Started By
Message

re: Concealed Carry National Reciprocity Bill

Posted on 12/7/17 at 9:21 am to
Posted by Carson123987
Middle Court at the Rec
Member since Jul 2011
66413 posts
Posted on 12/7/17 at 9:21 am to
quote:

no instruction on shooting aside from maybe a few quick tips to the female shooting the lightweight .357 that can't hit a man sized silhouette from 10ft away. In case you're wondering...she passed.


Posted by bapple
Capital City
Member since Oct 2010
11888 posts
Posted on 12/7/17 at 2:47 pm to
quote:

Would there be different statistics between 10 states and the mass populous? Who knows.



From the stats gathered in Constitutional Carry states already, it can be concluded that there isn't a correlation between gun laws and violent crime. This can be proven even further if you look at the most dangerous cities in the country - some are in gun control states while others are in gun friendly states. The Constitutional Carry law has no effect on these numbers.

quote:

I just can't help but feel that there is value in the training.


No one here would argue that there isn't value in training. But should the training be mandatory? That's the sticker.
Posted by Propagandalf
Baton Rouge
Member since May 2010
2528 posts
Posted on 12/7/17 at 3:40 pm to
quote:

But should the training be mandatory?


Also, if you open that can of worms where does that logic end. If you rationalize that simply having a gun on you in "public" requires mandated training, then by that logic would you also need said training to shoot at a public range, shoot on public or leased land while others are present, to have a gun in your house for defense where bullets could end up in neighbors, or ultimately..to have a gun period? There is most definitely value in training and I highly encourage it, but I don't think it should be a requirement to defend yourself.

I am always surpirsed that the constitutional carry thing is so highly disputed on here and it always seems to come down to those who are against it finding comfort in the "training" aspect of the CHP permit process. Yet, based on the amount of threads, and overwhelming contribution to those threads, on the OB about "what gun should I get my wife who has no, and will have no, training to carry/have in the house/etc." it seems to boil down to people who are against constitutional carry don't want strangers to be able to carry guns in public because they are scared of strangers and it makes them feel better to think the stranger has magically become a full fledged, morally aligned, operator after an 8 hour course.
This post was edited on 12/7/17 at 3:41 pm
Posted by ZacAttack
The Land Mass
Member since Oct 2012
6416 posts
Posted on 12/7/17 at 3:57 pm to
Is the Fix-Nics going to be crammed in the bill to get is passed?
Posted by ChatRabbit77
Baton Rouge
Member since May 2013
5860 posts
Posted on 12/7/17 at 5:05 pm to
quote:

Is the Fix-Nics going to be crammed in the bill to get is passed?

Yeah. I think that is why it passed the house. Only 10 repubs voted against it including my two favorites, Amash and Massie
Fix NICS won't do anything to solve any issues and it seems like yet another stupid idea.
This post was edited on 12/7/17 at 5:42 pm
Posted by uway
Member since Sep 2004
33109 posts
Posted on 12/7/17 at 5:30 pm to
quote:

But should the training be mandatory


You just have to imagine your daughter wanting to carry to protect herself from a crazy ex boyfriend to blow up the “mandatory training” idea, IMO.

I would like there to be incentives for training, however.
Posted by ChatRabbit77
Baton Rouge
Member since May 2013
5860 posts
Posted on 12/7/17 at 6:57 pm to
quote:

You just have to imagine your daughter wanting to carry to protect herself from a crazy ex boyfriend to blow up the “mandatory training” idea, IMO.


You want know what is scarier than that? Just imagine that we pay people to make laws about shite they don't know anything about and we keep picking them to do the same thing every couple of years. That would be a nightmare...
Posted by bapple
Capital City
Member since Oct 2010
11888 posts
Posted on 12/7/17 at 8:09 pm to
quote:

You just have to imagine your daughter wanting to carry to protect herself from a crazy ex boyfriend to blow up the “mandatory training” idea, IMO.



I believe there was a story like this from a state up north that is a "may-issue" state, meaning you need a reason to carry. Her abusive ex was not a good enough reason for her to have a permit and he ended up killing her.
Posted by uway
Member since Sep 2004
33109 posts
Posted on 12/7/17 at 11:03 pm to
quote:

believe there was a story like this from a state up north that is a "may-issue" state, meaning you need a reason to carry. Her abusive ex was not a good enough reason for her to have a permit and he ended up killing her.


That’s believable.

I’ve thought about this a lot and I think I understand and empathize with every reasonable position to some extent, but for me it always come down to my strictly held belief that it is not my prerogative to tell other people they can’t defend themselves.
And it’s not the local sheriffs prerogative either.
Posted by finchmeister08
Member since Mar 2011
35628 posts
Posted on 12/8/17 at 9:41 am to
quote:

CC permit at least separates those who have training with the gun and those who don't.

i have a concealed carry permit, and i didn't have any training to get it. i went to the court house, had a background check done, took the picture and walked out with a new card. but i am a bama resident. frick states like south carolina, new york and california that don't recognize it. when they do that, the "infringe" on my right to bear arms because i'm a united states citizen. not just an alabama citizen.
Posted by bapple
Capital City
Member since Oct 2010
11888 posts
Posted on 12/8/17 at 10:39 am to
quote:

but for me it always come down to my strictly held belief that it is not my prerogative to tell other people they can’t defend themselves.
And it’s not the local sheriffs prerogative either.


Agreed. I agree with Constitutional Carry not only by statistics but also in principle. I believe the quote is, "freedom for me, but not for thee," that most politicians live by. I am not one of those individuals.
Posted by White Bear
Yonnygo
Member since Jul 2014
13880 posts
Posted on 12/8/17 at 4:54 pm to
So what are we giving up to get this deal?

Also, I read the bill as passed and it says a concealed weapon shall include a pistol magazine. So since I have no CCL and a 1911 mag in my pocket i'm now a felon.
This post was edited on 12/8/17 at 4:55 pm
Posted by ZacAttack
The Land Mass
Member since Oct 2012
6416 posts
Posted on 12/8/17 at 6:12 pm to
quote:


So what are we giving up to get this deal?



I’ve been reading and trying to figure this out, but can’t get any where before it’s just fear Mom hero game by either side. Anybody know?
Posted by Clames
Member since Oct 2010
16567 posts
Posted on 12/8/17 at 10:13 pm to
Giving up nothing, that's why gun-control groups are shitting their pants in trying to get this stopped in the Senate. The Fix NICS Act attached to HR 38 is nothing but rehash of legislation that has been passed before, it does nothing but tell states and Federal agencies to do what they should already be doing and tossing some money at them (like tossing money has worked before). Some of the lesser educated gun owners and anti-NRA trolls are saying that there will be an expansion of catergories of those who can be denied under the NICS, it does nothing of the sort.
Posted by ZacAttack
The Land Mass
Member since Oct 2012
6416 posts
Posted on 12/9/17 at 7:52 am to
Woohoo!
first pageprev pagePage 4 of 4Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram