Weapons legislation often divides people between pro-gun and anti-gun. For example, take a recent bill passed by the Oklahoma legislature to allow residents to openly display their handguns in public. The National Rifle Association was for it and the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence opposed it. Same for legislation in some states to let college students take guns to class.
The case is different for a national gun law pending in the U.S. Senate, The National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2012. It would allow an individual from any state with a valid ID and a concealed carry permit to carry a concealed handgun into any state that allows its residents to carry concealed firearms or does not explicitly prohibit them. While the NRA strongly backs this reciprocity bill, some of its members oppose it as a possible forerunner of federal gun licensing.
Sen. Pat Leahy, D-Vt., chairman of the Judiciary Committee, where the bill awaits action, is a strong advocate of gun rights but voted against an amendment in 2009 that was similar to the current bill. Maine’s two Republican senators, Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, voted for it. It lost narrowly.
A message from the Collins office about the current Senate bill said: “Sen. Collins grew up in Northern Maine, where responsible gun ownership is part of the heritage of many families. She has consistently defended the Second Amendment. She is currently reviewing the specific details of S. 2188.”
Sen. Snowe said: “I agree that law-abiding citizens, who already have a concealed-carry permit from their home state, should be able to bring their firearm across state lines — provided that they comply with that state’s laws governing concealed firearms. The concept of right-to-carry reciprocity has broad bipartisan support in both the Senate and the House, and I hope we can use this consensus to pass legislation that respects states’ rights, while recognizing an individual’s 2nd Amendment right.”
The new bill is the same as a House bill that was passed last November by a vote of 272-154. Maine’s Rep. Mike Michaud, a Democrat, voted for it. Rep. Chellie Pingree, also a Democrat, voted against it.
The main objection to the pending bill is that some other states have much more lenient licensing procedures for permits to carry. Florida is often cited for its weak gun laws, which require no training or involvement of local law enforcement officers in licensing and do not ban assault weapons or large capacity magazines.
Maine State Police Lt. David E. Bowler, who oversees the concealed-handgun-carrying permitting process at the Maine Department of Public Safety for about 250 municipalities that don’t issue their own permits, said that Maine has a “pretty decent” permitting process, although it may need strengthening. He said the proposed law would cause problems by letting in concealed weapons from states having less stringent permitting systems.
The International Association of Chiefs of Police opposes the bill. The chairman of its Firearms Committee, Scott M. Knight, sees problems that endanger officers and the public. First, there is no national database where an officer can determine whether a permit is genuine and valid. Second, requirements vary from state to state, such as disqualifying criminal convictions.
Training and skill standards vary from state to state. The bumper sticker slogan, “Guns don’t kill people; people kill people,” needs revision. It should read, “People who shouldn’t have guns kill people.”
The bill should be defeated.
Open carry…assault weapons…high capacity magazines. Makes me want to go to a gun show!!
Heck, the answer’s simple: a federal law requiring every state to recognise every other state’s CCW licenses… and marriage licenses. It’s the same problem!
Here is an excellent website for basic information on each states concealed weapons policy. Very interesting when you start clicking states and seeing where a Maine permit is considered “valid”. One word of caution, double check and triple check before you carry a concealed weapon in another state based on your Maine permit.
http://www.handgunlaw.us/
A great bill for sure, even though the second amendment already allows the carry of firearms without any further legislation. What this will do is clean up the acts of the commie states such as MA, NY, and several others who think it’s within their rights to squash the second amendment.
Wrong. It’s going to lead to registration. The implication is that if the government can tell you that you can carry a firearm in a certain manner, then they can further regulate firearms. If you have to have a license to carry, that license can be denied. Licensing would surely be the precursor to full on registration and then confiscation.
We don’t need more laws of what we CAN do, we need less laws of what we can’t do. The “bill of rights” already tell us what government CAN’T do, and we’re in desperate need of more laws of what government can not do. Those laws in MA and NY need to be fought on that principal, at the state level.
The idea that you need to write a law in order to make something legal, (which wasn’t supposed to be illegal in the first place), means that you’re accepting that the law which makes it illegal as being the correct interpretation.
I agree, but you can see how changing the gun laws in the anti gun states is working. It’s not, and this may just be the back door citizens need to go through MA, NY and other states without fearing for their lives. I don’t approve of requiring a concealed permit as I stated above, but it seems to be working.
There already is a law, its called the McClure Volkner Act 1986, part of the 1986 Gun Owners protection Act 1986, and for the life of me I can not see how it is ignored by a state without there being consequences to the state.
“It’s going to lead to registration. ” We already have that a 4473 every time you buy a firearm from a ffl. The government already regulates every aspect of firearms form the barrel length to the way they look. The ATF has to approve EVERY manufactured design before it can be sold and nobody knows their guidelines. I have a large pile of tax stamps so I will be a law abiding citizen. Maine is a pretty good state as the bradys give us a 7 out of 100. The higher the number the harder it is for you the citizen to by and own a firearm. Amazingly enough the brady numbers work both ways the better the bradys rate you the higher your crime rate the lower they rate you the lower your crime rate interesting aint it? FYI for those who do not know Maine is a open carry state you can carry your firearm in the open. The only reason one needs a carry permit is to hide the firearm on your person and to put it in your vehicle loaded. Of course those who want a firearm but do not want anybody to know you have two choices buy from another person ( make sure they also live in Maine if they do not your breaking the law ) or make your own. That is right folks you can make your own firearm you do not even need a serial number on it if you make it. Though not having a serial number will make any interaction with most uninformed le’s take a very long time. O yea you can also own a machine gun, silencer or sawed off shotgun if you get the tax stamp of course.
Sorry NRA folks, but the tragedy that took place in Florida, at the hands of an NRA member (and case study I might add), is going to interfere with your lobbying efforts for some time. You’re all looking a bit crazy to us right now.
The case in Florida has nothing to do with anyone’s second amendment rights. It doesn’t even have anything to do with current Florida law. No amount of shootings will ever have anything to do with the fact that the second amendment is in stone and allows a US citizen the right to carry, anywhere, and at anytime.
It illustrates how nuts many of the people demanding looser gun law are.
You mean like all these incidents of successful self defense since 1/26/12 collated from one website, Keep & Bear Arms.
Being that these are all written by the lamestream media, and from police incident reports, and are only a fraction og the on average 80 documented incidents a month.
Not even accounting for the 70% of violent crimes and incidents the government recognizes to occur each year and are not reported (USDOJ National Victimization report 2008, 4.8 mil violent crimes not reported).
We see exactly how all these people demanding less strict gun laws which allowed these people to defend themselves instead of meekly taking what ever their attacker deemed appropriate were they to be disarmed.
After all, if it saves just one life, it truly is justified!
• Retired cop turned security guard shoots and kills armed robber (MI)• Pawn Shop Customer With License to Carry Chases Off Would Be Robber (TX)• Elderly NE Homeowner Fires a Warning Shot at Home Invader Who Is Then Captured By Police (NE)• Homeowner Shoots At, Scares Off 3 Burglars (MI)• Las Vegas, NV Homeowner Shoots and Kills Burglary Suspect (NV)• 78 Year Old Kentucky Man Shoots 1 of 2 Home Invaders with Antique Walther and Shotgun (KY)• Store clerk fires shot, scares off would-be robber (IL)• Montgomery County man kills alleged home invader (TX)• Police: Attempted Robbery Suspect Shot By Shop Owner (CA)• Robber killed, owner hurt in mini-mart heist (PA)• Homeowner Shoots Sword Wielding Home Invader (FL)• Police say witness shoots way out of encounter with suspects (FL)• Homeowner Shoots Intruder in His Home (NM)• Man shot, killed in St. Augustine (FL)• Defensive Gun Use of the Day: Lucky to be Alive Edition (PA)• Store Clerk Shoots and Wounds Would Be Robber Who is Then Captured (NC)• Homeowner in AZ Confronts and Shoots Daytime Burglar (AZ)• Check Cashing Business Owner Exchanges Fire With 2 Armed Robbers (CO)• Store Owner Fires Warning Shot at Armed Robber Scares Him Away (MN)• Father arrives home to hostage situation, is shot and still manages to return fire and stop his attacker (OH)• Citizen Shoots and Wounds 1 of 2 Burglars (TX)• Cleaning man fatally shoots burglar at Queens grocery store (NY)• Defensive Gun Use of the Day: Vance West (MO)• Homeowner Exchanges Gunfire With Truck Thief Who is Shot, Captured (TX)• Rural IL Homeowner First 5 Shots At 2 Home Invaders (IL)• Homeowner Shoots and Kills Daytime Intruder (SC)• Defensive Gun Use of the Day: Parking Lot Edition (MI)• Video: SC Convenience Store Owner Shoots, Kills Career Criminal During Armed Robbery (SC)• Woman Shoots and Kills Home Invader (NC)• Off-duty deputy shoots two dogs for allegedly attacking turkeys (UT)• Homeowner Shoots Knife Wielding Burglar Several Times (AR)• Auto Store Owner Uses Taurus Judge Pistol To Scare Off Armed Robber (PA)• 71 Year Old PA Man Pistol Whips 29 Year Old Street Robber (PA)• Homeowner Shoots Intruder Who Was In His Bedroom at 3AM Demanding Money (UT)• Armed CO Doctor Helps Over 50 People Escape Deadly Hostage Situation (CO)• 7-11 Owner Shoots At, Fights Off 2 Armed Robber (PA)• Woman Shoots and Kills Home Invader (OK)• 15 Year Old GA Resident, Shoots and Kills 1 of 2 Home Invaders Using .22 Rifle (GA)• Man Holds Man Robbing Neighbor’s Home At Gunpoint Until Police Arrive (GA)• Homeowner Holds Burglary Suspect At Gunpoint Until Police Arrive (CO)• Video: AR 12 Year Boy Grabs Gun, Shoots, Stops Burglars At His Neighbors Home (AR)• Video: CO Check Cashing Clerk Shot 1 of 2 Robbers After They Maced Him (CO)• Father Fires At 2 Home Invaders As His Family Hides in Bathroom (FL)• Cleveland homeowner wounds young intruder before gun jams (OH)• Homeowner Shoots Home Invader In the Chest (OH)• Store Clerk Draws Gun on Robber Who Was On Crime Spree (IN)• SeaTac homeowner shoots would-be burglar (WA)• House Guest Shoots and Kills Suspected Burglar (TX)• Homeowner Shoots At Burglar Who Attacked Him While He Tended To His Horses (MO)• Homeowner Shoots and Kills 1 of 2 Intruders During 3AM Home Invasion (IL)• 66 Year Old Seattle, WA Homeowner Shoots Burglar with Shotgun, Intruder Flees on Bus (WA)• Homeowner Shoots, Wounds 1 of 2 Daytime Home Invaders (TX)• Drive Thru Owner Shoots, Wounds 1 of 2 Armed Robbers Who Shot At Him (OH)• Homeowner Shoots Ex Boyfriend, Recently Released From Prison, Breaking Into Her Home (IL)• Restaurant Owner Shoots At Armed Robber Who Shot Him In His Garage (VA)• Couple Fight Off Armed Burglar Who Was Supposed to Be On House Arrest (KY)• Homeowner Chases Off Burglar With Handgun (MO)• Armed Teen Stops Intruder at Doggie Door (AZ)• Police: Man with gun acted in self-defense at Walmart (FL)• Homeowner says he shot man in self-defense (MI)• Homeowner, Father Shoots One of Three Intruders, Captures Others (KY)• Wife, Mother Shoots Her Abusive Husband Who Was Beating Their Son (SC)• Homeowner Shoots Suspected Intruder Dead on 225th Pl. SW in Esperance (WA)• Homeowner Shoots Suspected Burglar with Shotgun (TN)• Hair Salon Owner Shot and Killed a Knife Wielding Intruder (AL)• Armed Taco Truck Driver Shoots, Wounds 1 of 3 Armed Robbers (CA)• Chicago DGU (IL)• 62 Year Old Homeowner Shoots Intruder Twice With .45ACP Pistol (NM)• Man Fatally Shot in Dog Dispute (FL)• 9 Months Pregnant AZ Woman Shoots Intruder Who Tried To Break In Doggie Door (AZ)• Intruder killed at Fayetteville Arkansas apartment (AR)• Shooting details emerge (OR)• Female Resident Barricades Herself in Bathroom And Shoots At, Scares Off Home Invader (SD)• 64 Year Old Woman Holds Suspect At Gunpoint With Snub Nose Revolver (FL)• 87-year-old ‘sharpshooter’ wounds suspected burglar (CA)
From the same time period do you care to include a list of homicides and accidental shootings?
“Florida is often cited for its weak gun laws, which … do not
ban assault weapons or large capacity magazines.”
This is really not pertinent to the bill though. Just because you have a license in a state that allows assault weapons and large capacity magazines doesn’t mean you can bring those items into a state that doesn’t.
I’m glad I’m not the only one who noticed that. Other than to attempt to sway opinion about Florida’s gun laws, the fact they allow ‘assault’ weapons has no bearing on this conversation. Especially since Maine does as well.
Who wrote this editorial anyway? If it was a BDN staffer then we can see how the wind is blowing there. Conceal an AR15 of AK47? Isn’t that like trying to conceal a Sherman tank?
Possible but not convenient. Such a statement about assault rifles (AKA full auto capable) has no business in the editorial except to prejudice the reader..
FYI Rebecca: the two boys at Columbine were carrying a Highpoint Model 995 carbine, a sawed-off pump-action Savage-Springfield 67H shotgun, a double-barrel Savage 311-D sawed-off shotgun and a TEC-DC9 9-mm semi-automatic handgun. Lots of ammo (they fired a total of 188 rounds), and an array of knives and homemade bombs, all under their coats. Two teenaged boys. History wrote this editorial.
How could that be? After all, wasn’t Columbine a “gun free zone”?
Actually it does. The bill would allow you to carry the weapon your state says is ok in other states. IE Maine has no restrictions on what handgun or size mag you can have. Mass has different levels of mag size and the firearm has to be the one on your permit.
As far as “assault weapons” You already are legally allowed to transport your legally owned firearm form your state to the state your going to if they are allowed in the ending state the states you pass though have no bearing on that.
I own REAL assault weapons IE MACHINE GUNS those that fire more then one round per trigger pull. Even these are legal to transport though another though with a MG you need a 5220 signed form the atf. Suppressors and all other firearms you need no permission for.
There laws covering firearm are so convoluted that most LE’s have no idea what is and is not legal.
In Maine without a CCW you are not allowed to have a loaded firearm in your vehicle. It is legal to have a handgun and a loaded mag on your dashboard in plain view though. I do not recommend this but it is legal.
It should read, “People who shouldn’t have guns kill people.”
Or maybe, ” people who don’t have guns but are looking to kill people find other ways to kill people”.
How in any reasonable persons mind is it that they still don’t get that if a person is intent on killing, making the weapon illegal will not stop the crime. They either will a) carry a firearm illegally given the charge pales compared to their intent or b) will carry out their intent by another means in the absence of a firearm.
The above being said, as a reasonably sane firearms owner, I’m for registration, I have nothing to hide and nothing to fear. Fearing government confiscation is borderline insanity and conspiracy theory crap. Get a grip and meet the anti-gun lobby half way or we’ll be overly restricted to where and what we can carry.
It was also believed that before the beginning of this year the government being able arrest someone while not allowing them access to an attorney or charging them for that matter would never happen. Then the NDAA came about and vamoose, personal liberties disappeared into the night. While fearing government confiscation may seem borderline insanity to you, it’s not a stretch to imagine something like that happening when you read the news or simply look around at the laws we having being put into place. In some circumstances meeting the opposing party half-way is not appropriate. Matters concerning our liberties and constitutional rights are of those circumstances.
The 2nd amendment is my right to carry, I don’t need anything else to say I can.
Registration is a forerunner to confiscation. You think it’s just some “conspiracy crap”, but conspiracy theories are based on fact. Conspiracy theorists were vindicated when munitions WERE found on the RMS Lucitania, MK ULTRA documents were forced to the light of day from persistent FOIA requests, and things like COINTELPRO, Operation NORTHWOODS, and the USS Liberty attack.
You get some far out ones from time to time, but there is something more going on. There is an agenda of some kind. “Nothing happens in politics by accident.” !
Buy more weapons
What’s most interesting about the opposition to this bill is the willingness of media outlets to champion an activist Congress/Court when supporting specific legislation but crying about “State Rights” when rallying against issues they don’t support. “Full Faith and Credit” is an integral Constitutional provision and extends to many areas. For example, while marrying qualifications and driving stipulations vary between states, the licenses granted by all 50 entities are recognized throughout the country. The marriage, for example between First Cousins, although prohibited in a specific State is recognized by that State when licensed in a State that does allow it. The right to self-defense doesn’t dissipate when crossing state boundaries, nor do threats exist in a political vaccum. Specific stipulations in each State would need to be respected by ALL who enter that State with a firearm, and allowing those who have met the specific licensing requirements of their States to extend their right to carry a concealed firearm is a logical, Constitutionally valid policy which should have the support of all those who understand and respect the value of American citizenship and the right to survive in a sometimes hostile environment. Ken
“People who shouldn’t have guns kill people.” Quite true… but the people who shouldn’t have guns should never have been let out of jail by liberal Judges in the first place.
People who shouldn’t have guns, get guns no matter what anyone or the law tells them if they really want them.
Or Mississippi Governors…..
I am all for “open carry”. If you can see the threat then you can avoid it.
Twitch a Finger,
Raise an Eyebrow,
Make My Day!
I am all for carry any way you wish, including long arms if that’s what you want to do.
Bearing arms is a right, and there is no constitutional limitation as to the type of arms, nor of the manner in which they are borne.
I like the idea of the bill but not the bill itself. Instead of having a recipocal law why not have a federal CCP. That way if I just want to carry in Maine I could just have my Maine CCP but if I wanted to carry out of state I could just get a federal CCP. That way everyone with the federal CCP would have gone through the same process.
It seems to me that this is yet another example where federal law should trump state law. If there was a unified code of enforcement across the country then the problem of some states having lenient permit laws would not exist.
As well as affecting and changing the uber stict Nazi feifdoms punishing the law abiding serfs in their states, but you can see which states those are cause they are fighting this bill really hard.
The Constitution reserves police powers to the several States, via the 10th Amendment. It is a sad state of affiars when the majority of the population fails to understand federalism and disregards portions of the Cosntituion with which they disagree.
You are free to disagree, but the government is NOT free to disregard its constitutional limits.
A mandatory reciprocity law is constitutional under Article IV Section 1. That is as far as it goes.
This can definitely be an issue in regard to the federal government controlling gun laws. Once you are allowed to move anything across state borders the government can and has imposed all kinds of controls over the states and the people.
Senator Snowe says, “The concept of right-to-carry reciprocity has broad bipartisan support
in both the Senate and the House, and I hope we can use this consensus
to pass legislation that respects states’ rights, while recognizing an
individual’s 2nd Amendment right.” Ok…if both parties are agreeing to this it is another warning sign. What kind of control or money are they expecting to get from this law? I am all for Second Amendment rights. I don’t want the federal government to have any more control than they already have.
Except for some issues, right?
Registration is a forerunner to confiscation.
Socialist Hitler used this
2nd amendment- “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.”
10th amendment- “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively,
or to the people.”
It is a stretch to say that the 2nd amendment gives individuals the right to conceal carry guns outside of a ‘well regulated militia’.
If the Constitution does not expressly guarantee a thing, like concealed carry, then according to the 10th amendment, it is left to the States.
As you have no proof that carrying concealed has been banned since the beginning of the time firearms came into existance, nor any specific reference in the US Constitution to restricting them, we will instead identify those facts and data which you cant refute and let them point the way to reality which you ignore.
The second amendment as RATIFIED by the state’s.
“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.”
Maybe you can explain how for the entire history of English language, that the independent clause of a complex sentence, a complete sentence, that can stand by itself, and must first exist for the dependent clause to have meaning, has always set the meaning of the complex sentence. (“the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”)
Yet a few intellectually challenged people now claim the dependent clause, an incomplete sentence, whcih cannot clearly define a meaning much less stand by itself, (A well regulated
militia being necessary to the security of a free State) is now the determinator of the complex sentence meaning and history and English scholars have all been wrong throughout the history of written English. Have at it, but warn us when Hades will be freezing over for you actually having data to support your claim.
Lets see, have you removed the 30 plus references from the congressional writings 1774-1789 & the federalist papers showing well regulated as to meaning well trained in the arts of war? Much less all those dictionaries that say the same thing? No, you haven’t. Reference Karpeles
Museum, CA.
http://www.rain.org/%7Ekarpeles/
Maybe you removed that original draft of what became the second amendment. You know, the one that was clearly written as a collective right, but then was changed to what exists today. Why did our founding fathers change the amendment draft if it was what they wanted? Oh that’s right, actions do speak louder than words. Ref Karpeles Museum, CA again.
original proposed draft of the right to keep and bear arms of the BILL of
RIGHTS (17 TH of 20 amendments)
on display at the Karpeles Manuscript Library Santa Ana, California
“That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well regulated Militia
composed of the body of the people trained to arms is the proper, natural and
safe defense of a free State. That standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided as far as the circumstances and protection of the community will admit; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power.”
http://www.wemett.net/2nd_amendment_(original_draft).html
Then of course, here is the logic failure the anti’s always have. They always fail to prove, that the miltia existed before the armed individual.
Funny how all that was before the 2008 rulings eh?
Funny how in the 2008 Heller ruling all 9 justices agreed that bearing arms was an
individual right. That 5-4 vote was on the constitutionality of the Washington D.C. gun ban, read it, you will see!
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf
One other thing, you inference is completely wrong as the US Constitution & BOR is a limitation on the GOVERNMENT, not the people. Failure to prove otherwise negates your inferred state power to “SHALL NOT INFRINGE” .
No, it isn’t a stretch, because a) the amendment doesn’t “give” anything, it recognizes and guarantees a pre-existing right, and b) the “collective rights” argument has been thoroughly vetted by the 3rd and 5th U.S. Circuits as well as the SCOTUS, and discredited emphatically.
No matter how you beat that horse, it won’t rise from the dead.
And, incorporating the Second Amendment to apply to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment removes the unfettered power to regulate arms from the states’ jurisdiction.
Bull-googey! States have no rights, only powers. We the people have rights, and the right to keep and bear arms is an unalienable, un-infringible (in theory, anyway) one of those rights.
The right of
self-defense is a corollary to the right to life; to deny one
is to deny the other. The purpose of government is to insure
our rights, not to infringe on them.
The fact is that
governments should not be involved in permitting the carriage
of weapons, either openly or concealed, by anyone.
Our constitution
states that the right of the people to keep (possess) and bear
(carry) arms shall not be infringed. Marbury v. Madison (1803)
decided that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land,
and that any law that contradicts the Constitution is null and
void. “The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute,
though having the form and the name of law, is in reality no
law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose since
unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment and
not merely from the date of the decision so branding it; an
unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as
inoperative as if it had never been passed … An
unconstitutional law is void.” (16 American Jurisprudence 2d,
Sec. 178)
The right of a
citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself
or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it
from the State government. It is one of the high
powers” delegated directly to the citizen, and `is
excepted out of the general powers of government.’ A
law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it,
because it is above the law, and independent of the
lawmaking power.” [Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, at
401-402 (1859)]
In Murdock v.
Pennsylvania (1943) the Supreme Court stated that a
constitutionally-protected right may not be licensed, nor a
fee charged.
In Shuttlesworth
v. Birmingham, Alabama (1962) the Supreme Court decided that
“If the state does attempt to convert a liberty into a
privilege, the citizen can engage in the right with impunity.”
(That means they can’t punish you, folks!)
To paraphrase an
oft-quoted movie line, “Permits? We don’ need no steenking
permits!”
You sound like the legal cherry-picker I know who has spent years telling me that the U.S.Government is illegal and, that being the case, I don’t have to pay taxes. He still pontificates on the subject, using little unrelated bits and pieces of law and tilted logic, but he does it now from behind bars. Seems that the government didn’t see it his way.
Problem for you is, he is correct, so prove him wrong einstein wannabe cause frankly, we dont give a damn what you think, only what you can prove, which on this subject is nothing.
Don’t have to. A few lawyers did it for me. Facts are proof enough for me.
, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed
Reciprocity can be a mutual agreement made between states. If it requires each state to make a mutual agreement in order to simplify the carry issue without involving the Federal government then, so be it. The towns and cities in this state are required to do that for cross border (municipal) response for emergency services so why not the same type of agreement for states for concealed carry? This in effect, will keep the Federal government out of each others business. Otherwise all that needs doing is a local law that recognizes any state which allows concealed carry to be recognized here.
The other day there was guy walking down one of the tree streets in Bangor with a pistol strapped on his hip.
Having lived in Bangor for more than 62 years, I was surprised and a wee bit scared to think that this individual who apparently feared for his life, felt it necessary to strap on a pistol. Did we live in the same city? I have yet to feel the need to carry a weapon, despite the break-ins, hold-ups, killings. They’re all drug related.
Then, there is horrible tragedy in Florida. A 17-year-old boy is shot and killed – now get this -in a “Gated Community.” Shot by a man who belonged to a residents’ “Neighborhood Watch.” On top of it all, we have a police department that supports this man, despite the 911 calls and neighbors’ observations that reveal a totally different picture. Reasons advanced by the shooter were that the boy was black, wore a hoodie and was suspicious.
Nothing could be worse than what the boy’s family is suffering now. But yet another horrible part of this whole episode is to have two of Murdoch’s disciples – Hannity and Geraldo – unconcernedly dismiss the killing as a “bad accident.”
How many more “bad accidents” do we need to get people, especially lawmakers, to understand that lethal weapons need the strongest controls to keep them out of the wrong hands.
Well Briney, you have now seen 3 generations come (and go) in this old town. And a few of the same types seem to pop up in each. Those whose psyche has a heavy underlying layer of fear, the teenage showoffs whose loud mufflers turn to deadly weapons as they age, and the would-be Rambos (or cop wanna-be’s). The perspective that is gained from age just makes you shake your head when you see this stuff, doesn’t it ? I think that I prefer pink hair, punk clothes and ugly pierced facial parts as an expression of individualism instead of a weapon.
Well, I hope your expressions of individualism help when confronted by a mugger, rapist, carjacker, or bath salts induced maniac.
Yeh – I know – they’re hiding around every corner. I don’t go looking for them, and in more than 3 score and 10 I’ve managed to avoid them, for the most part. I have had a couple of boar black bear take after me, and an old bull moose ran me up a tree once. But that was in my younger and wilder days. And I no longer go looking for them either.
I’m not talking about looking for trouble, I’m just pointing out the fact that there are evil people in this world. Thankfully, you haven’t had a confrontation as I mentioned yet, but many people do.
Yet.
I’d prefer to see anything instead of weapons. But instead of pink hair and metal pierced faces and ears, it would be good to see both men and women tidied up a bit.
How many more useless laws solving or correcting nothing before you finally recognize the futility and stupidity that gun control never reduces violence? Get back to us when you have a clue.
Perhaps the family of that grieving Florida family could offer you a better “clue” than me?
Relying on a grief-stricken family whose perspective is anything but rational lacks good sense.
Playing the “victim card” ain’t makin’ it.
That “boy” (whose picture flooded everywhere by the media is four years old) was a gangbanger wannabe, complete with the “angry black male” attitude (on suspension from school, BTW). There are now contemporary pictures from his Facebook page showing this ‘kid’ in context – as a bad-ass. Put that attitude in a hoodie and $280 athletic shoes, walking late at night in a neigborhood plagued with break-and-enters, and the picture screams “DANGER!”.
Additionally, there is evidence that Zimmerman had disengaged and was walking back to his vehicle when Martin jumped him. When that happend, Martin became the aggressor.
This isn’t “black and white”, pardon the pun. Zimmerman showed poor judgement by not standing down initially, but the events that followed placed his life in legitimate danger, hence, there are no charges (yet – a grand jury will take a look at it).
So before you join the PC chorus singing the “white man kills black youth” dirge, educate yourself to the facts.
Since when is Leahy “a strong advocate of gun rights”???
First, states don’t have rights, they have powers. People have rights, not states.
Second, the constitutional enumeration for this bill exists in Article IV Section 1. Therefore, while it is by definition an imposition on the states, it is within Congress’s authority to do so. The whiners who caterwaul against this action have had no problem with other, uncsontitutional impositions, but this has to do with gun rights so out comes their hypocrisy.
Note to whiners: It is constitutional, it is legal, and it’s eventually going to happen.
So sorry.
NOT.
Oh, where to even start on this one? Well, for one thing, government doesn’t have rights, individuals have rights. Government has only the use of force. I find myself pointing out, yet again, that an individual bent on violent crime isn’t going to care about breaking a gun law. A look back in history, from ancient civilizations to the present, would show that in cases of mass human rights violations and general atrocities, the majority of them are performed by governments (often targeting their own citizens). Don’t believe it can happen here? Look up Executive Order 9066. Lastly, we don’t need permission (as if we are children and government is our parents) to own or carry a gun. Government exists to protect our rights. IMHO, government regulating firearms for American citizens is like the fox guarding the hen house.
I am all for individual states’ rights to formulate laws with respect to guns, or for overriding national law, but let’s not have other states determine who comes into Maine bearing arms.
Funny, how in the US Constitution, the 10th amendment clearly defines states as having powers, not rights. So how about you enlighten everyone with your obvious expertise on the US Constitution and show everyone the legislative history of the changes put forth to change the 10th amendment.
Oh wait, that has never happened, IN ANY FASHION.
Since you have no clue on what is or has been done legislatively, one can safely assume your unintelligent opinion means nothing to anyone else.
If Barry is re-elected Michelle Oboma’s job will be to go door to door confiscating your guns and your potato chips. The Independent voter needs to save us and get Barry out, its too bad the Republicans are running the 3 stooges in the primaries.
If you have any questions about the CWP law or training contact http://www.e2c.us or 1-866-371-6111 and the Instructors at Equip 2 Conceal will be happy to help you.
Why is it that you point out a case where a tragedy with a firearm was at the hands of an NRA member? The person that did the shooting, Zimmerman, was clearly in the wrong. He had a concealed carry license which he should not have had. I.E. he is one of the minute number of concealed weapons permit holders that “fell through the cracks” Of the thousands and thousands of permit holders nation wide, there are bound to be a handful that manage to get a permit, that never should have. Just as most police officers are decent human beings, and really do use their positions to “protect and serve”, a handful of them manage to fall through the cracks, and are issued commissions, a badge, and a gun, when they are no more fit to be a police officer than Charles Manson would be. Would you say that because of those few, all policemen, and police women should be painted with the same brush? You come across as another anti-gun person that will grab any opportunity to side with the gun grabbers, who ultimately want to ban the private ownership of firearms.
He was not “clearly in the wrong”. When Martin attacked him Martin became the aggressor. Under the law (a GOOD law, BTW), Zimmerman was entitled to defend himself.
I might point out that Rodney King went on to become a sterling citizen, with multiple convictions and incarcerations to his credit. Not that kicking the snot out of him was exactly kosher, but it should hardly be surprising. He DID moon a female trooper, up close and personal. If it had been your wife or daughter, I suspect you’da tried to kick the snot out of him, too.
If Zimmerman is not charged (as he shouldn’t be) and is not convicted (because he shouldn’t even be charged), it is a sure bet that we are in for another “Rodney King Moment”.
Hope you’re locked and loaded….
The Bangor Daily News editorial titled “A Bad Gun Bill” as usual and as to be expected is full of half truths, and outright inaccurate statements. EXAMPLE: The state of Florida DOES require training to obtain a concealed carry license. Active duty military persons, or honorably discharged veterans satisfy this requirement by being, or having been in the service. This bill will not lead to federal licensing as some people think. Believe me, if it would, the gun banners would be all for it, as a stepping stone to their confiscation and outright ban agenda. This bill is no more of a federal licensing tool, than granting full reciprocity to drivers licenses would lead to one federal license. As far as stricter requirements from one state to another go, that is basically not true, unless one is referring to states like New Jersey, that set so many requirements on it’s citizens in an effort to discourage their applying that almost no one qualifies with out high up political connections. Same thing for New York City, with their $350.00 non refundable application fee. In reality, what this bill does is tell honest, law abiding citizens that their right to self defense of themselves and their loved ones, does not and should not end at a state line.