National Concealed Carry permit
|
antithesis
|
Posted 11:21 pm, 01/05/2017
|
You make a point there, I can't argue with that.
But still, would you really be OK with someone that couldn't pass basic safety and competency tests owning a gun? If they can't pass a class to carry in public then why should they be able to be a danger to themselves or their family?
The next interesting question is, if you disagree with the idea of federal regulation, then are you saying you disagree with this Republican bill that has NRA support?
|
|
CONRAD
|
Posted 10:51 pm, 01/05/2017
|
Wrong again, anti.
One can own as many vehicles as one desires. When the vehicle is put on the road it requires registration. insurance and inspection. IF one wants to drive said vehicle they must first pass competency tests and become licensed.
One can own as many guns as they can afford. North Carolina has explicit laws governing gun ownership. We also have open carry laws. When one desires to carry concealed the laws are very explicit on that matter.
|
|
antithesis
|
Posted 10:23 pm, 01/05/2017
|
I believe that everyone should be required to get certified (passing safety and mental competency tests) before owning a gun, but once they do then it should be accepted nationwide.
Lets apply the part in red to your other rights and see if you agree then.
Which other Constitutional rights begin with the requirement of it being "well regulated"?
I really don't understand the opposition to people passing basic safety and competency tests before owning a firearm. We do the same thing for vehicles, and while those are Constitutionally protected, there's not a lot of difference (and since vehicles didn't exist in 1776, they couldn't have been included, anyway).
Would you really be OK with someone that couldn't pass these basic tests owning a gun? If we already require the classes for CHP, what's the difference? If they can't pass a class to carry in public then why should they be able to be a danger to themselves or their family? Worse, if they lack the competency for a CHP then what makes you think they wouldn't carry concealed, anyway?
I would also think that most gun shop owners would love the idea, too, since they would get to make more money on teaching the required safety classes.
|
|
hangsleft
|
Posted 4:23 pm, 01/05/2017
|
Did I say otherwise?
Did I say it was illegal now?
My point was where is the line drawn.
|
|
Joseph T.
|
Posted 4:09 pm, 01/05/2017
|
hangsleft (view profile) | Posted 11:48 am, 01/05/2017 | The 4th amendment is unlawful search and seizure. I'm not sure how you are comparing that to gun ownership. The right to bare arms never said guns. How about working cannons? Or maybe missiles.
Where do we draw the line at "arms"? If you say we have to adjust with technology then how far for guns?
|
When the second amendment was written there was noting wrong with privately owned cannons
|
|
hangsleft
|
Posted 4:07 pm, 01/05/2017
|
hangsleft (view profile) | Posted 9:11 am, 01/05/2017 | jrscott295 (view profile)
| Posted 12:14 am, 01/05/2017 | The phrase shall not be infringed has been infringed time and again. Indeed all gun control laws are in violation of the United States Constitution because of that phrase. It's not the only amendment that's been trampled though.
|
In all their vast wisdom, I don't believe the founding fathers saw semi-automatic weapons and the type of guns available today. Sure if everyone wants a musket as was the case at the time this was written, then have at it. |
This was my original response. So I'm not sure why you are arguing with me. This person said gun control laws are a violation and my point is - it is not - it is constitutional.
|
|
hangsleft
|
Posted 4:05 pm, 01/05/2017
|
Everyone has the right to be stupid, but not stupid with a gun that's what gets us in trouble.
I just read online where a police officers son "accidentally" shot his mother. The child was 2, what stupid person left a weapon within reaching distance of a child? And remember, this is a police officer's child.
|
|
Joseph T.
|
Posted 4:02 pm, 01/05/2017
|
kenc (view profile) | Posted 10:24 pm, 01/04/2017 | Well fly, the person I was with got a ccp permit , don't know what you do to get a regular permit, I've never gone with anybody to get one. Why don't you tell us what else you have to do to get a ccp . Guess I forgot there's a fee. Could be the person I was with had a little more pull with the gub'ment than you do. Did you fail a sanity hearing ? |
Your friend did not just go to the sheriff and get a CCP. For one there is no such thing in NC it is a CHP and to get a CHP you have to take a state approved training class. You must then fill out the application, pay the fee, have your prints taken and then wait weeks your background check and mental health check to come back. Only after all this is done can you get a NC CHP and it takes weeks or months in some counties.
|
|
aFicIoNadoS
|
Posted 3:57 pm, 01/05/2017
|
I think there should be a competency and IQ test required before someone is allowed to vote. Also, I want to write the test.
|
|
Joseph T.
|
Posted 3:52 pm, 01/05/2017
|
antithesis (view profile) | Posted 9:03 pm, 01/04/2017 | U.S. Rep. Richard Hudson, a Republican from North Carolina, made expanding national rights for gun owners his top priority on the first day of his third term in Congress.
Hudson, who is an adviser to President-elect Donald Trump via his "Second Amendment Coalition," introduced legislation Tuesday that would guarantee concealed carry permit holders rights to have a gun outside their home state, so long as the person carrying the gun abides by local laws. The bill, Hudson says, will ensure "our Second Amendment right doesn't disappear when we cross state lines." http://www.charlotteobserve...73379.htmlNow, this might surprise some of you, but I really have no problem at all with this bill. I believe that everyone should be required to get certified (passing safety and mental competency tests) before owning a gun, but once they do then it should be accepted nationwide. But I also think that doing so is very liberal-minded, taking control away from the State and putting it in the hands of the Federal government. What do you all think? Is it better to have a nationwide policy that takes power away from the state (making for a bigger federal government), or should it remain a state issue (which is the traditional Republican stance)? |
Lets apply the part in red to your other rights and see if you agree then.
|
|
can't fool me
|
Posted 3:14 pm, 01/05/2017
|
hangs,
Firearms and firearm laws are well regulated.
|
|
kenc
|
Posted 2:59 pm, 01/05/2017
|
mommotwo (view profile) | Posted 1:01 pm, 01/05/2017 | Leo- I think kenc needs some clarification though. Although it isn't hard....it is a process, right? It's not as simple as a background check, sign some papers and boom here's your permit. That was her statement. She said she went with a smart friend to get one. I personally doubt she has a smart friend. But
______ |
Personally I don't think you're very smart mommo
|
|
can't fool me
|
Posted 2:58 pm, 01/05/2017
|
hangs,
And they also had firearms consistent with the times that they lived in, as do we; the second amendment gives law abiding citizens the RIGHT to keep and bare arms.
|
|
hangsleft
|
Posted 2:52 pm, 01/05/2017
|
can't fool me (view profile) | Posted 2:35 pm, 01/05/2017 | hangs,
Let me write it in third grade for you,
If your stance is that the rest of the constitution includes modern devices and technology, my stance is that the second amendment also includes modern weaponry.
|
Freedom of speech is NOT technology. It is your freedom to speak. Arms is a form of technology and explicit. The only thing the Supreme court has decided is what may be covered under Freedom of speech. The founding fathers had the written word, that has not changed.
|
|
can't fool me
|
Posted 2:35 pm, 01/05/2017
|
hangs,
Let me write it in third grade for you,
If your stance is that the rest of the constitution includes modern devices and technology, my stance is that the second amendment also includes modern weaponry.
|
|
Ole Sarge
|
Posted 1:45 pm, 01/05/2017
|
Whatever you do, don't pack in New York. I don't think they would obey Federal Law if it was enacted.
|
|
chalkeywhite
|
Posted 1:41 pm, 01/05/2017
|
Well said mollysdad.Any responsible human being has the right to protect themselves .
|
|
LS77
|
Posted 1:34 pm, 01/05/2017
|
As a CCP holder I like this idea. It sucks to have to research every state I plan on visiting just to see if I can carry there. This is one reason I like to vacation in my home state, at least I know the law as it applies. I don't like the idea of ever leaving my gun at home.
|
|
|
