Trump to push national concealed carry legislation

[Ray From Cleveland]

Some questions here...

1. Are requirements for concealed carry the same for each state?
2. If requirements are different, would a person obtaining a permit from a "lax" state be able to carry in a state with stringent controls?
3. Is requiring a permit constitutional?

1. No
2. Haven't seen anything in the law. But like a drivers test, I assume there would be a minimum standard.
3. No...(baby steps like liberals do)

I would have to do some research, but I understand in some states you just apply for the license and get one; no training, no testing, just a background check.

I don't know if I want somebody who never fired a gun before having the right to carry and use a firearm in my state--especially anywhere near me.

This law will not help very much. Even though my permit is acceptable in other states, a license to carry is only as good as the laws that back you up if you need to use deadly force.

Here we are very liberal when it comes to self-defense. If somebody is trying to break in my car and I shoot them dead, it's permissible in my state under the Castle Doctrine. The cops and detectives come out, investigate, give me my gun back and tell me to have a nice day. I would be scared to death to do the same thing in California or New York. States like that don't like citizens being armed legal or not. You could very well find yourself in prison.

This is a shall issue state. I've been here for 35 years and not heard of a problem. Cops train a lot and can screw up a shot. Not to minimize training but it's not a guarantee in real life situations. I think you'd have to drill extensively for it to become reflex.

True, but I don't want to see somebody that didn't even pass a range test carrying a gun around me, at the very least, some safety training.

Giving somebody a gun license that never shot one before is like giving a kid a drivers license that never drove a car. If you live in a state that allows that, fine with me. I just don't want that in my state. I've been to the range on a couple of occasions where idiots (kids) were screwing around with guns. They thought it was a big joke. One time they but a bullet right into the ceiling and it wasn't on purpose either. My friend and I grabbed our gear and went to the farthest stall away from them.

Stupid stuff happens but a carry permit doesn't eliminate it and training is only good if you stick with it.

But the bigger issue is it isn't like driving. There's no right to drive. Making ccw a may issue permit removes it from being a right. I do not live in fear, I'm not seeing or hearing about any casual gun play on the streets. Plus the toughest area can have some dingbat carrying illegally. You never know.

This is correct, they do, and because these people who carry guns illegally have no training or testing, they end up killing innocents by accident in these drive by shootings. They don't have any experience with a gun so they think it's like they see on television; you always hit only what you aim for.

I was not comparing driving to firearms on a constitutional basis, only an experience basis.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I would be scared to death to do the same thing in California or New York. States like that don't like citizens being armed legal or not. You could very well find yourself in prison.

If you are not in a "Scared to death" situation you should not be using deadly force.

If you are seriously balancing the threat against you vrs the likelihood of being sued or imprisoned, then the situation probably does not merit lethal use of force.

Well I disagree and that certainly isn't the law in my state. You can shoot and kill an unarmed attacker if you believe your safety or life is in possible jeopardy. It doesn't have to be a life or death situation. That's why George Zimmerman is a free man today. Martin was unarmed and was beating the hell out of Zimmerman when he shot Martin to stop further harm to himself.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I would be scared to death to do the same thing in California or New York. States like that don't like citizens being armed legal or not. You could very well find yourself in prison.

If you are not in a "Scared to death" situation you should not be using deadly force.

If you are seriously balancing the threat against you vrs the likelihood of being sued or imprisoned, then the situation probably does not merit lethal use of force.

Well I disagree and that certainly isn't the law in my state. You can shoot and kill an unarmed attacker if you believe your safety or life is in possible jeopardy. It doesn't have to be a life or death situation. That's why George Zimmerman is a free man today. Martin was unarmed and was beating the hell out of Zimmerman when he shot Martin to stop further harm to himself.

That is the rather liberal law in your state, but it is not the basic human right of self defense. Plainly if you are being attacked by a person half your size and they dont land a blow on you then you life is not under threat and you should exercise good judgement to not use lethal force. If you are being attacked by an enebriated life-long friend you might be able to legally defend yourself with deadly force, but you will have to live with that on your conscience if your friend was not a serious threat to your life or safety.

But if Some 300 pound mountain of muscle says he is going to kill you and lands a blow to your head, I would say shoot the bastard for sure.

 

[Iceweasel]

1. No
2. Haven't seen anything in the law. But like a drivers test, I assume there would be a minimum standard.
3. No...(baby steps like liberals do)

I would have to do some research, but I understand in some states you just apply for the license and get one; no training, no testing, just a background check.

I don't know if I want somebody who never fired a gun before having the right to carry and use a firearm in my state--especially anywhere near me.

This law will not help very much. Even though my permit is acceptable in other states, a license to carry is only as good as the laws that back you up if you need to use deadly force.

Here we are very liberal when it comes to self-defense. If somebody is trying to break in my car and I shoot them dead, it's permissible in my state under the Castle Doctrine. The cops and detectives come out, investigate, give me my gun back and tell me to have a nice day. I would be scared to death to do the same thing in California or New York. States like that don't like citizens being armed legal or not. You could very well find yourself in prison.

This is a shall issue state. I've been here for 35 years and not heard of a problem. Cops train a lot and can screw up a shot. Not to minimize training but it's not a guarantee in real life situations. I think you'd have to drill extensively for it to become reflex.

True, but I don't want to see somebody that didn't even pass a range test carrying a gun around me, at the very least, some safety training.

Giving somebody a gun license that never shot one before is like giving a kid a drivers license that never drove a car. If you live in a state that allows that, fine with me. I just don't want that in my state. I've been to the range on a couple of occasions where idiots (kids) were screwing around with guns. They thought it was a big joke. One time they but a bullet right into the ceiling and it wasn't on purpose either. My friend and I grabbed our gear and went to the farthest stall away from them.

Stupid stuff happens but a carry permit doesn't eliminate it and training is only good if you stick with it.

But the bigger issue is it isn't like driving. There's no right to drive. Making ccw a may issue permit removes it from being a right. I do not live in fear, I'm not seeing or hearing about any casual gun play on the streets. Plus the toughest area can have some dingbat carrying illegally. You never know.

This is correct, they do, and because these people who carry guns illegally have no training or testing, they end up killing innocents by accident in these drive by shootings. They don't have any experience with a gun so they think it's like they see on television; you always hit only what you aim for.

I was not comparing driving to firearms on a constitutional basis, only an experience basis.

You think training is going to stop a road rage nut from committing murder or firing rounds? That's a bit optimistic. In a case like that better training would improve the odds of hitting his target.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I would have to do some research, but I understand in some states you just apply for the license and get one; no training, no testing, just a background check.

I don't know if I want somebody who never fired a gun before having the right to carry and use a firearm in my state--especially anywhere near me.

This law will not help very much. Even though my permit is acceptable in other states, a license to carry is only as good as the laws that back you up if you need to use deadly force.

Here we are very liberal when it comes to self-defense. If somebody is trying to break in my car and I shoot them dead, it's permissible in my state under the Castle Doctrine. The cops and detectives come out, investigate, give me my gun back and tell me to have a nice day. I would be scared to death to do the same thing in California or New York. States like that don't like citizens being armed legal or not. You could very well find yourself in prison.

This is a shall issue state. I've been here for 35 years and not heard of a problem. Cops train a lot and can screw up a shot. Not to minimize training but it's not a guarantee in real life situations. I think you'd have to drill extensively for it to become reflex.

True, but I don't want to see somebody that didn't even pass a range test carrying a gun around me, at the very least, some safety training.

Giving somebody a gun license that never shot one before is like giving a kid a drivers license that never drove a car. If you live in a state that allows that, fine with me. I just don't want that in my state. I've been to the range on a couple of occasions where idiots (kids) were screwing around with guns. They thought it was a big joke. One time they but a bullet right into the ceiling and it wasn't on purpose either. My friend and I grabbed our gear and went to the farthest stall away from them.

Stupid stuff happens but a carry permit doesn't eliminate it and training is only good if you stick with it.

But the bigger issue is it isn't like driving. There's no right to drive. Making ccw a may issue permit removes it from being a right. I do not live in fear, I'm not seeing or hearing about any casual gun play on the streets. Plus the toughest area can have some dingbat carrying illegally. You never know.

This is correct, they do, and because these people who carry guns illegally have no training or testing, they end up killing innocents by accident in these drive by shootings. They don't have any experience with a gun so they think it's like they see on television; you always hit only what you aim for.

I was not comparing driving to firearms on a constitutional basis, only an experience basis.

You think training is going to stop a road rage nut from committing murder or firing rounds? That's a bit optimistic. In a case like that better training would improve the odds of hitting his target.

Not road rage but these drive by shootings that happen all the time. These punks get guns, go driving down a street at 50 mph, and think they can hit their subject 20 feet away. The bullets hit people on porches, inside their home, many times injuring somebody or even killing them.

 

[ding]

And you admire two Rich boys who paid to shoot down a innocent animal Rustic...?

I find them to be disgusting and it shows what kind of cowards they are...ooooh shoot a fenced up leopard..

What a man..

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I would be scared to death to do the same thing in California or New York. States like that don't like citizens being armed legal or not. You could very well find yourself in prison.

If you are not in a "Scared to death" situation you should not be using deadly force.

If you are seriously balancing the threat against you vrs the likelihood of being sued or imprisoned, then the situation probably does not merit lethal use of force.

Well I disagree and that certainly isn't the law in my state. You can shoot and kill an unarmed attacker if you believe your safety or life is in possible jeopardy. It doesn't have to be a life or death situation. That's why George Zimmerman is a free man today. Martin was unarmed and was beating the hell out of Zimmerman when he shot Martin to stop further harm to himself.

That is the rather liberal law in your state, but it is not the basic human right of self defense. Plainly if you are being attacked by a person half your size and they dont land a blow on you then you life is not under threat and you should exercise good judgement to not use lethal force. If you are being attacked by an enebriated life-long friend you might be able to legally defend yourself with deadly force, but you will have to live with that on your conscience if your friend was not a serious threat to your life or safety.

But if Some 300 pound mountain of muscle says he is going to kill you and lands a blow to your head, I would say shoot the bastard for sure.

That is correct, if charged, you would have to prove why you believed your life was in danger of serious bodily harm or death, and I don't think being attacked by a midget would count.

The law is written with ambiguity for that reason. It makes you think before using your firearm. In a younger day I would never think of using a gun to settle a simple street attack, but now that I'm older, I'm at too much of a disadvantage because of my medical conditions and age. Like most guys, I would like to think I could still kick some ass, but I also realize I'm no match for a 25 or 30 year old muscular guy.

 

[ding]

Yep you are proud of 2 rich boys hunting Rustic, very sad to see.

 

[ding]

And you admire to Rich boys who paid to shot down a innocent animal Rustic...?

I find them to be disgusting and it shows what kind of cowards they are...ooooh shoot a fenced up leopard..

What a man..

You do realize that you can't fence in African game in Africa? By the way hunting leopards is one of the most difficult large game animals there is to hunt... very elusive
Snowflake, game was made to hunt… They've been doing it for thousands of years. Now go buy your Tampax

They are nothing but Mr small hand wimps who grew up with a silver spoon.

High fence hunting in Africa..

Marc Warnke on High Fence Hunting
My opinion on high fence is that as long as you are on a large enough acreage and the animals aren’t “pen raised” and released the week before then all you will experience is more and better animals to try for. I think, a property becomes “big enough” at 3,000 acres in dense, hilly terrain or 5,000+ in more open terrain. The fence is a NON ISSUE accept for allowing for higher animal desity and more controlled management. If you ask me, baiting allows for a less sporting advantage, by far, than a high fence. But for some game, baiting is the only way to be successful. In the brush country of South Texas it’s the only way you’re going to shoot a good whitetail. The same is true of a black bear in Idaho. It’s pretty tough otherwise.