Concealed Carry Permits Should be Treated Like Driver's Licenses

[kaz]

The states have the right to legislate their own CCW regulations. I may not agree with them, but, as a non-resident, I don't and shouldn't get a say in their policy decisions. That's Federalism.

While the notion is tempting, I have to look farther down the road...there are powers that are reserved to the states, and this is one of them...I wouldn't take kindly to outsiders meddling in the affairs of my state, and for that reason, I'd be hard pressed to meddle in theirs.

I would agree with you if we weren't talking about a Constitutional right

 

[nodoginnafight]

I am of the belief that a CCW should be treated like a vehicle driver's license. If you are visiting a state, your CCW issued in your state should be legal and valid, just like your driver's license. If you move to a new state, you should have a set amount of time in which to get a new CCW issued by your new state.

CCW permits, in my opinion, should not be treated like a marriage licenses.

Opinions?

What if we require people to get a license and pay a fee to have free speech or to have their home protected from illegal searches?

in fact - you do.

 

[The Rabbi]

I am of the belief that a CCW should be treated like a vehicle driver's license. If you are visiting a state, your CCW issued in your state should be legal and valid, just like your driver's license. If you move to a new state, you should have a set amount of time in which to get a new CCW issued by your new state.

CCW permits, in my opinion, should not be treated like a marriage licenses.

Opinions?

The irony of this is that there's no Constitutional right to drive but there is to carry a concealed firearm.

There is a right to full faith and credit between the States, which is recognized for Driver's Licenses. You don't have to get a new one every time you cross a state line.

It isnt a right. There are limitations on FFC. I've cited the cases here recently.

 

[The Rabbi]

I am of the belief that a CCW should be treated like a vehicle driver's license. If you are visiting a state, your CCW issued in your state should be legal and valid, just like your driver's license. If you move to a new state, you should have a set amount of time in which to get a new CCW issued by your new state.

CCW permits, in my opinion, should not be treated like a marriage licenses.

Opinions?

What if we require people to get a license and pay a fee to have free speech or to have their home protected from illegal searches?

in fact - you do.

You mus tlive in some alternative authoritarian universe.

 

[nodoginnafight]

you pay for a parade permit Einstein.

 

[martybegan]

I am of the belief that a CCW should be treated like a vehicle driver's license. If you are visiting a state, your CCW issued in your state should be legal and valid, just like your driver's license. If you move to a new state, you should have a set amount of time in which to get a new CCW issued by your new state.

CCW permits, in my opinion, should not be treated like a marriage licenses.

Opinions?

The irony of this is that there's no Constitutional right to drive but there is to carry a concealed firearm.

There is a right to full faith and credit between the States, which is recognized for Driver's Licenses. You don't have to get a new one every time you cross a state line.

It isnt a right. There are limitations on FFC. I've cited the cases here recently.

yes there are limits, but there has to be a strict reason for the limit, not "just because we don't like X".

If a State started issuing driver's licenses to 10 year olds, that would be something that FFC would not apply to, and probably only to the 10 year olds given the licenses.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Yes... but these all have to do with the exercise of a right on public property normally used by the public for other purposes.

Yes .....and a CCW permit doesn't?

Not in total, as most of the time people carry on private property - they may very well carry on public property on their way to that private property, but that's not anything like having a parade.

The reason for time/place/manner restrictions on free speech - a parade, for instance - have to do with the disruption of the street and the need for the state to make accommodations for the safety of those in the parade as well as the disruption of traffic caused by the parade -- issues that do not apply to concealed carry.

"... and the need for the state to make accommodations for the safety ..."
the same applies to a gun permit, no?

I said "...make accommodations for the safety of those in the parade..."
In this case. "those in the parade" equate to those carry a gun with a CCW permit.
But you knew that, which is why you left it off.

Either way, carrying a gun in public is not the same as holding a parade - streets do not have to be closed, traffic need not be re-routed, barricades do not need to be put up and extra police officers do not need to be scheduled to work -- and so, the constitutional acceptability of time/place/manner restrictions on the exercise of 1st amendment rights does not translate to a similar acceptability for time/place/manner restrictions on the exercise of 2nd amendment rights because the justification for the latter does not apply to the former.

It's a public safety issue - just like the parade permit.

I just explained to you, in detail, how they differ and how the acceptability of one does not demonstrate the acceptability of the other.
Explain to me, in detail, how I am wrong.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Yes .....and a CCW permit doesn't?

Not in total, as most of the time people carry on private property - they may very well carry on public property on their way to that private property, but that's not anything like having a parade.

The reason for time/place/manner restrictions on free speech - a parade, for instance - have to do with the disruption of the street and the need for the state to make accommodations for the safety of those in the parade as well as the disruption of traffic caused by the parade -- issues that do not apply to concealed carry.

"... and the need for the state to make accommodations for the safety ..."
the same applies to a gun permit, no?

I said "...make accommodations for the safety of those in the parade..."
In this case. "those in the parade" equate to those carry a gun with a CCW permit.
But you knew that, which is why you left it off.

Either way, carrying a gun in public is not the same as holding a parade - streets do not have to be closed, traffic need not be re-routed, barricades do not need to be put up and extra police officers do not need to be scheduled to work -- and so, the constitutional acceptability of time/place/manner restrictions on the exercise of 1st amendment rights does not translate to a similar acceptability for time/place/manner restrictions on the exercise of 2nd amendment rights because the justification for the latter does not apply to the former.

It's a public safety issue - just like the parade permit.

I just explained to you, in detail, how they differ and how the acceptability of one does not demonstrate the acceptability of the other.
Explain to me, in detail, how I am wrong.

sure, and I don't need nearly as many words. Public safety.
It's the justification for not yelling "fire" in a movie house and all the other stereotypical limits on Constitutional rights.

 

[kaz]

It's a public safety issue - just like the parade permit. The justification is right there.

It's not like that at all. A parade permit falls under the right to "peacefully assemble." In order to be "peaceful" you have to respect the rights of other citizens. Starting a public assembly where you are interfering with other people and where the local authorities are unaware and can't provide adequate measures such as closing streets or police protection if you are for example the KKK or Nazis is not respecting the rights of other citizens. All they are saying is let them know who you are and what you plan so appropriate measures can be taken to protect you and more importantly other citizens from what you are going to do.

Gun laws only restrict your own, personal rights. There is no comparison at all.

 

[nodoginnafight]

"All they are saying is let them know who you are and what you plan so appropriate measures can be taken to protect you and more importantly other citizens from what you are going to do."

Applies to a gun permit as well

 

[kaz]

I am of the belief that a CCW should be treated like a vehicle driver's license. If you are visiting a state, your CCW issued in your state should be legal and valid, just like your driver's license. If you move to a new state, you should have a set amount of time in which to get a new CCW issued by your new state.

CCW permits, in my opinion, should not be treated like a marriage licenses.

Opinions?

What if we require people to get a license and pay a fee to have free speech or to have their home protected from illegal searches?

in fact - you do.

Um...OK? I don't have either of those licenses, how do I get one?

 

[kaz]

I am of the belief that a CCW should be treated like a vehicle driver's license. If you are visiting a state, your CCW issued in your state should be legal and valid, just like your driver's license. If you move to a new state, you should have a set amount of time in which to get a new CCW issued by your new state.

CCW permits, in my opinion, should not be treated like a marriage licenses.

Opinions?

What if we require people to get a license and pay a fee to have free speech or to have their home protected from illegal searches?

in fact - you do.

You mus tlive in some alternative authoritarian universe.

I know, WTF?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Not in total, as most of the time people carry on private property - they may very well carry on public property on their way to that private property, but that's not anything like having a parade.

The reason for time/place/manner restrictions on free speech - a parade, for instance - have to do with the disruption of the street and the need for the state to make accommodations for the safety of those in the parade as well as the disruption of traffic caused by the parade -- issues that do not apply to concealed carry.

"... and the need for the state to make accommodations for the safety ..."
the same applies to a gun permit, no?

I said "...make accommodations for the safety of those in the parade..."
In this case. "those in the parade" equate to those carry a gun with a CCW permit.
But you knew that, which is why you left it off.

Either way, carrying a gun in public is not the same as holding a parade - streets do not have to be closed, traffic need not be re-routed, barricades do not need to be put up and extra police officers do not need to be scheduled to work -- and so, the constitutional acceptability of time/place/manner restrictions on the exercise of 1st amendment rights does not translate to a similar acceptability for time/place/manner restrictions on the exercise of 2nd amendment rights because the justification for the latter does not apply to the former.

It's a public safety issue - just like the parade permit.

I just explained to you, in detail, how they differ and how the acceptability of one does not demonstrate the acceptability of the other.
Explain to me, in detail, how I am wrong.

sure, and I don't need nearly as many words. Public safety.

You aren't even trying, and so, I accept your concession of the point.

 

[nodoginnafight]

I am of the belief that a CCW should be treated like a vehicle driver's license. If you are visiting a state, your CCW issued in your state should be legal and valid, just like your driver's license. If you move to a new state, you should have a set amount of time in which to get a new CCW issued by your new state.

CCW permits, in my opinion, should not be treated like a marriage licenses.

Opinions?

What if we require people to get a license and pay a fee to have free speech or to have their home protected from illegal searches?

in fact - you do.

Um...OK? I don't have either of those licenses, how do I get one?

Go to City Hall - tell them you want to purchase a parade permit.

 

[Missourian]

...

I would agree with you if we weren't talking about a Constitutional right

I do agree that, if the Constitution was being upheld, there would be no need for a CCW system at all.

But it's not, so my comments concern the current system.

 

[Little-Acorn]

The Constitution does NOT forbid governments in the U.S. from restricting your right to drive on public streets. Such as by requiring you pass tests, granting you a license (which they can refuse if they want to), etc.

It DOES forbid governments from restricting your right to keep and bear arms, such as by requiring you to pass tests, granting you a license (which they can refuse if they want to), etc.

The Constitution does not create rights. It creates, and restricts, governments.

See the 9th amendment. It says that, just because a certain right isn't mentioned in the Constitution, that doesn't mean people don't have that right.

10th amendment: The Fed govt's powers ARE limited to only what is specified in the Constitution.
9th amendment: The people's rights are NOT limited to only what is mentioned in the Constitution.

 

[WinterBorn]

oh look; another gun lover without a clue or a Cause.

We know you hate the fact that, like all other anti-gun loons, you can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty -- but that's your problem, not ours.

if it were Only that, i would agree with you. unfortunately those of your point of view only have fallacy for your Cause and its effect is an appeal to ignorance of the law.

No, it is not ignorance of any law. The Bill of Rights is specifically about protecting the rights of the individual. It is not about protecting state or federal rights. The founding fathers did indeed think about this. The saw the value of an armed population, out of which a ready militia could be formed.

The SCOTUS has ruled clearly that it is an individual right.

That was merely an open book test for Persons who may appeal to ignorance of the law; it can never be used by any juniors, as any form of precedent by our senior elders on the Judiciary.

What the hell are you babbling about?

The highest court in the land has ruled that the 2nd amendment is an individual right.

 

[M14 Shooter]

oh look; another gun lover without a clue or a Cause.

We know you hate the fact that, like all other anti-gun loons, you can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty -- but that's your problem, not ours.

if it were Only that, i would agree with you. unfortunately those of your point of view only have fallacy for your Cause and its effect is an appeal to ignorance of the law.

No, it is not ignorance of any law. The Bill of Rights is specifically about protecting the rights of the individual. It is not about protecting state or federal rights. The founding fathers did indeed think about this. The saw the value of an armed population, out of which a ready militia could be formed.

The SCOTUS has ruled clearly that it is an individual right.

That was merely an open book test for Persons who may appeal to ignorance of the law; it can never be used by any juniors, as any form of precedent by our senior elders on the Judiciary.

What the hell are you babbling about?

He has no idea what he means.

 

[The Rabbi]

you pay for a parade permit Einstein.

and? Is that some kind of argument? You dont pay to be left alone by police. You dont pay the gov't to post blogs.

 

[Missourian]

Here's the bottom line...under the current system, giving the Central Government the power to mandate CCW, also gives them the defacto power to eliminate Constitutional Carry if they so choose.

Like almost everything in government, it's a double edged sword.

I prefer to keep that power seated 100 miles away rather than cede that power to a much less accessible and less answerable government 1000 miles away.