Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

hack89

(39,171 posts)
Sat Apr 13, 2013, 09:59 PM Apr 2013

CCW national reciprocity may come out of the gun control debate in Congress

Most worrisome to those who advocate new gun limits is an expected amendment that would achieve one of the National Rifle Association’s biggest goals: a “national reciprocity” arrangement, in which a gun owner who receives a permit to carry a concealed weapon in any one state would then be allowed to do that anywhere in the country.

Republicans said the prospect of having many amendments, an assurance they got from Reid, was one of the reasons that so many of them voted in favor of allowing the bill to proceed.

The reciprocity proposal was last put to a vote by the Senate in 2009 and received 58 votes — just two short of the necessary 60.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/gun-rights-advocates-see-senate-debate-as-an-opportunity-to-weaken-current-law/2013/04/12/c43c5290-a38a-11e2-be47-b44febada3a8_story.html
114 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
CCW national reciprocity may come out of the gun control debate in Congress (Original Post) hack89 Apr 2013 OP
g-d forbid! elleng Apr 2013 #1
I could support that. bluedigger Apr 2013 #2
funny you should mention that gejohnston Apr 2013 #3
There is tremendous variation in standards. bluedigger Apr 2013 #4
any standard should be shall issue gejohnston Apr 2013 #7
See! There you go! bluedigger Apr 2013 #8
I'm a prig that strives for consistancy gejohnston Apr 2013 #9
LOL! bluedigger Apr 2013 #47
if you read some of my older posts gejohnston Apr 2013 #48
You must have lived in a cave for a few decades. bluedigger Apr 2013 #49
I'm not a sports fan gejohnston Apr 2013 #50
based on your posts at DU, i suspect if the word 'gun' isn't involved, you have no interest at all CreekDog Apr 2013 #91
I read other stuff gejohnston Apr 2013 #92
i have interest in liberal Democratic politics. Do you? CreekDog Apr 2013 #93
if one were logically consistant, gejohnston Apr 2013 #94
by your posts at DU you aren't to the left of me, you aren't even interested in any non-gun issue CreekDog Apr 2013 #95
actually I do post on other issues gejohnston Apr 2013 #96
you said you were to the left of me, as for posting on other topics: CreekDog Apr 2013 #97
check out the other two percent gejohnston Apr 2013 #98
almost all of those posts outside this group are about guns CreekDog Apr 2013 #100
they are? gejohnston Apr 2013 #102
so basically what you're saying is that 1 percent of your posts on DU are not gun related CreekDog Apr 2013 #103
closer to five gejohnston Apr 2013 #104
i post substantive things on DU all the time CreekDog Apr 2013 #105
I haven't seen them gejohnston Apr 2013 #106
because you never leave this group CreekDog Apr 2013 #107
actually I read a lot outside of the group gejohnston Apr 2013 #108
how are you going to advance your opinions on the gun debate if you lack credibility with DUers? CreekDog Apr 2013 #109
I don't think it is actually possible gejohnston Apr 2013 #110
Creekdog really misses META CokeMachine Apr 2013 #111
No, I'm not trying to get anyone to say anything CreekDog Apr 2013 #113
You know what -- I believe you. CokeMachine Apr 2013 #114
Shall-issue != no standards, ya know.. sir pball Apr 2013 #46
Sometimes the "we" over here disagree with the "we" over there. Starboard Tack Apr 2013 #76
Sorry, can't agree with that. Straw Man Apr 2013 #77
I understand your point Starboard Tack Apr 2013 #78
then the limitations should be specified in the law gejohnston Apr 2013 #80
I agree with everything there except Bill Cosby being dead. Starboard Tack Apr 2013 #81
best news today, my bad gejohnston Apr 2013 #82
"May issue" = profiling kudzu22 Apr 2013 #83
No, it means providing a damn good reason for wanting to carry a gun Starboard Tack Apr 2013 #84
that may be the intent but gejohnston Apr 2013 #85
well, those you mention already have degree of arbitrary authority Starboard Tack Apr 2013 #86
no they don't. gejohnston Apr 2013 #87
And when being non-white is the reason for denial hack89 Apr 2013 #88
I'm not suggesting the police decide. Starboard Tack Apr 2013 #89
Because it is impossible for every other type of government official to be biased? nt hack89 Apr 2013 #90
What? Government official? Did I say something about government official? Starboard Tack Apr 2013 #99
Then who will have the final say over granting concealed carry permits? hack89 Apr 2013 #101
The Commerce Clause could be used as justification ProgressiveProfessor Apr 2013 #15
With the proven poor marksmanship of some NYC cops, I'm not even sure that NYC has qualifying AnotherMcIntosh Apr 2013 #6
Still beats PA, at least in 2005 sir pball Apr 2013 #45
The law of unintended consequences. The phrase "Be careful what you wish for comes to mind." AnotherMcIntosh Apr 2013 #5
Isn't it interesting, people run out and get concealed license and this does not appear to be a Thinkingabout Apr 2013 #10
there already are background checks gejohnston Apr 2013 #11
I think that's why it wasn't included in the Brady Bill kudzu22 Apr 2013 #14
Then there is the gun show loop hole so though there are some back ground checks Thinkingabout Apr 2013 #22
What your referring to are private sales/transfers clffrdjk Apr 2013 #23
I am referring to the ability to go to a gun show and buy a weapon without a background check. Thinkingabout Apr 2013 #25
You are wrong on all counts try again. clffrdjk Apr 2013 #26
If i am wrong the this is happening a lot these days but perhaps you state has a different law. Thinkingabout Apr 2013 #27
trust me on this, Also it is federal law clffrdjk Apr 2013 #28
gun show loophole is a buzz word gejohnston Apr 2013 #40
I think you're confused. Straw Man Apr 2013 #12
You're making your argument based on one case of mistaken identity. Starboard Tack Apr 2013 #16
It's only the first case. Straw Man Apr 2013 #19
Couldn't agree more. Starboard Tack Apr 2013 #53
More guns than screwdrivers? premium Apr 2013 #54
No, of course I wasn't serious. Though it's probably close. Starboard Tack Apr 2013 #56
I'll bet that there are at least double the screwdrivers as guns in this country, premium Apr 2013 #57
I have about 20 screwdrivers, 1 hammer, lots of wrenches and 2 flare pistols. Starboard Tack Apr 2013 #62
Me personally, premium Apr 2013 #63
I agree, depending on the types of guns. Starboard Tack Apr 2013 #65
The thing is ... Straw Man Apr 2013 #58
I doubt it goes so far as to dig through medical records to such an extent. Starboard Tack Apr 2013 #59
The allegation is that the NY State Police are already doing it. Straw Man Apr 2013 #61
I agree, except for the "red herring" Starboard Tack Apr 2013 #64
Imagining. Straw Man Apr 2013 #66
So, what does that say about our society? Starboard Tack Apr 2013 #67
It says we have a very violent society. Straw Man Apr 2013 #68
Once again, I agree with you. Starboard Tack Apr 2013 #69
perhaps more like internal servalience state gejohnston Apr 2013 #70
You got it. I'll take the baseball bat any day. Starboard Tack Apr 2013 #71
I have been living in the 18th century gejohnston Apr 2013 #72
LOL. I've always been fascinated by language and spelling. Starboard Tack Apr 2013 #73
I especially like the animal vs food comparison Bazinga Apr 2013 #75
As in one inevitably leading to the other? Of course not. Lizzie Poppet Apr 2013 #20
Most gun owners support background checks hack89 Apr 2013 #13
A CCW is a permit to carry a gun but does not attach the owner with any particular gun. rrneck Apr 2013 #17
it is paranoid thinking he n the first place but my point was to say CCW is a license Thinkingabout Apr 2013 #24
Soooo, rrneck Apr 2013 #29
you are somewhat sheltered Thinkingabout Apr 2013 #30
That wasn't even a complete sentence. rrneck Apr 2013 #31
You need some lessons in english sentence compositions. Thinkingabout Apr 2013 #32
I wouldn't get too lippy on this subject if I were you clffrdjk Apr 2013 #33
so, do you know the results of assuming Thinkingabout Apr 2013 #35
Umm clffrdjk Apr 2013 #36
Assume broken down ass u me Thinkingabout Apr 2013 #37
yea thats the joke i was referring to. clffrdjk Apr 2013 #38
I do not hold every one to only believing what I believe, its like freedom but I think there should Thinkingabout Apr 2013 #39
Are they worse than having a debate WinniSkipper Apr 2013 #74
Maybe. rrneck Apr 2013 #34
Several states require the information on the oneshooter Apr 2013 #41
Yep. rrneck Apr 2013 #42
Illinois is still "contributing" to the NRA DonP Apr 2013 #44
NY is one. Straw Man Apr 2013 #43
True thought there is an LEO exception to that ProgressiveProfessor Apr 2013 #112
I know people who do not get a carry license just for that reason. ... spin Apr 2013 #18
Will the amendments to the Senate gun bill require 60 votes, or just 50 Pullo Apr 2013 #21
Yes, by all means lets spread the stupidity bowens43 Apr 2013 #51
What are you going to do if it becomes law and nothing bad happens? hack89 Apr 2013 #52
Are you calling Du members that own firearms "psychopaths"? oneshooter Apr 2013 #60
I would LOVE this shedevil69taz Apr 2013 #55
finally an issue that excites you CreekDog Apr 2013 #79

bluedigger

(17,077 posts)
2. I could support that.
Sat Apr 13, 2013, 10:19 PM
Apr 2013

On the condition that national minimal standards were established. It makes sense in our mobile society, but not if they give CCL's away like prizes in a box of Crackerjacks.

gejohnston

(17,502 posts)
3. funny you should mention that
Sat Apr 13, 2013, 10:31 PM
Apr 2013

Texas, even though it is a shall issue, has a training requirement and be able to get a minimum score on marksmanship test.

New York, has no standards that I can see, other than the background check everyone else does. Some counties are functionally "shall issue" and some are functionally "may issue" based on the whims of some authority. NYC, you have to be a one percenter.

I would say Texas is a better model than New York.
http://www.usacarry.com/new_york_concealed_carry_permit_information.html

bluedigger

(17,077 posts)
4. There is tremendous variation in standards.
Sat Apr 13, 2013, 10:42 PM
Apr 2013

That would definitely need to be addressed, with the more rigorous guidelines followed. Probably won't happen, though. The people in the states with next to no standards will never compromise to make it better for everybody else.

gejohnston

(17,502 posts)
7. any standard should be shall issue
Sat Apr 13, 2013, 10:50 PM
Apr 2013

because arbitrary decision making on any civil liberty has no place in a liberal democracy.

I disagree with forced national reciprocity and think it would be unconstitutional under the 10th Amendment.

bluedigger

(17,077 posts)
47. LOL!
Mon Apr 15, 2013, 11:21 AM
Apr 2013

Bob Costas nailed it the other night on Maher. "As soon as something is suggested, they get all high minded and go running to the Constitution". (Paraphrasing - couldn't find the exact quote).

gejohnston

(17,502 posts)
48. if you read some of my older posts
Mon Apr 15, 2013, 11:33 AM
Apr 2013

you will see I said as much months if not years before I heard of Bob Costas. I doubt he had what I said in mind. Besides, why some clown sports announcer tells a bigoted sexist?

bluedigger

(17,077 posts)
49. You must have lived in a cave for a few decades.
Mon Apr 15, 2013, 11:39 AM
Apr 2013

Costas has been around for quite a while. (Your smear of the messenger and disregard of the message notwithstanding.) Your reaction was exactly what he was talking about.

gejohnston

(17,502 posts)
50. I'm not a sports fan
Mon Apr 15, 2013, 11:44 AM
Apr 2013

and he wasn't. I doubt he understands what I was talking about. It is a smear only if it isn't true.

CreekDog

(46,192 posts)
91. based on your posts at DU, i suspect if the word 'gun' isn't involved, you have no interest at all
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 07:47 PM
Apr 2013

it is the one and only issue you post about here.

gejohnston

(17,502 posts)
92. I read other stuff
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 07:52 PM
Apr 2013

I don't post mostly because I don't have anything to add. If I do have something to say, I say it. Is there a Japanese history group? You are here, but you have no interest in guns.

CreekDog

(46,192 posts)
93. i have interest in liberal Democratic politics. Do you?
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 07:58 PM
Apr 2013

just have to take your word for it. you only post on guns, and to the right of the party and the president (who himself governs fairly centrist-ly), but you're really a great progressive, a motivated one, who just doesn't post on any non-gun issue.

as for me, i have an interest in guns, but primarily an interest in democratic and national politics from a liberal perspective, which is pretty much what DU is about.

i don't recall DU's mission being to come and to only talk about gun politics from a right wing perspective, to the right of almost all the party and to the right of all recent Democratic presidents.

gejohnston

(17,502 posts)
94. if one were logically consistant,
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 08:19 PM
Apr 2013

I would be to the left of you.
http://www.timesdispatch.com/opinion/our-opinion/hinkle-cognitive-dissonance-on-guns/article_96d4210e-43e0-53cc-8a1b-2a1efe545723.html

According to the ToS, DU is for all center to left Democrats.

I agree 100 percent of my state of residence's Democratic Party platform
http://www.wyomingdemocrats.com/2012-platform2010-bylaws

What you think is a "right wing" perspective (BTW, Bloomburg and King are right wing. So was McCarthy until a few years ago. She was still a registered Republican, who ran a Democrat only after losing a Republican primary, during her first term as a Democratic representative.) is in fact a rural perspective. I never claimed to be a great anything. My efforts in other areas, like saving Social Security and environmental issues, are in the non online world where I need to "win hearts and minds".

You will think what you want.

CreekDog

(46,192 posts)
95. by your posts at DU you aren't to the left of me, you aren't even interested in any non-gun issue
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 11:51 PM
Apr 2013

say what you will and what you want, it's allowed, but...

the moment you try to make a case that you're to the left of me, or even most on DU, you're asking everyone to believe that despite posting on basically one issue and posting to the right of nearly everyone on DU on that issue, that you are somehow to the left of the average DU member, who is politically a lot like myself.

you may find it believable that you're to the left of me and most here, but that you don't bother to post on any other issues and for that matter, do you post to the left of them on any issues, but somehow you expect us to believe you're to the left of the norm here.

i don't think that's as convincing as you do.

gejohnston

(17,502 posts)
96. actually I do post on other issues
Fri Apr 19, 2013, 12:22 AM
Apr 2013

just not high enough percentages to be picked by the counter. So, you don't actually know what I post. You only know the top two area. There are a lot of groups that one can make one or two posts.
BTW, what difference does it make what I do or do not post?
If you base your opinions on someone based on one subject on a message board, perhaps some introspection is in order?
I said, if one were to be logically consistent, am to the left of you on this issue. Did I say I was to the left of most here? Least you can do is not put words in my mouth.

you're asking everyone to believe that despite posting on basically one issue and posting to the right of nearly everyone on DU on that issue,
no, I'm being consistently liberal. Like I said, I look at it from a rural perspective, I don't see guns as a right left issue. That said, I don't know how far left the average DU member is. I suspect most people, DU members included, lean differently on different issues. It isn't black and white. It isn't even varying shades of gray. It is Technicolor. You win hearts and minds by framing the issue where it would be in their interest. You have to get to know "those people" give them a reason to give you time of the day. You also have to have well reasoned arguments. I hope you better in the off line activism than you do here.

BTW, is there some reason why I need to prove anything to you?

CreekDog

(46,192 posts)
97. you said you were to the left of me, as for posting on other topics:
Fri Apr 19, 2013, 12:24 AM
Apr 2013

Account status: Active
Member since: Sun Aug 6, 2006, 09:19 PM
Number of posts: 12,060
Number of posts, last 90 days: 1066
Favorite forum: General Discussion, 10 posts in the last 90 days (1% of total posts)
Favorite group: Gun Control & RKBA, 1031 posts in the last 90 days (97% of total posts)
Last post: Thu Apr 18, 2013, 09:22 PM

I guess you post on other topics.

gejohnston

(17,502 posts)
98. check out the other two percent
Fri Apr 19, 2013, 12:46 AM
Apr 2013

and this seem to be the happening place. Seems like GD is mostly about guns lately.

you said you were to the left of me
May I suggest you re read the post and link, I think you misunderstood the context. If you read the link, and not just skimmed it, and still don't get my point, can't help you.

CreekDog

(46,192 posts)
100. almost all of those posts outside this group are about guns
Fri Apr 19, 2013, 12:11 PM
Apr 2013

other interests and other posts here that put you to the left of me and most others? no way.

CreekDog

(46,192 posts)
103. so basically what you're saying is that 1 percent of your posts on DU are not gun related
Fri Apr 19, 2013, 12:25 PM
Apr 2013

what if we grant you that?

CreekDog

(46,192 posts)
105. i post substantive things on DU all the time
Fri Apr 19, 2013, 02:18 PM
Apr 2013

do you post substantive things on the environment, on civil rights, poverty programs, on racial and other types of discrimination, on feminism, etc.?

CreekDog

(46,192 posts)
107. because you never leave this group
Fri Apr 19, 2013, 02:29 PM
Apr 2013

you keep insisting you do, and then you characterize my posts outside the group even though you can't be bothered to read anything i write outside the group.

though i write plenty of substantive things in the group.

this is your only issue here, let's just acknowledge that.

liberal politics? you aren't interested in that on DU.

gejohnston

(17,502 posts)
108. actually I read a lot outside of the group
Fri Apr 19, 2013, 02:34 PM
Apr 2013

most of your posts here make no logical sense, and jump to conclusions based on nothing, just like you are doing here.
Do you actually do anything on those issues, or just write posts?

Think what you want, I really don't care what you think.

CreekDog

(46,192 posts)
109. how are you going to advance your opinions on the gun debate if you lack credibility with DUers?
Fri Apr 19, 2013, 02:38 PM
Apr 2013

seriously, who is going to take your arguments seriously when your posts are almost all taking the right wing position on just one issue?

gejohnston

(17,502 posts)
110. I don't think it is actually possible
Fri Apr 19, 2013, 02:50 PM
Apr 2013

since it isn't a "right wing" position. It is also the position of liberals where I'm from. Yours is also popular with conservatives in the bay area and NYC.

to answer your question, logic, empirical data. How does anyone take your arguments on guns when they contain neither.

The perfect analogy for this exchange would be me basing my opinion of the SFO area just knowing Mike Savage got his start at KSFO.

 

CokeMachine

(1,018 posts)
111. Creekdog really misses META
Fri Apr 19, 2013, 03:13 PM
Apr 2013

CD is using the same method he used in META to try and get someone to say something to be locked or PPR'd. I think he has me on ignore -- I didn't play his game. He has absolutely no knowledge on this subject so he goes into attack mode right off the bat to cover his lack of knowledge.

CreekDog

(46,192 posts)
113. No, I'm not trying to get anyone to say anything
Fri Apr 19, 2013, 03:54 PM
Apr 2013

Not trying to get them locked or juried or anything.

When it comes to long term posters, I probably only alert maybe one time per month, total.

I'm just at a loss and I ask questions.

 

CokeMachine

(1,018 posts)
114. You know what -- I believe you.
Fri Apr 19, 2013, 04:11 PM
Apr 2013

When you first responded to a couple of my posts a while ago you really turned me off and I have been snarky with you since. I know we don't agree on guns and never will. I do read your posts on the environment and seldom disagree. I believe we both want the same thing environmentally and civil liberities speaking. I believe RKBA is a civil liberty and you don't -- oh well. You have your beliefs and I have mine. From now on if I disagree with you I'll be civil and leave the snark at home.

Take Care,

sir pball

(4,726 posts)
46. Shall-issue != no standards, ya know..
Mon Apr 15, 2013, 11:06 AM
Apr 2013

It just means if a person meets the standards, including BGCs and completing any prescribed training/live-fire qualification, they shall be issued the permit. The permit can't be denied on the basis of "we don't think you need it" is all.

Starboard Tack

(11,181 posts)
76. Sometimes the "we" over here disagree with the "we" over there.
Tue Apr 16, 2013, 11:47 AM
Apr 2013

That said, I could agree to a strict "may issue" national standard. Never to a "shall issue".

Straw Man

(6,613 posts)
77. Sorry, can't agree with that.
Tue Apr 16, 2013, 12:51 PM
Apr 2013
That said, I could agree to a strict "may issue" national standard. Never to a "shall issue".

"Shall issue" means there are standards that must be met, but that the permit must be issued if they are met. It doesn't mean "no standards," and it doesn't mean "lax standards."

"May issue" means the government has total discretion to deny without giving any reason: a little too reminiscent of star chambers and lettres de cachet for my liking. It's inherently abusive and antithetical to any notions of fairness and equality before the law.

Starboard Tack

(11,181 posts)
78. I understand your point
Tue Apr 16, 2013, 01:34 PM
Apr 2013

However, when it comes to carrying guns, I think that local authorities have the right to determine what they permit. Just as an individual decides what is permitted in his home.
Therefore, if national reciprocity is imposed, then it should comply with the most stringent of laws. Individual states can still be as permissive as they like, but you can't impose that on others.
If we ever get to a national "shall issue" system, then I may agree.

gejohnston

(17,502 posts)
80. then the limitations should be specified in the law
Tue Apr 16, 2013, 04:03 PM
Apr 2013

May issue is completely arbitrary with no standards. If you look at the NY state law, you only have to show "cause", no training, no need, simply be drinking buddies with the issuing authority or be rich.
arbitrary authority has no place in a liberal democracy and is antithetical to liberalism.
Or be campaign contributors, like Orange and LA counties
Cronies, like LA County
Police chief's daughter in law, Honolulu
just be rich, NYC

Like I said before, what WY did until 1995 would be better. Who qualified were specified in the statute. Most of the CCW holders in NYC would not qualify under Wyoming's old system. For example, the publisher of NYT, Don Imus, Howard Stern, Sean Hannity, Bill Cosby (when he was alive), Don Trump would not qualify.
Why? Because the law specified those working in the following occupations
security
private investigator
pharmacist
MDs who did house calls
and a couple of others. No where on the list was pundits, business executives, actors, and shock jocks.



gejohnston

(17,502 posts)
82. best news today, my bad
Tue Apr 16, 2013, 04:25 PM
Apr 2013

I used to listen to his LPs when I was a kid. I liked the original Cosby show (where he played a gym teacher) the best.

kudzu22

(1,273 posts)
83. "May issue" = profiling
Wed Apr 17, 2013, 10:54 AM
Apr 2013

If you leave it up to the judgement of local officials, you're just asking for applicants to be profiled on qualities that are not pertinent to their worthiness to receive a permit.

Starboard Tack

(11,181 posts)
84. No, it means providing a damn good reason for wanting to carry a gun
Wed Apr 17, 2013, 12:48 PM
Apr 2013

Rather than it being some kind of bullshit "right". You may allow people to smoke in your home or put their feet up on the table, or piss in the sink, but don't expect the same in the homes of others.
Fuck national reciprocity.

gejohnston

(17,502 posts)
85. that may be the intent but
Wed Apr 17, 2013, 01:06 PM
Apr 2013

but the reality is that it is profiling and giving a sheriff, police sgt, or judge arbitrary authority over exercising a civil liberty. That has no place in a free society for any reason.

gejohnston

(17,502 posts)
87. no they don't.
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 05:56 PM
Apr 2013

not accepted in the rule of law. There is a difference between what they take for themselves, violating the law and the Constitution, and giving it to them.

hack89

(39,171 posts)
88. And when being non-white is the reason for denial
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 06:05 PM
Apr 2013

then it becomes a problem. Or are you one that thinks the police don't racially profile?

hack89

(39,171 posts)
101. Then who will have the final say over granting concealed carry permits?
Fri Apr 19, 2013, 12:13 PM
Apr 2013

show me in America where it is not a government official of some sorts.

 

AnotherMcIntosh

(11,064 posts)
6. With the proven poor marksmanship of some NYC cops, I'm not even sure that NYC has qualifying
Sat Apr 13, 2013, 10:47 PM
Apr 2013

standards for its LEOs.

sir pball

(4,726 posts)
45. Still beats PA, at least in 2005
Mon Apr 15, 2013, 11:01 AM
Apr 2013

I walked into the sheriff's office, filled out a single-page form, got an NICS check, got my picture taken and ~10 minutes and $25 later had my CCW in hand. Even I thought that was a little lax.

Thinkingabout

(30,058 posts)
10. Isn't it interesting, people run out and get concealed license and this does not appear to be a
Sat Apr 13, 2013, 11:08 PM
Apr 2013

Registration problem but don't want the background checks because the guberment will come for your guns.

gejohnston

(17,502 posts)
11. there already are background checks
Sat Apr 13, 2013, 11:16 PM
Apr 2013

although I see a 10A or Commerce Clause challenge to requiring BGC between individuals within a state.

kudzu22

(1,273 posts)
14. I think that's why it wasn't included in the Brady Bill
Sun Apr 14, 2013, 09:55 AM
Apr 2013

It definitely could be challenged and with the current court, could be struck down.

Thinkingabout

(30,058 posts)
22. Then there is the gun show loop hole so though there are some back ground checks
Sun Apr 14, 2013, 04:50 PM
Apr 2013

There is not total background checks.

 

clffrdjk

(905 posts)
23. What your referring to are private sales/transfers
Sun Apr 14, 2013, 05:13 PM
Apr 2013

I don't like the idea of having to pay an FFL $20 and then waiting three days just to lend my (brother,hunting buddy...) a pistol for a few hours. then repeating the whole process to get it back.

Thinkingabout

(30,058 posts)
25. I am referring to the ability to go to a gun show and buy a weapon without a background check.
Sun Apr 14, 2013, 05:27 PM
Apr 2013

Also the internet sales does not do the background check. If I am a collector or hunter this is not my issue. So I have to wait for a could of days, its no big deal.

 

clffrdjk

(905 posts)
26. You are wrong on all counts try again.
Sun Apr 14, 2013, 05:38 PM
Apr 2013

Last edited Mon Apr 15, 2013, 04:35 PM - Edit history (1)

gun shows/internet sales-- if you sell firearms as a business it does not matter how you sell them a background check must be done. If you do not sell firearms as a business you by law can not use the instant background check system.

If you as a citizen put up a gun for sale in the newspaper/online/billboard/smoke signals whatever, that purchaser must be a resident of your state. If they are not you must ship the firearm to a dealer in their state to have a background check done.

That couple of day wait may not be a big deal to you but to me it is a big deal.

 

clffrdjk

(905 posts)
28. trust me on this, Also it is federal law
Sun Apr 14, 2013, 05:54 PM
Apr 2013

It applies everywhere in the U.S. individual states can be more restrictive and some are, but they can not be less.

Stuff like this shows just how far our news industry has fallen

gejohnston

(17,502 posts)
40. gun show loophole is a buzz word
Sun Apr 14, 2013, 07:36 PM
Apr 2013

created for propaganda. If you go to a gun show and all of the sellers are FFL holders, there must be background checks and comply with all federal and state laws. What they are talking about is an individual who decides to sell or trade one or two guns for whatever reason.

Online sales, if they are interstate, the gun must be delivered to a licensed dealer in the buyer's state. The buyer usually pays the dealer for the effort of logging it in his or her inventory and log it back out with the 4473 and do background check along with any other state and local law requirements.

Straw Man

(6,613 posts)
12. I think you're confused.
Sat Apr 13, 2013, 11:21 PM
Apr 2013

It's not the background checks that people object to: it's the gun registration. It has been used in the past to facilitate confiscation.

There is a case breaking now in New York, a state that registers all handguns. A man's permit was revoked because he had once been prescribed an anti-anxiety medication. He was sent a list of his registered handguns with an order to surrender them all. Failure to do so would have resulted in a warrant for his arrest. Yes, the "guberment" was going to come for his guns. Now the state police are saying it was a case of mistaken identity. The man is suing.

People aren't as concerned about registering themselves. What's the fear? That the "guberment" will send them a notice saying that CCW is now illegal and they should turn themselves in?

Starboard Tack

(11,181 posts)
16. You're making your argument based on one case of mistaken identity.
Sun Apr 14, 2013, 01:51 PM
Apr 2013

Do you really think national registration would result in mass confiscation of guns?

Straw Man

(6,613 posts)
19. It's only the first case.
Sun Apr 14, 2013, 02:32 PM
Apr 2013

It's a very new law in New York State. The man's lawyer is alleging that the state police are data-mining prescription records looking for every permit holder who has been prescribed any kind of psychoactive drug. This has not been verified, and it will probably be a long time before anything is known for certain. However, if true, it is an extreme violation of privacy and is not, repeat not legal even under the new NY SAFE Act, which only allows for notification by a mental health professional that the person is a credible danger to him/herself or others.

I don't know about the "mass" part, but confiscation is one of the strategies. Reduction of the number of firearms in society is the goal -- I'm sure you would not dispute that. Registration will certainly facilitate that.

Not to be too dystopian, but a society that routinely overprescribes psychoactive drugs (starting with Ritalin for schoolchildren) and then uses said drugs as an excuse to deny certain rights is a society that has some very severe internal conflicts. It has some disturbing Brave New World overtones.

Starboard Tack

(11,181 posts)
53. Couldn't agree more.
Mon Apr 15, 2013, 12:28 PM
Apr 2013

The goal is to reduce the number of firearms in society, but not to eliminate them. Reasonable people come up with reasonable solutions. At present, a few reasonable solutions are being presented and the gun lobby is shooting them all down. Ideally, the number of guns is not reduced by confiscation, but voluntarily by those who realize they no longer have a use for them. Many gun owners get rid of their guns when they start a family.
Unfortunately, they sell or give them to others and the number in circulation keeps growing. I can't help thinking that there is something fundamentally wrong with a society where there are more guns than screwdrivers.
Both are tools, but one is far more useful.

 

premium

(3,731 posts)
54. More guns than screwdrivers?
Mon Apr 15, 2013, 12:44 PM
Apr 2013

You're not serious are you?
Every household in america has at least 2 screwdrivers, and that's not counting practically every business having screwdrivers.
In my toolbox alone, I have at least 20 different screwdrivers, long, short, phillips head, standard.
Maybe you should use a different tool to make your point.

Starboard Tack

(11,181 posts)
56. No, of course I wasn't serious. Though it's probably close.
Mon Apr 15, 2013, 12:59 PM
Apr 2013

I think it was a good tool to make my point. Screwdrivers are incredibly useful, probably the most used tool out there. While guns are the least used, and there are far more than 20 types of gun. The average gun owner has 5.

 

premium

(3,731 posts)
57. I'll bet that there are at least double the screwdrivers as guns in this country,
Mon Apr 15, 2013, 01:03 PM
Apr 2013

I guess I'm not your average gun owner, I only own 2, a pistol and a shotgun.

Starboard Tack

(11,181 posts)
62. I have about 20 screwdrivers, 1 hammer, lots of wrenches and 2 flare pistols.
Mon Apr 15, 2013, 01:48 PM
Apr 2013

I'll probably get a shotgun and maybe a pistol if and when I ever move back on land, as I won't be living anywhere near a city.

 

premium

(3,731 posts)
63. Me personally,
Mon Apr 15, 2013, 01:52 PM
Apr 2013

I never really saw any reason for anything more that 1 gun and 1 shotgun and the only reason I have the handgun is because I got it at a really, really good price, I'm not into collecting guns, but I have no problem with those that do as long as it's done legally and they are stored safely.

Straw Man

(6,613 posts)
58. The thing is ...
Mon Apr 15, 2013, 01:15 PM
Apr 2013

... that I don't think digging through medical records for anyone who has ever sought treatment for anxiety is "reasonable."

I know that the goal is an overall reduction in the number of firearms in circulation, but I don't agree that that will lead to greater public safety. Some people can and do safely own hundreds of firearms. Others should not own a single one, nor should they own pointy objects or inflammable materials.

I'm more and more inclined toward the belief that people who pose so much of a threat to public safety that they shouldn't own firearms should probably also not be walking freely among us. But that's another discussion.

Starboard Tack

(11,181 posts)
59. I doubt it goes so far as to dig through medical records to such an extent.
Mon Apr 15, 2013, 01:30 PM
Apr 2013

I've never disputed the fact that many, if not most gun owners, are law abiding and never harm anyone. That doesn't alter the fact that millions of guns, that were once legal, have leached out into a less savory world. Reminds me of all those nukes in the former USSR, all safely tucked away until the wall came down. Now where are they?
The "liberty" of gun proliferation is a classic case of "be careful what you wish for". We may not be able to contain this monster without eventually resorting to some level of confiscation. That's the sad reality, but I doubt it will translate into banning gun ownership across the board. Just certain types of guns.

Straw Man

(6,613 posts)
61. The allegation is that the NY State Police are already doing it.
Mon Apr 15, 2013, 01:42 PM
Apr 2013

The truth of the allegation remains to be seen.

The "monster" is human. Confiscation is already the order of the day for people who are legally barred from having guns. They are the bulk of the problem. Banning "certain types of guns" is and always has been a red herring.

Starboard Tack

(11,181 posts)
64. I agree, except for the "red herring"
Mon Apr 15, 2013, 01:57 PM
Apr 2013

Certain types of weapons have no place in any society, unless that society is in a state of civil war and even then, it's debatable.
The fact that Ar-15s etc. are popular and "convenient" doesn't justify their existence. The very fact that it only takes one or 2 crazies to kill so many demonstrates my point. Imagine if 20 or 30 out of the millions who own them went on sprees like Aurora and Sandy Hook.

Straw Man

(6,613 posts)
66. Imagining.
Mon Apr 15, 2013, 01:59 PM
Apr 2013
Imagine if 20 or 30 out of the millions who own them went on sprees like Aurora and Sandy Hook.

The number would still be dwarfed by the total of the one-and-two-at-a-time killings that arise from gang and drug wars.

Straw Man

(6,613 posts)
68. It says we have a very violent society.
Mon Apr 15, 2013, 04:23 PM
Apr 2013

We always have. I think it's possible to attack root causes through social justice without limiting freedom through heavy-handed police-state tactics.

Starboard Tack

(11,181 posts)
69. Once again, I agree with you.
Mon Apr 15, 2013, 04:48 PM
Apr 2013

Nobody wants a police state, but restricting clip sizes and certain types of guns hardly fits that description. The UK is not a police state, in spite of those who describe it as such, but it is probably more violent than the US, in general terms. Difference is, the violence is more nuanced there, more shades of grey. Much more chance of getting in a fistfight in the UK, or Canada, than a gunfight. I'll take a bruising over a coffin any day.

Starboard Tack

(11,181 posts)
71. You got it. I'll take the baseball bat any day.
Mon Apr 15, 2013, 05:29 PM
Apr 2013

I'm really not trying to nitpick, but that's the most original spelling of surveillance I've ever seen.

Starboard Tack

(11,181 posts)
73. LOL. I've always been fascinated by language and spelling.
Mon Apr 15, 2013, 07:08 PM
Apr 2013

The only objection I have toward Webster's simplification of English spelling is that it makes it more difficult when traveling in countries where one doesn't know the native language. The etymology becomes less apparent. English is an incredibly rich language, with roots in Latin, German, French, Greek, Celtic, Gaelic, Danish and among others. This means we usually have several options for words that have similar meanings. For example, if we are in Italy, France, Portugal or Spain, we would try to communicate using a Latin or French rooted word, rather than one with a Germanic root. Our spelling tells us where those words came from.
Very often, our nouns have a German root, like water (wasser), book (buch), inn (inn), folk (volk), while many of the associated nouns and adjectives have a Latin root, like aquatic, library, hotel, people.
Meanwhile, we tend to use German rooted verbs as auxiliaries - to be, to have, to get; while our more explicit verbs tend to have Latin roots - to exist, to possess, to obtain.

Bazinga

(331 posts)
75. I especially like the animal vs food comparison
Tue Apr 16, 2013, 07:15 AM
Apr 2013

when early English kings were asked what they wanted to eat they'd say the French "boeuf" or "porc" and the servant would go tell the German speaking peasant to kill the "kuh" or "schwein." So in English we get beef from cows and pork from swine.

 

Lizzie Poppet

(10,164 posts)
20. As in one inevitably leading to the other? Of course not.
Sun Apr 14, 2013, 02:38 PM
Apr 2013

Would registration enormously aid such a scheme should it come about? No less obviously yes.

In any case, as hack89 points out, at least as great a concern is the privacy issue.

hack89

(39,171 posts)
13. Most gun owners support background checks
Sun Apr 14, 2013, 08:22 AM
Apr 2013

as long as there is no permanent record - which is the way it works now. The argument in Congress is that the proposed law to mandate universal background checks made it appear that private sales would generate permanent records.

And the concern is not that the "guberment" will take our guns. As the ACLU pointed out in opposing this part of the law, it is a privacy issue. The ACLU thinks you do not have to be in a government database before you can exercise a civil liberty.

rrneck

(17,671 posts)
17. A CCW is a permit to carry a gun but does not attach the owner with any particular gun.
Sun Apr 14, 2013, 01:54 PM
Apr 2013

It's not a registry of the guns that people own. That's the sticking point of the national NICS check requirement for all purchases.

Thinkingabout

(30,058 posts)
24. it is paranoid thinking he n the first place but my point was to say CCW is a license
Sun Apr 14, 2013, 05:16 PM
Apr 2013

And many are really proud to get the license and don't seem to care about their weapons taken away. As an enumerator for Census one reason one person did not want to fill out his census was because the guberment was gonna take your guns.

rrneck

(17,671 posts)
29. Soooo,
Sun Apr 14, 2013, 05:56 PM
Apr 2013

You went from "many" to "one reason one person" and followed it with a backhanded insult. Do you know how to have a conversation?

Firearms confiscation, while a possibility, is a remote one. While I understand some fellow in New York has already gotten a letter in the mail listing the guns he owns (from a registry) in a demand to surrender them to the authorities because of his prescribed medications, and guns have been confiscated in California, general confiscation is not a great concern.

What most people, including you apparently, don't seem to understand is that you are not trying to regulate guns with universal background checks. You're regulating relationships. When someone buys a gun in a gun store it is a relationship between a merchant and a customer with all the rights and responsibilities thereto. And that's where the relationship begins and ends. Try to go in a gun store and borrow a gun. Not only will the proprietor laugh his ass off, it would be illegal for him to loan it to you.

Outside a retail establishment people have all sorts and kinds of relationships for all sorts and kinds of reasons. The only way national background checks can work is if we institute the same regulations on transfers between private persons as any retail transaction. You are asking people to change the nature of their relationship to transfer the gun, and document it for the government. That's an invasion of their privacy.

So while confiscation is not a big concern, documenting people's relationships is a data mining opportunity too rich to pass up for people like this. Or are you too busy dodging rainbows shooting of unicorn asses to consider the possibility that maybe we're aren't out of the oppressive kleptocratic government woods yet?

rrneck

(17,671 posts)
31. That wasn't even a complete sentence.
Sun Apr 14, 2013, 06:12 PM
Apr 2013

Productive conversations involve a good deal more than that. Maybe you should get out more and practice.

 

clffrdjk

(905 posts)
33. I wouldn't get too lippy on this subject if I were you
Sun Apr 14, 2013, 06:20 PM
Apr 2013

In your replies to me I just assumed that english is not your first language.

 

clffrdjk

(905 posts)
36. Umm
Sun Apr 14, 2013, 06:42 PM
Apr 2013

I don't look like a grammar Nazi
I do my best to decipher the post and ignore things that don't make any sense
I make the world a slightly more intelligent place by correcting headline based information with actual information
most importantly I don't get hung up on things that don't matter all that much.

Or were you making a joke?

 

clffrdjk

(905 posts)
38. yea thats the joke i was referring to.
Sun Apr 14, 2013, 06:52 PM
Apr 2013

I hate that joke, my previous post illustrates a few reasons why.

Thinkingabout

(30,058 posts)
39. I do not hold every one to only believing what I believe, its like freedom but I think there should
Sun Apr 14, 2013, 06:58 PM
Apr 2013

Be lots of opinions, I prefer not to be of the same opinion every one else. So it is fine with me if you do not like jokes but remember it takes less muscle to smile and it will make you happier.

 

WinniSkipper

(363 posts)
74. Are they worse than having a debate
Mon Apr 15, 2013, 08:19 PM
Apr 2013

..without knowing what you are talking about? You are in a position to let people know.

oneshooter

(8,614 posts)
41. Several states require the information on the
Sun Apr 14, 2013, 10:39 PM
Apr 2013

carry permit include the pistol description and serial number. If you carry any firearm not listed you are committing a crime. I believe California and Mass. both require this.

rrneck

(17,671 posts)
42. Yep.
Sun Apr 14, 2013, 10:53 PM
Apr 2013

When all is said and done I predict a rash of NRA court filings to push back against laws like that. When you energize a group of people on an issue and give them the initiative you gotta give 'em somewhere to go. Judging by the way the legislation is shaping up gun rights groups will have more reason to celebrate than gun control groups and the NRA will have another boatload of money to play with.

If national reciprocity goes through I would expect laws like that to end, but I'm not that much of an expert.

 

DonP

(6,185 posts)
44. Illinois is still "contributing" to the NRA
Sun Apr 14, 2013, 11:49 PM
Apr 2013

That first big check, signed by Rahm, was just the first of several. He also lost the appeal and the Ezell case (no shooting ranges in the city but range practice required to own a gun in Chicago) and is still farting around in court trying to keep as much of their gun ban as they can.

Now Illinois is considering appealing the appellate decision on CCW since none of their other stall tactics are working.

Chicago doesn't have any money to hire police or keep their pension commitments, but they have millions to piss away on outside counsel on these cases.

spin

(17,493 posts)
18. I know people who do not get a carry license just for that reason. ...
Sun Apr 14, 2013, 02:03 PM
Apr 2013

I believe that most who have concealed carry licenses accept the fact that the government knows we own firearms.

When you consider how our privacy rights have deteriorated because of the War on Terror and the data mining capacity of our government and private corporations, I would guess that the government could come up with a very accurate list of all gun owners in our nation if they wished. They may already have one. Of course they do not know exactly what firearms a person owns unless they live in a state where firearm serial numbers have to be registered.

Pullo

(594 posts)
21. Will the amendments to the Senate gun bill require 60 votes, or just 50
Sun Apr 14, 2013, 04:24 PM
Apr 2013

to be attached to the overall package?

Of course, the finalized bill will likely require 60 to pass the full Senate, but I'm curious about the rules for amendments.

 

bowens43

(16,064 posts)
51. Yes, by all means lets spread the stupidity
Mon Apr 15, 2013, 12:15 PM
Apr 2013

these gun fetishists are all psychopaths.......


disgusting bunch of people

hack89

(39,171 posts)
52. What are you going to do if it becomes law and nothing bad happens?
Mon Apr 15, 2013, 12:21 PM
Apr 2013

gun controllers have been warning about blood running in the streets for decades as gun rights have expanded - and yet here we are enjoying historically low levels of gun violence after 20 years of steady declines.

Time to stop crying wolf.

oneshooter

(8,614 posts)
60. Are you calling Du members that own firearms "psychopaths"?
Mon Apr 15, 2013, 01:31 PM
Apr 2013

And also calling them "disgusting bunch of people".

If not then I would ask you to edit your language to reflect that .

shedevil69taz

(512 posts)
55. I would LOVE this
Mon Apr 15, 2013, 12:58 PM
Apr 2013

Being active duty military and forced to move all over this would make things MUCH easier.

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Gun Control & RKBA»CCW national reciprocity ...