers, etc. The bottom line is that you have only so many years to play with your toys, whatever they might be. Choose a state wisely. You wanna smoke chronic, you know where to live. You want to live in a big brother city and be a dude in a dress, you know where to go. You want gun rights that are in line with the existing threat level (from guess who?), you know where NOT to live. As soon as our last child flips their HS mortarboard in the air, I'm driving home and planting the For Sale sign in the front of the property. 50 state reciprocity is a waste of time, will be a lawyers fantasy land, and a pipe dream (no offense to Colorado intended). Here's a toast to the Republic lasting that long. Cheers!
Indeed! Someone gets it. Cheers, Mate!
USMC6872 and Bamm like this.
GCBHM is offline  
Old 04-29-2017, 09:37 AM   #129
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Houston
Posts: 42
Likes Received 4
Interesting article. Thank you.
imorris8 is offline  
Old 10-20-2017, 10:19 PM   #130
Member
 
Thunderbunny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Humble, TX
Posts: 36
Likes Received 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redfish View Post
Be careful what you wish for.

I see it going like this.

A National Data Base of Permit holders. (which someone already probably has)
A National Standard for Permit holders.
Then one day a presidential order turns all the permits into Federal Permits.
New regulations for permit holders.
A large tax on Permit holders to cover the cost of managing the program which is tied to the IRS and your healthcare program expense.


I like my State program and the way it is managed. I can live with the State's agreements with other States.
I agree with the Let States Manage What belongs to the State. Although I would expect ATF would out-rank IRS but that's idle speculation.


Here is what I find - still - deeply concerning;
Way too many citizens have swallowed that the 2nd amendment is just to permit the call up of Militias. Some even say that it only applies to the type of flintlock in use at the time (totally forgetting the Kentucky Rifle of that same era.


But let's just revisit it... if you like.

1st part:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

So yes, it does identify Militias.
However, examine the WHY of it... "...being necessary to the security of a free State..."

I will not muddy the discussion with what my definition of free State actually looks like. I will say that I think we have some corrections to make.

Here the declaration gets Very broad: "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The word is ARMS.

It makes no provision for what type. How Many, Capacity,Rate of fire, permissible caliber, etc. It states: ARMS.

Had the Founders had tactical nuke weapons in the 1800's I firmly believe the words would still read ...ARMS.

I believe we have all got our stories of Abridged or outright infringement. Not gonna go there either.

Here's a basic truth, in my view; That which was legal, according to the constitution, for our Great-Great-Grandfathers.... Should be just as true today. The Founders' intent was that we should be able to field successful resistance against an indifferent and corrupt government.

By the way, it was certainly not an issue to the Government at that time.

The problem is, as Jefferson spoke it;
When the People fear Government we find Tyranny. When the Government fears the people you find Liberty.

We have 400 Million guns in the hands of citizens today. Look how Government treats us? Look how they manage money, Policy ...and Clean Water for the Dakotas and the Citizenry STILL without to this day.

Is there even ONE reader that believes that if we permit the Government to take our inalienable Citizen's right to bear, maintain and, if necessary, use firearms in the Civilian Defense of our scared and beleaguered brothers and sisters that the Government will suddenly become Better?

...Do I think the Nut Job in Las Vegas was evil and a raving madman? Of course I do. <insert derogatory appellation here> had more money than he needed, and had no sad or violent tale... He was a crazy SOB and any one of us would have gladly ended that shooting spree had we had the opportunity.

Is it a fundamantally sound argument, yet, that Guns kill people? No. Is it reason to permit the Government to carve deeper in-roads into our Citizens' rights? No.

There is one more topic I would open:

The constitution permitted Congress the ability to issue Letters of Marque and Reprisal. The idea was simply that, in the days of Sea fighting, "a letter of marque and reprisal was a government license authorizing a person (known as a privateer) to attack and capture enemy vessels and bring them before admiralty courts for condemnation and sale."

Now, unless I miss my mark, this would not be accomplished with small arms fire. Rather the Citizens were likely expected to use Cannon. A LOT of them.

Allow me to repeat;
That which was legal, according to the constitution, for our Great-Great-Grandfathers.... Should be just as true today.

Okay, so I do not want a cannon. But I would like the right to build embrasures to repel armed provocation. Frankly I would like about 8 of them in the 50+ belt fed caliber with some clever automation software.

(okay... I might be alone on that one but.... I would sleep better.)

*************
See... a lot of us swore an oath of service to the Constitution. None of us were relieved of that oath. many of us, I think, are wondering if we can avoid a ****-fest.

I love my country. Always will. I would not suborn insurrection for all the tea in China. ...but if we are talking dropping the cost of ammunition to pre-1986 prices... Ah, Hell... not even then!

But I firmly believe we need to get off the fence, start grassroots campaigns to stop patellar legislation by folks with their own elitist goals and start working on repairing the ignorance of our Children.

14 years ago (or so) I read about a questionairre answered by new Marines arriving in 29 Palms. It was a short list of questions the gyst of it was "would you fire upon US Citizens while invading their homes to confiscate all firearms?"

They said no.

It has been a long time. And NOW... Homeland Security has the right to suspend the constitution. They are drawing up our military troops to act on American Soil against its Citizens.

Our children are 2 generations more indoctrinated with garbage. More afraid and I think that survey will soon have a different outcome if circulated.

How does destroying our Liberty make us "Safer" Mr. Bush?

Bush and Cheney should have been indicted, not retired at our expense.
Obama re-instituted The Patriot Act. I think he, too, deserves a cell.

[Sorry, found a soap box... did not really mean to.]

I did want to say a few words about Constitutional Liberty and how simple we have allowed it to become to **** all over it. All they need do now is write the words... Even if the most Sacred of our founding documents expressly forbids it.

They do not fear the People. We need to fix that (preferable through Peaceful methods while they are still open to us).
Thunderbunny is offline  
Old 10-30-2017, 09:13 AM   #131
Supporting Member
Supporting Member
 
MoRivera's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: CT
Posts: 9,592
Likes Received 9229
My concern would be all the confusion/complication of abiding by different states' particular regulations. Like could I only carry in CA or MA with guns/magazines that were CA/MA compliant?

Or...heavens forbid...the entire country would have to standardize to CA/MA regulations/limitations (or Hawaii!!) because they sure as heck wouldn't loosen up. Unless they were somehow forced to and then you'd have a civil war.
MoRivera is online now  
Old 10-30-2017, 09:27 AM   #132
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Colorado
Posts: 7,293
Likes Received 4227
What would that look like? A civil war made up of people that don't like guns and +10 mags against those that do....

I think a series of precedent (pro rights) cases would need to proceed national carry legislation. Various oppressive state level laws would need to be challenged and overturned (which might altogether mitigate the issue), then sometime after that national legislation would be more likely.
InOverMyHead is offline  
Old 10-30-2017, 09:36 AM   #133
Senior Member
 
NorthernMichigan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Northern Michigan
Posts: 1,671
Likes Received 1403
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoRivera View Post
My concern would be all the confusion/complication of abiding by different states' particular regulations. Like could I only carry in CA or MA with guns/magazines that were CA/MA compliant?

Or...heavens forbid...the entire country would have to standardize to CA/MA regulations/limitations (or Hawaii!!) because they sure as heck wouldn't loosen up. Unless they were somehow forced to and then you'd have a civil war.
This shouldn't be funny, but I couldn't help laughing at the idea of California fighting a "civil war". With what?

California is the epitome of idiotic bureaucracy. The passing of such a law just means CCACCCs (California Citizens Against Concealed Carry for the Chilrends) would file a motion in court. California citizens are sheeple. The amount of oppression there backed by "law" has yet to produce a revolt.
Animator and JWF like this.
NorthernMichigan is offline  
Old 10-30-2017, 09:59 AM   #134
Senior Member
 
bearone2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Arizona
Posts: 54,605
Likes Received 64146
+1, i agree!!
bearone2 is offline  
Old 10-31-2017, 07:57 AM   #135
JWF
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Oregon
Posts: 134
Likes Received 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorthernMichigan View Post
This shouldn't be funny, but I couldn't help laughing at the idea of California fighting a "civil war". With what?

California is the epitome of idiotic bureaucracy. The passing of such a law just means CCACCCs (California Citizens Against Concealed Carry for the Chilrends) would file a motion in court. California citizens are sheeple. The amount of oppression there backed by "law" has yet to produce a revolt.
this x10
Animator likes this.
JWF is offline  
Closed Thread

  SIG Talk > SIG Talk > News


Search tags for this page

news

Click on a term to search for related topics.

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar SIG Talk Discussions
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Illinois State Rifle Association Update on IL State’s Concealed Carry Progress Malicious Compliance News 0 10-11-2013 08:09 AM
Cross draw carry Broncs Concealed Carry 15 02-10-2013 05:14 PM
Introduced at the Shot Show th3ug1y0n3 Guns 26 02-06-2013 04:25 AM
p229 tac rail first introduced. srice425 SIG Sauer Pistols 1 03-10-2011 01:05 AM


Top Gun Sites Top Sites List

Powered by vBulletin 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1
Copyright © 2010 - 2020 SIG Talk. All rights reserved.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.SIG Talk is a SIG Sauer Firearms enthusiast's forum, but it is in no way affiliated with, nor does it represent SIG Sauer, Inc. of Exeter, NH.