Trump to Support Nationwide Concealed Carry

[jimnyc]

Nice!! Suck it, liberal gun haters!! No regulations or agendas for you! :lol:

-----

Trump to Support Nationwide Concealed Carry

Leftist heads now exploding like popcorn kernels:

Republican presidential frontrunner Donald Trump -- who said he has a concealed carry permit -- called for the expansion of gun rights Friday, including making those permits applicable nationwide. In a position paper published on his website Friday afternoon, Trump called for the elimination of gun and magazine bans, labeling them a "total failure."

"Law-abiding people should be allowed to own the firearm of their choice. The government has no business dictating what types of firearms good, honest people are allowed to own," Trump wrote.

It's not a departure from what he's said on the trail this year, though it does mark a shift from a position he took in his 2000 book "The America We Deserve," where Trump stated that he generally opposes gun control but that he supported a ban on assault weapons and a longer waiting period to get a gun.

"Opponents of gun rights try to come up with scary sounding phrases like 'assault weapons', 'military-style weapons' and 'high capacity magazines' to confuse people," Trump wrote Friday. "What they’re really talking about are popular semi-automatic rifles and standard magazines that are owned by tens of millions of Americans."

Liberals have long argued that guns should be regulated like automobiles. So what's not to like?

Trump said in the paper he has a concealed carry permit. The permits, which are issued by states, should be valid nationwide like a driver's license, Trump said. "If we can do that for driving -- which is a privilege, not a right -- then surely we can do that for concealed carry, which is a right, not a privilege," Trump said.

Trump just called their bluff. Hoo boy.

https://pjmedia.com/trending/2016/11/11/trump-to-support-nationwide-concealed-carry/

[Kathianne]

I'm not being critical, but aren't gun regulations a state concern? How far should the federal government be telling the states what they should do?

[jimnyc]

I'm not being critical, but aren't gun regulations a state concern? How far should the federal government be telling the states what they should do?

I believe that owning guns is a right as well, so states shouldn't be able to take that away. As for the concealed part, yes, probably better that each state license and determine that.

[Kathianne]

I believe that owning guns is a right as well, so states shouldn't be able to take that away. As for the concealed part, yes, probably better that each state license and determine that.

Indeed, SCOTUS addressed that first point correctly. I also agree that the states should be able to regulate, always mindful that citizens have the right to seek relief from the courts if their rights are infringed.

[NightTrain]

I'm not being critical, but aren't gun regulations a state concern? How far should the federal government be telling the states what they should do?

I think because it's a right, not a privilege. Just like any other rights Americans have.

This comes back to a guy that has a CCP from, say, Montana getting busted because New York infringes upon the 2nd Amendment and does not recognize his valid CCP in Montana.

There was a story a few years ago about a scenario like that, somewhere on the East Coast. He was charged with a felony in a neighboring State but perfectly legal according to his own State.

[Kathianne]

Somewhat OT, but related. So often people think that if the 'feds' make a rule they like, yay! their opinions are vindicated. I think the whole EO issue, including the ease of reversal should be noticed. While actual legislation is much more difficult to get and reverse, the party in majority can do so. While one can move to a state that seems a better fit for them, it's a more challenging decision to have to leave the country. Ask those on the 'list.' :laugh2:

In actuality, this is but another example of how the framers were more thoughtful than most folks today. 27 amendments in over 200 years.

How many EO's will be reversed in minutes?

[Kathianne]

I think because it's a right, not a privilege. Just like any other rights Americans have.

This comes back to a guy that has a CCP from, say, Montana getting busted because New York infringes upon the 2nd Amendment and does not recognize his valid CCP in Montana.

There was a story a few years ago about a scenario like that, somewhere on the East Coast. He was charged with a felony in a neighboring State but perfectly legal according to his own State.

Basically it comes down to being a responsible gun owner, know what the laws are while traveling. If you want to conceal/carry in NY, IL, DC better plan on devoting a good chunk of your life to getting that or don't go there.

[NightTrain]

Somewhat OT, but related. So often people think that if the 'feds' make a rule they like, yay! their opinions are vindicated. I think the whole EO issue, including the ease of reversal should be noticed. While actual legislation is much more difficult to get and reverse, the party in majority can do so. While one can move to a state that seems a better fit for them, it's a more challenging decision to have to leave the country. Ask those on the 'list.' :laugh2:

In actuality, this is but another example of how the framers were more thoughtful than most folks today. 27 amendments in over 200 years.

How many EO's will be reversed in minutes?


Yes, I think it will be made abundantly clear to every single American how using EOs is a very temporary thing indeed. I believe that will occur on Jan 20th, I have it on good authority!

Seeing as how Trump will be the one undoing the last 8 years of EOs, I'm pretty sure he understands that concept.

[CSM]

I think because it's a right, not a privilege. Just like any other rights Americans have.

This comes back to a guy that has a CCP from, say, Montana getting busted because New York infringes upon the 2nd Amendment and does not recognize his valid CCP in Montana.

There was a story a few years ago about a scenario like that, somewhere on the East Coast. He was charged with a felony in a neighboring State but perfectly legal according to his own State.

Just be glad the right to free speech isn't enforced like the second amendment is.... you have the right to free speech except as regulated by an individual state.... responsible people will prepare themselves to meet the requirements of each state when exercising their right to free speech

[Kathianne]

Yes, I think it will be made abundantly clear to every single American how using EOs is a very temporary thing indeed. I believe that will occur on Jan 20th, I have it on good authority!

Seeing as how Trump will be the one undoing the last 8 years of EOs, I'm pretty sure he understands that concept.

Why would you think I thought differently? I didn't. I applaud him.

Something to keep in mind for any president, 'If one rules by EO's, one will be undone by EO's." If the president can't lead to get legislation through or prevent legislation he thinks bad, he needs to figure it out.

The overwhelming use of EO's is very much like the absence of declarations of war, an abdication of the role the Congress is bound to perform. It's so much 'easier' for them not to be responsible and so much easier for the executive to try and run around the time consuming process of proposing, persuading, compromising, and re-writing and reconciling.

The people however are paying a price for all these 'temporary' law like EO's, for instance the removal of due process on college campuses. It's not a joke and certainly not without consequences.

[NightTrain]

Why would you think I thought differently? I didn't. I applaud him.

Something to keep in mind for any president, 'If one rules by EO's, one will be undone by EO's." If the president can't lead to get legislation through or prevent legislation he thinks bad, he needs to figure it out.

The overwhelming use of EO's is very much like the absence of declarations of war, an abdication of the role the Congress is bound to perform. It's so much 'easier' for them not to be responsible and so much easier for the executive to try and run around the time consuming process of proposing, persuading, compromising, and re-writing and reconciling.

The people however are paying a price for all these 'temporary' law like EO's, for instance the removal of due process on college campuses. It's not a joke and certainly not without consequences.


I don't believe you think differently! I'm just musing aloud here, chipping in my 2 cents. :beer:

[Little-Acorn]

I'm not being critical, but aren't gun regulations a state concern?

No. The 2nd amendment forbids ALL governments in the U.S. to infringe on the RKBA.

OTOH, the 1st amendment originally applied only to the Federal govt ("Congress shall make no law...."), not the states, until the 14th amendment came along and changed things.

[OCA]

Nice!! Suck it, liberal gun haters!! No regulations or agendas for you! :lol:

-----

Trump to Support Nationwide Concealed Carry

Leftist heads now exploding like popcorn kernels:

Republican presidential frontrunner Donald Trump -- who said he has a concealed carry permit -- called for the expansion of gun rights Friday, including making those permits applicable nationwide. In a position paper published on his website Friday afternoon, Trump called for the elimination of gun and magazine bans, labeling them a "total failure."

"Law-abiding people should be allowed to own the firearm of their choice. The government has no business dictating what types of firearms good, honest people are allowed to own," Trump wrote.

It's not a departure from what he's said on the trail this year, though it does mark a shift from a position he took in his 2000 book "The America We Deserve," where Trump stated that he generally opposes gun control but that he supported a ban on assault weapons and a longer waiting period to get a gun.

"Opponents of gun rights try to come up with scary sounding phrases like 'assault weapons', 'military-style weapons' and 'high capacity magazines' to confuse people," Trump wrote Friday. "What they’re really talking about are popular semi-automatic rifles and standard magazines that are owned by tens of millions of Americans."

Liberals have long argued that guns should be regulated like automobiles. So what's not to like?

Trump said in the paper he has a concealed carry permit. The permits, which are issued by states, should be valid nationwide like a driver's license, Trump said. "If we can do that for driving -- which is a privilege, not a right -- then surely we can do that for concealed carry, which is a right, not a privilege," Trump said.

Trump just called their bluff. Hoo boy.

https://pjmedia.com/trending/2016/11/11/trump-to-support-nationwide-concealed-carry/

You want it to be like Tombstone?

[fj1200]

I'm not being critical, but aren't gun regulations a state concern? How far should the federal government be telling the states what they should do?

I would think that it would be an issue of requiring states to recognize gun registrations like they have to recognize a marriage license. OTOH a friend of mine told me he needs to comply with the particular requirement of the state in which he travels like pulling over and putting his gun in a locked case when he goes into SC for example. Either way a state's rights issue as you point out.


No. The 2nd amendment forbids ALL governments in the U.S. to infringe on the RKBA.

And then there's the world we live in where regulations abound.

[Elessar]

I am thinking that part of the spirit of this is to have each of the states recognize the
validity of a Conceal Carry Permit issued in another state. That would simplify everything,
yet not step on "State's Rights".

Hell...there is open carry in Oregon. I see it often and these folks are not blood thirsty
shooters. Carry a handgun for rattlesnakes, varmints and the like.

[Kathianne]

I am thinking that part of the spirit of this is to have each of the states recognize the
validity of a Conceal Carry Permit issued in another state. That would simplify everything,
yet not step on "State's Rights".

Hell...there is open carry in Oregon. I see it often and these folks are not blood thirsty
shooters. Carry a handgun for rattlesnakes, varmints and the like.

I hear what you are saying, but think the 'state regulations' take precedence. It's like if you are traveling to a foreign country, you need to abide by their laws. A state can say that the speed in residential areas is 25mph; you need to abide by that, even if your ordinances are 30mph.

[Elessar]

I hear what you are saying, but think the 'state regulations' take precedence. It's like if you are traveling to a foreign country, you need to abide by their laws. A state can say that the speed in residential areas is 25mph; you need to abide by that, even if your ordinances are 30mph.

I understand, but a happy medium should be reached....and I never ignore that black on white sign, either. Some of the towns up the US 101
in Oregon are speed traps!

[Kathianne]

I understand, but a happy medium should be reached....and I never ignore that black on white sign, either. Some of the towns up the US 101
in Oregon are speed traps!

I don't think that states need to 'compromise' to a medium. One state may make very strict laws, i.e., Illinois. Another may decide 'anything goes' though I don't think there is a state like that.

What cannot be done, via 2nd amendment are state or local laws that are so onerous as to deny one's rights. IL has had some regulations brought to court and lost, as it should be.

Individuals can decide that the least restrictive laws are what they want and either work to get their state to do so or move to a state that's already on board.

That's the way abortion was prior to federal usurpation in Roe v Wade.

[Elessar]

I do not have a CCP...but I agree with your premise that a person who does should check with
other state authorities when traveling across the country, and secure the firearm as per the
state's statutes.

It's pretty easy to contact State Police in each of our 50.

[Kathianne]

I not not have a CCP...but I agree with your premise that a person who does should check with
other state authorites when traveling across the country, and secure the firearm as per the
state's statutes.

It's pretty easy to contact State Police in each of our 50.


I think that the federalist system is the best there is. Let the states do what they should, let the Constitution check when they go too far. Keep the fed out of their business and do what they are supposed to regarding borders, self-defense, and national interests as a whole.

[Balu]

I think that an "absentee ballot" taken beforehand, presenting in any polling station all over the country, could have solved the problem. But... it is workable and useful when direct voting is concerned. When every voice is valuable and counted to the favor of candidate, but not to the majority voted in a certain State of a country.

[Kathianne]

I think that an "absentee ballot" taken beforehand, presenting in any polling station all over the country, could have solved the problem. But... it is workable and useful when direct voting is concerned. When every voice is valuable and counted to the favor of candidate, but not to the majority voted in a certain State of a country.

I thinyou may have posed on the wrong thread?