vBCms Comments
Welcome To Hunting Country
General Hunting Forums
Archery & Bowhunting
Shooting Sports
Manufacturers' Corner
Firearms
Classifieds
Not Hunting / General Chit Chat
1.) Bob Peck - 05/09/2017
Just in case you wanted to know if any of your state representatives are co-sponsors.
188 Republicans +
[B]
3 Dems in favor of this bill[/B]
Rep. Henry Cuellar [D-TX-28]
Rep. Collin C. Peterson [D-MN-7]
Rep. Sanford D.Bishop, Jr. [D-GA-2]
No big surprise that leading the pack of co-sponsors and clearly "all in" is TX with 25 with one (1) lone Democrat among the 24 Republicans.
[url]https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/38/cosponsors?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22concealed+carry+reciprocity+act%22%5D%7D[/url]
188 Republicans +
[B]
3 Dems in favor of this bill[/B]
Rep. Henry Cuellar [D-TX-28]
Rep. Collin C. Peterson [D-MN-7]
Rep. Sanford D.Bishop, Jr. [D-GA-2]
No big surprise that leading the pack of co-sponsors and clearly "all in" is TX with 25 with one (1) lone Democrat among the 24 Republicans.
[url]https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/38/cosponsors?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22concealed+carry+reciprocity+act%22%5D%7D[/url]
2.) Swamp Fox - 05/09/2017
Looking forward to when the wailing and gnashing of teeth on this gets turned up to 11 in the People's Republics...
[url]https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/05/09/gun-ownership-used-to-be-bipartisan-not-anymore/?utm_term=.bb33f69a294f&wpisrc=nl_politics&wpmm=1[/url]
[url]https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/05/09/gun-ownership-used-to-be-bipartisan-not-anymore/?utm_term=.bb33f69a294f&wpisrc=nl_politics&wpmm=1[/url]
3.) DParker - 05/09/2017
[QUOTE=Bob Peck;48681]No big surprise that leading the pack of co-sponsors and clearly "all in" is TX with 25 with one (1) lone Democrat among the 24 Republicans.[/quote]
You're welcome. :p
[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;48682][url]https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/05/09/gun-ownership-used-to-be-bipartisan-not-anymore/?utm_term=.bb33f69a294f&wpisrc=nl_politics&wpmm=1[/url][/QUOTE]
I place exactly ZERO stock in the 1972-2012 General Social Survey results. Rags like WaPo continue to push that chart it in spite of its methodology having been thoroughly trashed so many times over the past few years it isn't even funny.
You're welcome. :p
[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;48682][url]https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/05/09/gun-ownership-used-to-be-bipartisan-not-anymore/?utm_term=.bb33f69a294f&wpisrc=nl_politics&wpmm=1[/url][/QUOTE]
I place exactly ZERO stock in the 1972-2012 General Social Survey results. Rags like WaPo continue to push that chart it in spite of its methodology having been thoroughly trashed so many times over the past few years it isn't even funny.
4.) bluecat - 05/09/2017
I appreciate the fact that it adds up to 104%. That's impressive.
5.) DParker - 05/09/2017
[QUOTE=bluecat;48691]I appreciate the fact that it adds up to 104%. That's impressive.[/QUOTE]
Common Core math (though it's not supposed to add up to 100%, as each number is supposed to represent the % of individuals in THAT group, not the % of entire population represented by that group).
Common Core math (though it's not supposed to add up to 100%, as each number is supposed to represent the % of individuals in THAT group, not the % of entire population represented by that group).
6.) Swamp Fox - 05/09/2017
LOL...I think that's 49% of R's, 32 of I's and 23 of D's report owning a gun, not 49-32-23 of those surveyed...
7.) bluecat - 05/09/2017
That makes more sense. DunceCapIcon:
8.) Swamp Fox - 05/09/2017
[QUOTE=DParker;48686]You're welcome. :p
I place exactly ZERO stock in the 1972-2012 General Social Survey results. Rags like WaPo continue to push that chart it in spite of its methodology having been thoroughly trashed so many times over the past few years it isn't even funny.[/QUOTE]
I don't necessarily see a big problem with this particular chart in that it show a trend over time and a huge gap, both unlikely to be explained away by faulty or questionable methodology, etc. I follow you on your basic point, but am not aware of a reason that this particular finding isn't generally useful.
I place exactly ZERO stock in the 1972-2012 General Social Survey results. Rags like WaPo continue to push that chart it in spite of its methodology having been thoroughly trashed so many times over the past few years it isn't even funny.[/QUOTE]
I don't necessarily see a big problem with this particular chart in that it show a trend over time and a huge gap, both unlikely to be explained away by faulty or questionable methodology, etc. I follow you on your basic point, but am not aware of a reason that this particular finding isn't generally useful.
9.) DParker - 05/09/2017
[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;48696]I don't necessarily see a big problem with this particular chart in that it show a trend over time and a huge gap, both unlikely to be explained away by faulty or questionable methodology, etc. I follow you on your basic point, but am not aware of a reason that this particular finding isn't generally useful.[/QUOTE]
Even forgetting the fact that it's contradicted by the steep increase in rate of NICS checks over the past decade...which breaks new records every year...the GSS was conducted in ways that make it terribly unreliable for correctly identifying the trend it purports to be tracking. And while I realize the following is a biased source (which makes a couple of logic errors of its own), it does a good job of summarizing the problems with the study that I've not only seen pointed out elsewhere, but also identified myself after I tracked down the info on how it was conducted:
[URL="http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/03/foghorn/debunking-the-latest-gun-ownership-is-declining-survey/"]http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/03/foghorn/debunking-the-latest-gun-ownership-is-declining-survey/[/URL]
Even forgetting the fact that it's contradicted by the steep increase in rate of NICS checks over the past decade...which breaks new records every year...the GSS was conducted in ways that make it terribly unreliable for correctly identifying the trend it purports to be tracking. And while I realize the following is a biased source (which makes a couple of logic errors of its own), it does a good job of summarizing the problems with the study that I've not only seen pointed out elsewhere, but also identified myself after I tracked down the info on how it was conducted:
[URL="http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/03/foghorn/debunking-the-latest-gun-ownership-is-declining-survey/"]http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/03/foghorn/debunking-the-latest-gun-ownership-is-declining-survey/[/URL]
10.) Swamp Fox - 05/09/2017
Unless I missed something, the TAG column outlines the same objections I was familiar with, but which don't really go to the chart I posted, I don't think. I DO get how those objections might apply to a survey tracking the frequency of gun ownership in the general population, but I don't see the case against the accuracy of a break-out by political party.
For instance, is there some reason Dems are 26 points more leery of self-reporting than Rs? Twenty-six points??? Are Rs more likely to pump up their numbers? If there's a problem with the survey methodology, is there a problem with its consistent application over a long period of time? (Consistency is worth something.)
As far as NICS checks go, I see no reason you can't have burgeoning applications and a political affiliation gap, even a growing gap.
Again, I'm interested to know if I'm missing something.
For instance, is there some reason Dems are 26 points more leery of self-reporting than Rs? Twenty-six points??? Are Rs more likely to pump up their numbers? If there's a problem with the survey methodology, is there a problem with its consistent application over a long period of time? (Consistency is worth something.)
As far as NICS checks go, I see no reason you can't have burgeoning applications and a political affiliation gap, even a growing gap.
Again, I'm interested to know if I'm missing something.
11.) Bob Peck - 05/09/2017
[QUOTE=DParker;48686]You're welcome. :p [/QUOTE]If it weren't for the fact there are no beans in the chili and at times I'm not sure if I am in the Estados Unidos I might consider moving to Texas someday.
I fully respect the "Hell-yeah", "In-your-face", "Everything-is-bigger-and-better-in-Texas", "If-you-ain't-drivin-a-truck-you-ain't-nothin." attitude and of course the topper is ... I simply cannot find better brisket anywhere in the world.
Besides, what's not to love about Texas when you look at this map?
I fully respect the "Hell-yeah", "In-your-face", "Everything-is-bigger-and-better-in-Texas", "If-you-ain't-drivin-a-truck-you-ain't-nothin." attitude and of course the topper is ... I simply cannot find better brisket anywhere in the world.
Besides, what's not to love about Texas when you look at this map?
12.) Swamp Fox - 05/09/2017
You've got a long drive for some raw vegan if you live in Amarillo...LOL
13.) billy b - 05/09/2017
[QUOTE=Bob Peck;48704]If it weren't for the fact there are no beans in the chili and at times I'm not sure if I am in the Estados Unidos I might consider moving to Texas someday.
I fully respect the "Hell-yeah", "In-your-face", "Everything-is-bigger-and-better-in-Texas", "If-you-ain't-drivin-a-truck-you-ain't-nothin." attitude and of course the topper is ... I simply cannot find better brisket anywhere in the world.
Besides, what's not to love about Texas when you look at this map?
[/QUOTE]
Believe me, if you moved here you would get used to eating chili the proper way, we Texans had proper potty training :wink
I fully respect the "Hell-yeah", "In-your-face", "Everything-is-bigger-and-better-in-Texas", "If-you-ain't-drivin-a-truck-you-ain't-nothin." attitude and of course the topper is ... I simply cannot find better brisket anywhere in the world.
Besides, what's not to love about Texas when you look at this map?
[/QUOTE]Believe me, if you moved here you would get used to eating chili the proper way, we Texans had proper potty training :wink
14.) DParker - 05/09/2017
[QUOTE=billy b;48707]Believe me, if you moved here you would get used to eating chili the proper way, we Texans had proper potty training :wink[/QUOTE]
Yeah...what HE^ said!!
Yeah...what HE^ said!!
15.) DParker - 05/09/2017
[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;48702]Unless I missed something, the TAG column outlines the same objections I was familiar with, but which don't really go to the chart I posted, I don't think. I DO get how those objections might apply to a survey tracking the frequency of gun ownership in the general population, but I don't see the case against the accuracy of a break-out by political party.
For instance, is there some reason Dems are 26 points more leery of self-reporting than Rs? Twenty-six points??? Are Rs more likely to pump up their numbers? If there's a problem with the survey methodology, is there a problem with its consistent application over a long period of time? (Consistency is worth something.)
As far as NICS checks go, I see no reason you can't have burgeoning applications and a political affiliation gap, even a growing gap.
Again, I'm interested to know if I'm missing something.[/QUOTE]
I was commenting on the alleged downward trend in general, not the alleged increasing gap based on party affiliation. But the problem is that if the overall trend conclusion is unreliable due to poor methodology, the downward trends by part are likely to be unreliable as well...as both are derived from the same flawed data sample.
For instance, is there some reason Dems are 26 points more leery of self-reporting than Rs? Twenty-six points??? Are Rs more likely to pump up their numbers? If there's a problem with the survey methodology, is there a problem with its consistent application over a long period of time? (Consistency is worth something.)
As far as NICS checks go, I see no reason you can't have burgeoning applications and a political affiliation gap, even a growing gap.
Again, I'm interested to know if I'm missing something.[/QUOTE]
I was commenting on the alleged downward trend in general, not the alleged increasing gap based on party affiliation. But the problem is that if the overall trend conclusion is unreliable due to poor methodology, the downward trends by part are likely to be unreliable as well...as both are derived from the same flawed data sample.
16.) Swamp Fox - 05/10/2017
I'm more inclined to think that if it's GIGO early in a study, and GIGO later as well, an increasing gap is not a function of the original faulty methodology or sample. If the same questionable methodology is used on the same (?) questionable sample, but results shows an increasing gap over time, that's more likely explained by something other than the methodology and the survey sample.
So, if I do the same thing over and over---say, preparing a roux :wink--but I get increasingly worse results every time, it's not the thing that I was doing that's showing (or causing) the increasing gap between initial results and current results, no matter how badly or how well I was doing the thing throughout.
If the method and the sample are constant, but the results are changing, something else is variable.
So, while I'm not inclined to believe the downward general trend in ownership, absent explanations like bad survey sample (I can think of a few scenarios) or increasing self-reporting stigma or bravado, I'm more inclined to believe the party gap results.
I've just never seen objections to this group's work that didn't focus on methodology, and that doesn't seem to have much of a bearing on the question of party affiliation trends. That's the way I see it, anyway.
So, if I do the same thing over and over---say, preparing a roux :wink--but I get increasingly worse results every time, it's not the thing that I was doing that's showing (or causing) the increasing gap between initial results and current results, no matter how badly or how well I was doing the thing throughout.
If the method and the sample are constant, but the results are changing, something else is variable.
So, while I'm not inclined to believe the downward general trend in ownership, absent explanations like bad survey sample (I can think of a few scenarios) or increasing self-reporting stigma or bravado, I'm more inclined to believe the party gap results.
I've just never seen objections to this group's work that didn't focus on methodology, and that doesn't seem to have much of a bearing on the question of party affiliation trends. That's the way I see it, anyway.
17.) Swamp Fox - 05/10/2017
[QUOTE=billy b;48707]Believe me, if you moved here you would get used to eating chili the proper way, we Texans had proper potty training :wink[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=DParker;48708]Yeah...what HE^ said!![/QUOTE]
If somebody could teach Texans how to make iced tea properly, you all might have something down there...
[QUOTE=DParker;48708]Yeah...what HE^ said!![/QUOTE]
If somebody could teach Texans how to make iced tea properly, you all might have something down there...
18.) DParker - 05/10/2017
[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;48711]If somebody could teach Texans how to make iced tea properly, you all might have something down there...[/QUOTE]
I grew up drinking unsweetened ice tea, so the sweet stuff is a habit I've never picked up either.
I grew up drinking unsweetened ice tea, so the sweet stuff is a habit I've never picked up either.
19.) Swamp Fox - 05/10/2017
I actually prefer sweet tea, with the sugar brewed in, not added. What I meant was that it seems hard to find tea made that way in the few places I've been in Texas. I've gotten the impression over the years that "unsweet tea" is the norm in Texas, which just goes to prove...something. ---LOL
20.) DParker - 05/10/2017
[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;48714]I actually prefer sweet tea, with the sugar brewed in, not added. What I meant was that it seems hard to find tea made that way in the few places I've been in Texas. I've gotten the impression over the years that "unsweet tea" is the norm in Texas, which just goes to prove...something. ---LOL[/QUOTE]
I've always had to explicitly order it "unsweet" here. But then again I'm a bit of a newcomer here.
I've always had to explicitly order it "unsweet" here. But then again I'm a bit of a newcomer here.
21.) Swamp Fox - 05/10/2017
Is the Metroplex really Texas, though, anyway? ---LOL
22.) Swamp Fox - 05/10/2017
Whoa, Nelly!
[url]http://www.texasmonthly.com/the-daily-post/sweet-tea-line/[/url]
[url]http://www.texasmonthly.com/the-daily-post/sweet-tea-line/[/url]
23.) DParker - 05/10/2017
[QUOTE]...and the level of vitriol in the discussion surprised me. [/QUOTE]
The author is obviously new to the internet.
The author is obviously new to the internet.
24.) Swamp Fox - 05/10/2017
LOL...
A visit to a BBQ forum would put him in the ground.
A visit to a BBQ forum would put him in the ground.
25.) Bob Peck - 05/10/2017
Speaking of the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017 how sweet would it be to not have to worry about the possibility of mandatory jail time (i.e. NY) for legally carrying a loaded CCW?
When I travel it's like a major research project to determine the consequences of carrying. Most times I lock the handgun in my car safe and distinctly relocate the ammo and magazines from the handgun to a different part of the vehicle.
When I travel it's like a major research project to determine the consequences of carrying. Most times I lock the handgun in my car safe and distinctly relocate the ammo and magazines from the handgun to a different part of the vehicle.
26.) Swamp Fox - 05/10/2017
[QUOTE=Bob Peck;48730]Speaking of the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017...[/QUOTE]
LOL...
There was an editorial against a while back that I thought was amusing. Let me see if I can find it.
LOL...
There was an editorial against a while back that I thought was amusing. Let me see if I can find it.
27.) DParker - 05/10/2017
Bob, I assume you're already familiar with USA Carry, but just in case...
[URL="https://www.usacarry.com"]https://www.usacarry.com[/URL]
I've use that site any time that I travel interstate (at least to one or more states that I haven't been to in a while) and it makes staying legal a breeze.
[URL="https://www.usacarry.com"]https://www.usacarry.com[/URL]
I've use that site any time that I travel interstate (at least to one or more states that I haven't been to in a while) and it makes staying legal a breeze.
28.) Swamp Fox - 05/10/2017
[QUOTE][B]Congress Would Be Insane To Override New York's Gun Laws[/B]
Manhattan DA Cy Vance is right again: It would be an enormous “mistake” for Congress to de facto nationalize US gun laws at the lowest common denominator with the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act.
Outrageous, too — since federal lawmakers have a heck of a lot of urgent work on their plates, from replacing ObamaCare to passing pro-growth tax reform. [B](Go repeal some dumb regulations, if you’re that bored.)[/B] It may be easier to indulge in culture-war gestures like forcing loose gun laws down New York City’s throat, but that’s hardly an excuse.
Not to mention the Pottery Barn rule: If you break it, you own it. [B]This is now the safest large city in America, with homicides at historic lows. In the public’s eye, lawmakers who pass this law would wind up owning every shooting from a gun legalized under it — including the inevitable dead cops.[/B]
The NRA and other gun-rights types might see this as payback for the relentless push by New Yorkers like ex-Mayor Mike Bloomberg for tougher gun laws in the rest of the country. In fact, it’s the same thing: a foolish effort to push a[B] parochial set of values [/B]into areas where they don’t make sense (at least, not to the people who actually live there).
We’re not obsessively pro- or anti-gun: We’ve always supported the NYPD’s efforts to get illegal guns off the street, yet see no point in throwing the book at every[B] idiot tourist[/B] who doesn’t realize his out-of-state gun permit is no good here.
And we slapped Gov. Cuomo for his drive to rush through slapdash new state gun controls after the Sandy Hook horror.
No magical perfect gun law — not the NRA’s, not Bloomberg’s — is going to make America or any part of it a drastically safer place: The world just doesn’t work that way.
[B]
Arrogant ideologues[/B] can do real damage if people of good sense don’t stop them. Here’s hoping Congress still has the sense to avoid this particular idiocy.
[url]http://nypost.com/2017/02/23/congress-would-be-insane-to-override-new-yorks-gun-laws/[/url]
[/QUOTE]
I tried to trim that down to excerpts, but seeing it again reminds me that almost every paragraph is ripe with something to comment about. The highlighting is mine.
Not sure I can muster the strength to address this column's faults one by one, but I would like to point out that being "the safest big city in America" isn't particularly impressive to me when the law-abiding population is effectively disarmed and Mayor de Blasio is well on his way to reversing the good trends established by his two predecessors, who inherited a mess that had been entrenched for decades.
Secondly, if it weren't for the financial industry and the "idiot tourists" with their measly American dollars, NYC would have nothing particularly memorable to write home about. It's been bleeding corporate headquarters since the 70s, and the fashion and media industries don't have to be there anymore if things get stupid, either. In fact, they are already well-planted in other areas, and NYC is no longer the center of their universe.
It's the height of "arrogance" and quite "parochial" to assume NYC knows best for its visitors and all about its own attractiveness. This is one instance where the physical laws of bathroom plumbing are excepted. What's downstream DOES affect what's upstream. It's why you see NY State running ads on TV in markets hundreds if not thousands of miles away, begging business and industry to come back. If NYC had any money or the ability to sweeten deals with massive tax break bribes to offset outrageous real estate prices and cost of living, they'd be doing the same thing.
Yet the author is stuck in "a New York state of mind."
Manhattan DA Cy Vance is right again: It would be an enormous “mistake” for Congress to de facto nationalize US gun laws at the lowest common denominator with the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act.
Outrageous, too — since federal lawmakers have a heck of a lot of urgent work on their plates, from replacing ObamaCare to passing pro-growth tax reform. [B](Go repeal some dumb regulations, if you’re that bored.)[/B] It may be easier to indulge in culture-war gestures like forcing loose gun laws down New York City’s throat, but that’s hardly an excuse.
Not to mention the Pottery Barn rule: If you break it, you own it. [B]This is now the safest large city in America, with homicides at historic lows. In the public’s eye, lawmakers who pass this law would wind up owning every shooting from a gun legalized under it — including the inevitable dead cops.[/B]
The NRA and other gun-rights types might see this as payback for the relentless push by New Yorkers like ex-Mayor Mike Bloomberg for tougher gun laws in the rest of the country. In fact, it’s the same thing: a foolish effort to push a[B] parochial set of values [/B]into areas where they don’t make sense (at least, not to the people who actually live there).
We’re not obsessively pro- or anti-gun: We’ve always supported the NYPD’s efforts to get illegal guns off the street, yet see no point in throwing the book at every[B] idiot tourist[/B] who doesn’t realize his out-of-state gun permit is no good here.
And we slapped Gov. Cuomo for his drive to rush through slapdash new state gun controls after the Sandy Hook horror.
No magical perfect gun law — not the NRA’s, not Bloomberg’s — is going to make America or any part of it a drastically safer place: The world just doesn’t work that way.
[B]
Arrogant ideologues[/B] can do real damage if people of good sense don’t stop them. Here’s hoping Congress still has the sense to avoid this particular idiocy.
[url]http://nypost.com/2017/02/23/congress-would-be-insane-to-override-new-yorks-gun-laws/[/url]
[/QUOTE]
I tried to trim that down to excerpts, but seeing it again reminds me that almost every paragraph is ripe with something to comment about. The highlighting is mine.
Not sure I can muster the strength to address this column's faults one by one, but I would like to point out that being "the safest big city in America" isn't particularly impressive to me when the law-abiding population is effectively disarmed and Mayor de Blasio is well on his way to reversing the good trends established by his two predecessors, who inherited a mess that had been entrenched for decades.
Secondly, if it weren't for the financial industry and the "idiot tourists" with their measly American dollars, NYC would have nothing particularly memorable to write home about. It's been bleeding corporate headquarters since the 70s, and the fashion and media industries don't have to be there anymore if things get stupid, either. In fact, they are already well-planted in other areas, and NYC is no longer the center of their universe.
It's the height of "arrogance" and quite "parochial" to assume NYC knows best for its visitors and all about its own attractiveness. This is one instance where the physical laws of bathroom plumbing are excepted. What's downstream DOES affect what's upstream. It's why you see NY State running ads on TV in markets hundreds if not thousands of miles away, begging business and industry to come back. If NYC had any money or the ability to sweeten deals with massive tax break bribes to offset outrageous real estate prices and cost of living, they'd be doing the same thing.
Yet the author is stuck in "a New York state of mind."
29.) Bob Peck - 05/10/2017
[QUOTE=DParker;48736]Bob, I assume you're already familiar with USA Carry, but just in case...
[URL="https://www.usacarry.com"]https://www.usacarry.com[/URL]
I've use that site any time that I travel interstate (at least to one or more states that I haven't been to in a while) and it makes staying legal a breeze.[/QUOTE]
Yes. Familiar. The CCW allowances are pretty straight forward but I'm also talking about interstate transport and what's considered legal by each state.
Let me give you a typical CCW travel and transport scenario for me. Every year my family returns to hometown roots Syracuse, NY for a 4th of July week vacation from our current home of 10 years in Virginia. In the space of the 8 hr journey we pass through VA, WV, MD, PA and finally landing in NY. That's 5 states where I need to understand what's legal for CCW, reciprocity and transport and what's not. If I wanted to get into the nitty gritty there are counties in each state that differ from one another on the transport requirements.
In my weekly business adventures I travel the mid-Atlantic and Northeast where the same research is necessary. In DC, for example, there was a time when I could be arrested for legal possessing a handgun anywhere on my person (loaded or unloaded) or in the car. I had a close friend and business associate 3-4 years back saddled with felony charges for not declaring ammunition in his possession when returning from a hunting trip. Charges were subsequently dropped after many thousands in legal fees expended. There is no CCW permit allowed in DC, no open carry and all firearms must be registered without exception.
I'd like to say I have hope this particular law will pass but it'll take many years, if ever and I'm not holding my breath.
[URL="https://www.usacarry.com"]https://www.usacarry.com[/URL]
I've use that site any time that I travel interstate (at least to one or more states that I haven't been to in a while) and it makes staying legal a breeze.[/QUOTE]
Yes. Familiar. The CCW allowances are pretty straight forward but I'm also talking about interstate transport and what's considered legal by each state.
Let me give you a typical CCW travel and transport scenario for me. Every year my family returns to hometown roots Syracuse, NY for a 4th of July week vacation from our current home of 10 years in Virginia. In the space of the 8 hr journey we pass through VA, WV, MD, PA and finally landing in NY. That's 5 states where I need to understand what's legal for CCW, reciprocity and transport and what's not. If I wanted to get into the nitty gritty there are counties in each state that differ from one another on the transport requirements.
In my weekly business adventures I travel the mid-Atlantic and Northeast where the same research is necessary. In DC, for example, there was a time when I could be arrested for legal possessing a handgun anywhere on my person (loaded or unloaded) or in the car. I had a close friend and business associate 3-4 years back saddled with felony charges for not declaring ammunition in his possession when returning from a hunting trip. Charges were subsequently dropped after many thousands in legal fees expended. There is no CCW permit allowed in DC, no open carry and all firearms must be registered without exception.
I'd like to say I have hope this particular law will pass but it'll take many years, if ever and I'm not holding my breath.
30.) Swamp Fox - 05/10/2017
You should make a little side trip to New Jersey just to make things interesting...Stop at an Arbys or something.
31.) DParker - 05/10/2017
NY is always an easy one: Everything is illegal.
And it turns out that my old man memory has failed me once again, and I was actually thinking of [URL="http://www.handgunlaw.us/"]handgunlaw.us[/URL] instead of USA Carry.
And it turns out that my old man memory has failed me once again, and I was actually thinking of [URL="http://www.handgunlaw.us/"]handgunlaw.us[/URL] instead of USA Carry.
32.) Bob Peck - 05/11/2017
[QUOTE=DParker;48751]And it turns out that my old man memory has failed me once again, and I was actually thinking of [URL="http://www.handgunlaw.us/"]handgunlaw.us[/URL] instead of USA Carry.[/QUOTE]
I can definitely relate! :wink
Ok so on my real annual journey north to Syracuse ....
[U]VA = completely legal[/U]
The originating state is where my CCW permit was issued and in which I can (but don't) open carry. My CC handgun is like my wallet. I never leave home without it.
[U]WV = completely legal.[/U]
[I]"West Virginia is a Permitless Carry state and any resident or non-resident who is 21 or older who can legally possess a firearm can carry it concealed in West Virginia without any type of permit/license."[/I]
[U]
MD = completely [B]ILLEGAL[/B]. [/U]
[I]"Maryland does not honor any other state Permit/Licenses"[/I]
[U]PA = completely legal [/U]
Whew there is a reciprocity agreement between the "perpetually-under-road-construction", "I-81 seems to go on forever." state and VA.
[U]NY = completely [B]ILLEGAL[/B] [/U]
There is one ridiculous exception that covers all of us when we "enjoy" interstate travel. There is a Federal statute the NRA encourages us to travel with a copy of to educate law enforcement, United States Code Title 18-Part I-Chapter 44§ 926A. Interstate Transportation of Firearms.
As long as the firearm is legal in the state where you originated (true) and in the state you will arrive (NY so this is untrue) you can transport the firearm (unloaded) in a locked box not contained in the passenger compartment and with the ammo in a separate locked box (no loaded magazines or speed loaders) and you DON'T STOP OR STAY IN NY.
Sad. In the land of my birthplace commonly referred to as the "Land of Over Reach" it's clear now I can never move back even if I wanted to which I don't.
If I'm stopped and speak the truth to inquiring law enforcement [I]"I'm traveling from VA with my family to stay with relatives in NY."[/I] I could be charged with Criminal Possession of a Weapon in The Second Degree, a Class C Felony. What the heck?!
I can definitely relate! :wink
Ok so on my real annual journey north to Syracuse ....
[U]VA = completely legal[/U]
The originating state is where my CCW permit was issued and in which I can (but don't) open carry. My CC handgun is like my wallet. I never leave home without it.
[U]WV = completely legal.[/U]
[I]"West Virginia is a Permitless Carry state and any resident or non-resident who is 21 or older who can legally possess a firearm can carry it concealed in West Virginia without any type of permit/license."[/I]
[U]
MD = completely [B]ILLEGAL[/B]. [/U]
[I]"Maryland does not honor any other state Permit/Licenses"[/I]
[U]PA = completely legal [/U]
Whew there is a reciprocity agreement between the "perpetually-under-road-construction", "I-81 seems to go on forever." state and VA.
[U]NY = completely [B]ILLEGAL[/B] [/U]
There is one ridiculous exception that covers all of us when we "enjoy" interstate travel. There is a Federal statute the NRA encourages us to travel with a copy of to educate law enforcement, United States Code Title 18-Part I-Chapter 44§ 926A. Interstate Transportation of Firearms.
As long as the firearm is legal in the state where you originated (true) and in the state you will arrive (NY so this is untrue) you can transport the firearm (unloaded) in a locked box not contained in the passenger compartment and with the ammo in a separate locked box (no loaded magazines or speed loaders) and you DON'T STOP OR STAY IN NY.
Sad. In the land of my birthplace commonly referred to as the "Land of Over Reach" it's clear now I can never move back even if I wanted to which I don't.
If I'm stopped and speak the truth to inquiring law enforcement [I]"I'm traveling from VA with my family to stay with relatives in NY."[/I] I could be charged with Criminal Possession of a Weapon in The Second Degree, a Class C Felony. What the heck?!
33.) Bob Peck - 05/11/2017
P.S Love the pic!:laugh:
34.) DParker - 05/11/2017
[QUOTE=Bob Peck;48796]NY = completely ILLEGAL
There is one ridiculous exception that covers all of us when we "enjoy" interstate travel. There is a Federal statute the NRA encourages us to travel with a copy of to educate law enforcement, United States Code Title 18-Part I-Chapter 44§ 926A. Interstate Transportation of Firearms.
As long as the firearm is legal in the state where you originated (true) and in the state you will arrive (NY so this is untrue) you can transport the firearm (unloaded) in a locked box not contained in the passenger compartment and with the ammo in a separate locked box (no loaded magazines or speed loaders) and you DON'T STOP OR STAY IN NY.
Sad. In the land of my birthplace commonly referred to as the "Land of Over Reach" it's clear now I can never move back even if I wanted to which I don't.
If I'm stopped and speak the truth to inquiring law enforcement "I'm traveling from VA with my family to stay with relatives in NY." I could be charged with Criminal Possession of a Weapon in The Second Degree, a Class C Felony. What the heck?![/QUOTE]
The worst part about states like NY is that the default condition is that possessing a firearm is illegal, with the exceptions being so few that even if what you're doing is actually OK the odds of an individual cop knowing/understanding the relevant legal nuances your odds of being arrested anyway are far higher than in states where the RKBA is embraced rather than grudgingly tolerated to the least possible extent.
Hence the old cautionary saying, "You might beat the rap, but you won't beat the ride."
There is one ridiculous exception that covers all of us when we "enjoy" interstate travel. There is a Federal statute the NRA encourages us to travel with a copy of to educate law enforcement, United States Code Title 18-Part I-Chapter 44§ 926A. Interstate Transportation of Firearms.
As long as the firearm is legal in the state where you originated (true) and in the state you will arrive (NY so this is untrue) you can transport the firearm (unloaded) in a locked box not contained in the passenger compartment and with the ammo in a separate locked box (no loaded magazines or speed loaders) and you DON'T STOP OR STAY IN NY.
Sad. In the land of my birthplace commonly referred to as the "Land of Over Reach" it's clear now I can never move back even if I wanted to which I don't.
If I'm stopped and speak the truth to inquiring law enforcement "I'm traveling from VA with my family to stay with relatives in NY." I could be charged with Criminal Possession of a Weapon in The Second Degree, a Class C Felony. What the heck?![/QUOTE]
The worst part about states like NY is that the default condition is that possessing a firearm is illegal, with the exceptions being so few that even if what you're doing is actually OK the odds of an individual cop knowing/understanding the relevant legal nuances your odds of being arrested anyway are far higher than in states where the RKBA is embraced rather than grudgingly tolerated to the least possible extent.
Hence the old cautionary saying, "You might beat the rap, but you won't beat the ride."
35.) Swamp Fox - 05/11/2017
What you need is a bunch of LGBTQRSTUVWXYZ gun-owners to say that they don't feel safe using the bathrooms of their choice at highway rest stops in NY while disarmed, and to threaten a boycott of Broadway musicals, fashion shows, and bed and breakfasts in apple country.
Then you'll be in the express lane to changing the law.
[url]http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/03/north-carolina-lgbt-discrimination-cuomo[/url]
Then you'll be in the express lane to changing the law.
[url]http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/03/north-carolina-lgbt-discrimination-cuomo[/url]
36.) bluecat - 05/11/2017
[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;48803]What you need is a bunch of LGBTQRSTUVWXYZ gun-owners to say that they don't feel safe using the bathrooms of their choice at highway rest stops in NY while disarmed, and to threaten a boycott of Broadway musicals, fashion shows, and bed and breakfasts in apple country.
Then you'll be in the express lane to changing the law.
[url]http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/03/north-carolina-lgbt-discrimination-cuomo[/url][/QUOTE]
+4 :ach:
Then you'll be in the express lane to changing the law.
[url]http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/03/north-carolina-lgbt-discrimination-cuomo[/url][/QUOTE]
+4 :ach:
37.) DParker - 05/11/2017
[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;48803]What you need is a bunch of LGBTQRSTUVWXYZ gun-owners to say that they don't feel safe using the bathrooms of their choice at highway rest stops in NY while disarmed, and to threaten a boycott of Broadway musicals, fashion shows, and bed and breakfasts in apple country.
Then you'll be in the express lane to changing the law.
[url]http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/03/north-carolina-lgbt-discrimination-cuomo[/url][/QUOTE]
"Is that a pistol in your pocket, or are you just in the wrong bathroom?"
Then you'll be in the express lane to changing the law.
[url]http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/03/north-carolina-lgbt-discrimination-cuomo[/url][/QUOTE]
"Is that a pistol in your pocket, or are you just in the wrong bathroom?"
38.) Swamp Fox - 05/11/2017
LOL...
+3
+3
39.) Bob Peck - 05/11/2017
[QUOTE=DParker;48801]The worst part about states like NY is that the default condition is that possessing a firearm is illegal, with the exceptions being so few that even if what you're doing is actually OK the odds of an individual cop knowing/understanding the relevant legal nuances your odds of being arrested anyway are far higher than in states where the RKBA is embraced rather than grudgingly tolerated to the least possible extent.[/QUOTE]
From the handgunlaw.us website:
[I]"The best way to travel through NY or any state that has restriction is to carry a copy of Title 18-Part 1-Chapter 44 926A of the federal code with you. Some law enforcement may not know the law." [/I]
I think I'll laminate a copy and hand it over with my license, registration and proof of insurance along with a picture of Wayne LaPierre.
From the handgunlaw.us website:
[I]"The best way to travel through NY or any state that has restriction is to carry a copy of Title 18-Part 1-Chapter 44 926A of the federal code with you. Some law enforcement may not know the law." [/I]
I think I'll laminate a copy and hand it over with my license, registration and proof of insurance along with a picture of Wayne LaPierre.
40.) DParker - 05/11/2017
[QUOTE=Bob Peck;48813]I think I'll laminate a copy and hand it over with my license, registration and proof of insurance along with [B]a picture of Wayne LaPierre.[/B][/QUOTE]
:laugh: Just let me know what kind of cake you like so I can buy enough box mix to completely cover the file.
:laugh: Just let me know what kind of cake you like so I can buy enough box mix to completely cover the file.
41.) Bob Peck - 05/12/2017
[QUOTE=DParker;48815]:laugh: Just let me know what kind of cake you like so I can buy enough box mix to completely cover the file.[/QUOTE]
No need. I'll be a law abiding citizen observant to the laws of the state I happen to be in when the $hit hits the fan.
I'll leave my weapon at home in VA and take my chances that no crazy mf'ers mess with me, mine or John Q. Public who unknowingly are acting as human shields around me. If they do mess with me I'll wave the rainbow flag I carry in my wallet and ask nicely to be spared from the mayhem and murder. If that doesn't work, I guess I'll just die and hopefully never see them again.
No need. I'll be a law abiding citizen observant to the laws of the state I happen to be in when the $hit hits the fan.
I'll leave my weapon at home in VA and take my chances that no crazy mf'ers mess with me, mine or John Q. Public who unknowingly are acting as human shields around me. If they do mess with me I'll wave the rainbow flag I carry in my wallet and ask nicely to be spared from the mayhem and murder. If that doesn't work, I guess I'll just die and hopefully never see them again.
42.) Swamp Fox - 05/12/2017
Unfortunately, Chinese throwing stars are not an option, either.
But you probably already knew that...LOL.
But you probably already knew that...LOL.
43.) DParker - 05/12/2017
[QUOTE=Bob Peck;48818]No need. I'll be a law abiding citizen observant to the laws of the state I happen to be in when the $hit hits the fan.
I'll leave my weapon at home in VA and take my chances that no crazy mf'ers mess with me, mine or John Q. Public who unknowingly are acting as human shields around me. If they do mess with me I'll wave the rainbow flag I carry in my wallet and ask nicely to be spared from the mayhem and murder. If that doesn't work, I guess I'll just die and hopefully never see them again.[/QUOTE]
Don't forget to tell the nice officer about your accident.
I'll leave my weapon at home in VA and take my chances that no crazy mf'ers mess with me, mine or John Q. Public who unknowingly are acting as human shields around me. If they do mess with me I'll wave the rainbow flag I carry in my wallet and ask nicely to be spared from the mayhem and murder. If that doesn't work, I guess I'll just die and hopefully never see them again.[/QUOTE]
Don't forget to tell the nice officer about your accident.
44.) Swamp Fox - 05/12/2017
:grin:
:tu:
:tu:
45.) Swamp Fox - 05/12/2017
Check out the top entry especially.
If your results come up like mine, a lot of people need a lot of things explained to them...LOL
[B]Beam me up, Scotty![/B] :bang:
[url]https://www.google.com/search?q=guns+lost+in+tragic+accident&rlz=1C1NHXL_enUS731US731&oq=guns+lost+in+tragic+accident&aqs=chrome..69i57j0.5977j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8[/url]
If your results come up like mine, a lot of people need a lot of things explained to them...LOL
[B]Beam me up, Scotty![/B] :bang:
[url]https://www.google.com/search?q=guns+lost+in+tragic+accident&rlz=1C1NHXL_enUS731US731&oq=guns+lost+in+tragic+accident&aqs=chrome..69i57j0.5977j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8[/url]
46.) Jon - 05/12/2017
I really lucked out marrying into law enforcement, I used to be in the same situation as Bob when I drove to and from Mass. Now, we both wear a holster for one of my 40's and switch back and forth when we are in and out of states I am not legal to carry in. Since she has HR218 covering her in EVERY state, she wears the gun in the states I can't and I wear it in the states I can.
Especially when on the motorcycle because we really have no cage protection from fools and you just never know. I haven't had any reason to draw my weapon BUT if the situation should ever present itself, I sure feel better being legally armed than not.
Especially when on the motorcycle because we really have no cage protection from fools and you just never know. I haven't had any reason to draw my weapon BUT if the situation should ever present itself, I sure feel better being legally armed than not.
47.) Swamp Fox - 06/27/2017
Came here to post this juicy tidbit about genius NY prosecutor and ISIS, but see that the recent Pew poll is relevant here as well.
But more to the point:
[B]Manhattan prosecutor: Gun law reciprocity bill ‘supported, I am sure, by ISIS’[/B]
[QUOTE]The district attorney warned lawmakers that they were "playing into the hand" of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and other terrorists, pointing to ISIS publications describing the ease of buying guns in some American states.
"This bill is supported, I'm sure, by ISIS," Vance said. "ISIS points its readers to America and how they can easily obtain guns by going to states where there are no permitting requirements."
"So ISIS is paying close attention to this bill as well."
...
Vance questioned the logic behind the bill.
"Does anyone really think the gun laws in West Virginia should be the same laws that apply in Washington Heights, Manhattan? Can you imagine how incensed Idaho would be if they had to abide by New York gun laws?" Vance asked.
"It's a dangerous and ill-conceived bill."[/QUOTE]
[I]"Does anyone really think the gun laws in West Virginia should be the same laws that apply in Washington Heights, Manhattan? [/I]---Umm, yeah...:re:...Maybe didn't think this question all the way through. Does anyone think the speech laws in Brooklyn should be the same as in Birmingham, Alabama? Although the way free speech is going, maybe that's not the right question either, LOL
Also, fun fact: My guess is that as a DA, Vance can get a CC permit. Good luck to the poor slob in Washington Heights. Does anyone really think the gun laws that apply to Manhattan politicians should be the same that apply to law-abiding citizens?
[url]http://thehill.com/homenews/news/339320-manhattan-da-gun-law-reciprocity-legislation-supported-i-am-sure-by-isis[/url]
But more to the point:
[B]Manhattan prosecutor: Gun law reciprocity bill ‘supported, I am sure, by ISIS’[/B]
[QUOTE]The district attorney warned lawmakers that they were "playing into the hand" of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and other terrorists, pointing to ISIS publications describing the ease of buying guns in some American states.
"This bill is supported, I'm sure, by ISIS," Vance said. "ISIS points its readers to America and how they can easily obtain guns by going to states where there are no permitting requirements."
"So ISIS is paying close attention to this bill as well."
...
Vance questioned the logic behind the bill.
"Does anyone really think the gun laws in West Virginia should be the same laws that apply in Washington Heights, Manhattan? Can you imagine how incensed Idaho would be if they had to abide by New York gun laws?" Vance asked.
"It's a dangerous and ill-conceived bill."[/QUOTE]
[I]"Does anyone really think the gun laws in West Virginia should be the same laws that apply in Washington Heights, Manhattan? [/I]---Umm, yeah...:re:...Maybe didn't think this question all the way through. Does anyone think the speech laws in Brooklyn should be the same as in Birmingham, Alabama? Although the way free speech is going, maybe that's not the right question either, LOL
Also, fun fact: My guess is that as a DA, Vance can get a CC permit. Good luck to the poor slob in Washington Heights. Does anyone really think the gun laws that apply to Manhattan politicians should be the same that apply to law-abiding citizens?
[url]http://thehill.com/homenews/news/339320-manhattan-da-gun-law-reciprocity-legislation-supported-i-am-sure-by-isis[/url]
48.) Swamp Fox - 06/27/2017
More genius from Vance:
[QUOTE]"I think Congress members have to think long and hard about whether they want to play into the hands of these terrorists," he said. "You could get up in the morning in Manhattan, drive to Vermont, buy loaded weapons and bring them back to New York by dinner." [url]http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/bill-allowing-guns-legal-states-n-y-ripped-da-article-1.3276440?cid=bitly[/url][/QUOTE]
Or, he could take the train to Midtown or Brownsville and be back by lunchtime, if he survives.
Midtown "Most dangerous" neighborhood of NYC (LOL)
[url]https://crimewatchdaily.com/2015/10/26/most-dangerous-neighborhoods-in-nyc/[/url]
Brownsville, Murder Capital of NYC
[url]https://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/crime-safety-report/brooklyn/brownsville[/url]
NYC Crime Map
[url]https://maps.nyc.gov/crime/[/url]
[QUOTE]"I think Congress members have to think long and hard about whether they want to play into the hands of these terrorists," he said. "You could get up in the morning in Manhattan, drive to Vermont, buy loaded weapons and bring them back to New York by dinner." [url]http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/bill-allowing-guns-legal-states-n-y-ripped-da-article-1.3276440?cid=bitly[/url][/QUOTE]
Or, he could take the train to Midtown or Brownsville and be back by lunchtime, if he survives.
Midtown "Most dangerous" neighborhood of NYC (LOL)
[url]https://crimewatchdaily.com/2015/10/26/most-dangerous-neighborhoods-in-nyc/[/url]
Brownsville, Murder Capital of NYC
[url]https://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/crime-safety-report/brooklyn/brownsville[/url]
NYC Crime Map
[url]https://maps.nyc.gov/crime/[/url]
49.) Jon - 06/27/2017
Here's a story of embarrassment for one of our State Senators. This man is a firm supporter of gun rights and NRA member etc. He kept his legally owned and legally carried pistol in his bag but simply forgot to take it out as he travelled......Now he's a felon. Story here:
[url]http://www.delawareonline.com/story/news/crime/2017/06/23/delaware-state-senator-charged-after-gun-found-carry/423488001/[/url]
[url]http://www.delawareonline.com/story/news/crime/2017/06/23/delaware-state-senator-charged-after-gun-found-carry/423488001/[/url]
50.) bluecat - 06/27/2017
[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;49686]Came here to post this juicy tidbit about genius NY prosecutor and ISIS, but see that the recent Pew poll is relevant here as well.
But more to the point:
[B]Manhattan prosecutor: Gun law reciprocity bill ‘supported, I am sure, by ISIS’[/B]
[I]"Does anyone really think the gun laws in West Virginia should be the same laws that apply in Washington Heights, Manhattan? [/I]---Umm, yeah...:re:...Maybe didn't think this question all the way through. Does anyone think the speech laws in Brooklyn should be the same as in Birmingham, Alabama? Although the way free speech is going, maybe that's not the right question either, LOL
Also, fun fact: My guess is that as a DA, Vance can get a CC permit. Good luck to the poor slob in Washington Heights. Does anyone really think the gun laws that apply to Manhattan politicians should be the same that apply to law-abiding citizens?
[url]http://thehill.com/homenews/news/339320-manhattan-da-gun-law-reciprocity-legislation-supported-i-am-sure-by-isis[/url][/QUOTE]
Kind of reminds me of the Obama logic that Gitmo is a recruiting tool for terrorists.
But more to the point:
[B]Manhattan prosecutor: Gun law reciprocity bill ‘supported, I am sure, by ISIS’[/B]
[I]"Does anyone really think the gun laws in West Virginia should be the same laws that apply in Washington Heights, Manhattan? [/I]---Umm, yeah...:re:...Maybe didn't think this question all the way through. Does anyone think the speech laws in Brooklyn should be the same as in Birmingham, Alabama? Although the way free speech is going, maybe that's not the right question either, LOL
Also, fun fact: My guess is that as a DA, Vance can get a CC permit. Good luck to the poor slob in Washington Heights. Does anyone really think the gun laws that apply to Manhattan politicians should be the same that apply to law-abiding citizens?
[url]http://thehill.com/homenews/news/339320-manhattan-da-gun-law-reciprocity-legislation-supported-i-am-sure-by-isis[/url][/QUOTE]
Kind of reminds me of the Obama logic that Gitmo is a recruiting tool for terrorists.
51.) bluecat - 06/27/2017
The other nice thing about buying loaded weapons is that you don't have to load them...
52.) Jon - 06/27/2017
If they stay loaded, that should save allot of cash
53.) Swamp Fox - 06/27/2017
LOL...
I'd pay extra for loaded guns.
I'd pay extra for loaded guns.
54.) DParker - 06/28/2017
[QUOTE=Jon;49691]If they stay loaded, that should save allot of cash[/QUOTE]
I can say the same about myself.
I can say the same about myself.
55.) Swamp Fox - 06/28/2017
:-)
[QUOTE]"You could get up in the morning in Manhattan, drive to Vermont, buy loaded weapons and bring them back to New York by dinner." [url]http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/...6440?cid=bitly[/url][/QUOTE]
It's a feature, not a bug...
[QUOTE]"You could get up in the morning in Manhattan, drive to Vermont, buy loaded weapons and bring them back to New York by dinner." [url]http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/...6440?cid=bitly[/url][/QUOTE]
It's a feature, not a bug...
56.) bluecat - 06/28/2017
[QUOTE]
"You could get up in the morning in Manhattan, drive to Vermont, buy loaded weapons and bring them back to New York by dinner." [url]http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/...6440?cid=bitly[/url][/QUOTE]
Sounds like a fun outing actually.
"You could get up in the morning in Manhattan, drive to Vermont, buy loaded weapons and bring them back to New York by dinner." [url]http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/...6440?cid=bitly[/url][/QUOTE]
Sounds like a fun outing actually.
57.) Swamp Fox - 06/28/2017
Maybe stop somewhere for apple cider, or look at some leaves...Stock up on maple syrup.
58.) bluecat - 06/28/2017
:-) +2
59.) Swamp Fox - 12/12/2017
Pelosi Gets Three Pinocchios for her 4-Pinocchio take on the bill:
[QUOTE]We wavered between Two and Three Pinocchios but ultimately settled on Three because her last line — “the @HouseGOP just voted to do exactly that” — is so over the top and exaggerated. One can have a respectful political debate, raising the issue of a lower common denominator for concealed-weapons permits, without accusing the other side of voting to let violent criminals and stalkers have guns.
[url]https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/12/12/pelosis-claim-the-house-gop-is-inviting-violent-criminals-to-carry-concealed-weapons/?undefined=&utm_term=.95b9e3d96591&wpisrc=nl_politics&wpmm=1[/url][/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]We wavered between Two and Three Pinocchios but ultimately settled on Three because her last line — “the @HouseGOP just voted to do exactly that” — is so over the top and exaggerated. One can have a respectful political debate, raising the issue of a lower common denominator for concealed-weapons permits, without accusing the other side of voting to let violent criminals and stalkers have guns.
[url]https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/12/12/pelosis-claim-the-house-gop-is-inviting-violent-criminals-to-carry-concealed-weapons/?undefined=&utm_term=.95b9e3d96591&wpisrc=nl_politics&wpmm=1[/url][/QUOTE]
60.) Bob Peck - 12/13/2017
[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;53740]Pelosi Gets Three Pinocchios for her 4-Pinocchio take on the bill:[/QUOTE]
It's all about spin. Whether they actually read the bills before they engage their mouths is irrelevant. It's all about putting just the right spin or outright lies on the facts to be "newsworthy" and then putting the content out for consumption.
The vote was close and as usual, along party lines. What a long, long road this bill has still yet to go. I won't hold my breath but I'll be praying some teeny bit of sanity allows this bill to make it into law.
[SIZE=5][B]Here's the link to see how your congressperson voted:[/B][/SIZE]
[url]https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/115-2017/h663[/url]
P.S
I'm ashamed at my home state of NY which is why I'm likely never to return except for vacation, hunting, passing through and family events. I'm proud of my adopted state of VA (11 years here). 7 of the 11 Congressional districts are Republican and damn straight voted "aye" for HR38
It's all about spin. Whether they actually read the bills before they engage their mouths is irrelevant. It's all about putting just the right spin or outright lies on the facts to be "newsworthy" and then putting the content out for consumption.
The vote was close and as usual, along party lines. What a long, long road this bill has still yet to go. I won't hold my breath but I'll be praying some teeny bit of sanity allows this bill to make it into law.
[SIZE=5][B]Here's the link to see how your congressperson voted:[/B][/SIZE]
[url]https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/115-2017/h663[/url]
P.S
I'm ashamed at my home state of NY which is why I'm likely never to return except for vacation, hunting, passing through and family events. I'm proud of my adopted state of VA (11 years here). 7 of the 11 Congressional districts are Republican and damn straight voted "aye" for HR38
61.) Swamp Fox - 12/13/2017
[QUOTE=Bob Peck;53745]It's all about spin. Whether they actually read the bills before they engage their mouths is irrelevant. It's all about putting just the right spin or outright lies on the facts to be "newsworthy" and then putting the content out for consumption.
[/QUOTE]
There's a second option, LOL----
This piece asks the question we've all been wrestling with:
[QUOTE][B][SIZE=3]
Are Gun Control Advocates Liars, Or Just Stupid?[/SIZE]
[/B]
First, Gail, there’s a huge difference between a concealed carry permit and a hunting license. National reciprocity has nothing to do with hunting, and Wisconsin’s decision to eliminate the age for a hunting permit doesn’t mean that small children will be running around the woods unsupervised. In fact, it’s kind of impossible for most kids to go hunting on their own anyway, what with needing a ride to the hunting land in the first place.
But let’s not let facts get in the way of an argument.
[url]https://bearingarms.com/tom-k/2017/11/30/gun-control-advocates-liars-just-stupid/[/url]
[/QUOTE]
:wave:
[/QUOTE]
There's a second option, LOL----
This piece asks the question we've all been wrestling with:
[QUOTE][B][SIZE=3]
Are Gun Control Advocates Liars, Or Just Stupid?[/SIZE]
[/B]
First, Gail, there’s a huge difference between a concealed carry permit and a hunting license. National reciprocity has nothing to do with hunting, and Wisconsin’s decision to eliminate the age for a hunting permit doesn’t mean that small children will be running around the woods unsupervised. In fact, it’s kind of impossible for most kids to go hunting on their own anyway, what with needing a ride to the hunting land in the first place.
But let’s not let facts get in the way of an argument.
[url]https://bearingarms.com/tom-k/2017/11/30/gun-control-advocates-liars-just-stupid/[/url]
[/QUOTE]
:wave:
62.) Swamp Fox - 12/13/2017
63.) DParker - 12/13/2017
[QUOTE=Bob Peck;53745]I'm ashamed at my home state of NY...[/QUOTE]
I'm guessing that's a phrase you get a lot of mileage out of when it comes to political topics.
[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;53746][B][I][SIZE=4]Are Gun Control Advocates Liars, Or Just Stupid?[/SIZE][/I][/B][/QUOTE]
Replace the "Or" with "And" then you'll no longer have a question.
I'm guessing that's a phrase you get a lot of mileage out of when it comes to political topics.
[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;53746][B][I][SIZE=4]Are Gun Control Advocates Liars, Or Just Stupid?[/SIZE][/I][/B][/QUOTE]
Replace the "Or" with "And" then you'll no longer have a question.
64.) Swamp Fox - 12/13/2017
[QUOTE=DParker;53748]
Replace the "Or" with "And" then you'll no longer have a question.[/QUOTE]
Thus the genius of "Which one to eat first?" ---LOL
I haven't blasted off into Lefty Cyberspace on this topic in a few days, so my Prog-o-Meter may not be as finely calibrated as it should be right now. But for the sake of discussion, I'll leave this here, from the fine folks at Giffords:
[QUOTE][B][SIZE=2]Busted! 7 Myths About Concealed Carry, Debunked[/SIZE][/B]
We’re keeping a close eye on one of the gun lobby’s top priorities: passing a federal law that would mandate that each state recognize concealed carry permits from every other state. On the surface, this might sound harmless, but dig a little deeper and it quickly becomes clear that this proposal poses serious threats to public safety in the United States.
It’s important to know that standards for issuing permits to allow people to carry concealed guns in public are dangerously lax in many states. In fact, 12 states don’t even require a permit or firearms safety training of any kind to carry hidden, loaded guns in public. If this bill becomes federal law, almost any person from these states would be automatically allowed to carry concealed guns across state lines — even if they don’t meet the standards of the state they’re visiting, such as having passed a background check.
[...]
Here are 7 myths about concealed carry reciprocity the gun lobby wants you to believe…and the facts that bust them:
MYTH 1: Concealed carry reciprocity will make it easy for people to travel with their permits nationwide, similar to how driver’s licenses work.
[...]
MYTH 2: People with concealed carry permits are law-abiding and highly trained.
[...]
MYTH 3: Laws that make it easier for people to carry concealed guns will reduce crime. Every year, millions of gun owners and concealed carry permit holders use firearms defensively, thwarting crime and attackers.
[...]
MYTH 4: Concealed carry permit holders who are lawfully able to carry in their state are often considered “accidental criminals” just because they are traveling to another state with a concealed firearm.
[...]
MYTH 5: Concealed carry reciprocity would NOT override existing state and local gun laws governing where people can carry.
[...]
MYTH 6: Concealed carry reciprocity doesn’t make it any easier to buy a gun.
[...]
MYTH 7: Law enforcement officers support concealed carry reciprocity.
[...]
[url]https://resistthegunlobby.org/busted-7-myths-about-concealed-carry-debunked-5a3f94b89230[/url]
[/QUOTE]
I hope people make time to read the underlying arguments. They're entertaining!
Use the box below to share your thoughts and feelings!
Replace the "Or" with "And" then you'll no longer have a question.[/QUOTE]
Thus the genius of "Which one to eat first?" ---LOL
I haven't blasted off into Lefty Cyberspace on this topic in a few days, so my Prog-o-Meter may not be as finely calibrated as it should be right now. But for the sake of discussion, I'll leave this here, from the fine folks at Giffords:
[QUOTE][B][SIZE=2]Busted! 7 Myths About Concealed Carry, Debunked[/SIZE][/B]
We’re keeping a close eye on one of the gun lobby’s top priorities: passing a federal law that would mandate that each state recognize concealed carry permits from every other state. On the surface, this might sound harmless, but dig a little deeper and it quickly becomes clear that this proposal poses serious threats to public safety in the United States.
It’s important to know that standards for issuing permits to allow people to carry concealed guns in public are dangerously lax in many states. In fact, 12 states don’t even require a permit or firearms safety training of any kind to carry hidden, loaded guns in public. If this bill becomes federal law, almost any person from these states would be automatically allowed to carry concealed guns across state lines — even if they don’t meet the standards of the state they’re visiting, such as having passed a background check.
[...]
Here are 7 myths about concealed carry reciprocity the gun lobby wants you to believe…and the facts that bust them:
MYTH 1: Concealed carry reciprocity will make it easy for people to travel with their permits nationwide, similar to how driver’s licenses work.
[...]
MYTH 2: People with concealed carry permits are law-abiding and highly trained.
[...]
MYTH 3: Laws that make it easier for people to carry concealed guns will reduce crime. Every year, millions of gun owners and concealed carry permit holders use firearms defensively, thwarting crime and attackers.
[...]
MYTH 4: Concealed carry permit holders who are lawfully able to carry in their state are often considered “accidental criminals” just because they are traveling to another state with a concealed firearm.
[...]
MYTH 5: Concealed carry reciprocity would NOT override existing state and local gun laws governing where people can carry.
[...]
MYTH 6: Concealed carry reciprocity doesn’t make it any easier to buy a gun.
[...]
MYTH 7: Law enforcement officers support concealed carry reciprocity.
[...]
[url]https://resistthegunlobby.org/busted-7-myths-about-concealed-carry-debunked-5a3f94b89230[/url]
[/QUOTE]
I hope people make time to read the underlying arguments. They're entertaining!
Use the box below to share your thoughts and feelings!
65.) Swamp Fox - 12/14/2017
Okay, I'll go first--LOL--and start with one item in Giffords' attempt to rebut "Myth" #1:
[QUOTE]In order to verify the authenticity and validity of a [concealed carry]permit, law enforcement would have to contact the issuing agency in the permit holder’s state because no national database — and sometimes no statewide database — containing concealed carry permit information exists.[/QUOTE]
There are a few states with unrestricted concealed carry, and I'm sure some of those keep some records and some don't keep any. (If anyone has a source for that kind of record-keeping info, I'd appreciate it.) Is there any state, though, that is unwilling or claiming to be unable to issue a permit or keep a record for residents who want one for purposes of traveling out of state?
I think Vermont residents have to find a work-around like a non-resident permit from elsewhere, but I don't know if Vermont is adamant about not issuing permits in the future as pressure for uniform reciprocity increases. Does anyone have a sense of the direction Vermont is moving? What about other states?
[QUOTE]In order to verify the authenticity and validity of a [concealed carry]permit, law enforcement would have to contact the issuing agency in the permit holder’s state because no national database — and sometimes no statewide database — containing concealed carry permit information exists.[/QUOTE]
There are a few states with unrestricted concealed carry, and I'm sure some of those keep some records and some don't keep any. (If anyone has a source for that kind of record-keeping info, I'd appreciate it.) Is there any state, though, that is unwilling or claiming to be unable to issue a permit or keep a record for residents who want one for purposes of traveling out of state?
I think Vermont residents have to find a work-around like a non-resident permit from elsewhere, but I don't know if Vermont is adamant about not issuing permits in the future as pressure for uniform reciprocity increases. Does anyone have a sense of the direction Vermont is moving? What about other states?
66.) bluecat - 12/14/2017
I know I looked at this and my brain was starting to hurt. I hope to dig in when I'm a little more attentive.
67.) Swamp Fox - 12/14/2017
In reply, I thought about posting a link to a short article which explains that the idea that humans have attention spans shorter than a goldfish is a myth, but I didn't think anyone would read it. :wink
68.) Swamp Fox - 12/14/2017
People complain that the new 280-character Twitter is too much ... LOL
I, for one, welcome our new digital overlords.
:wave:
I, for one, welcome our new digital overlords.
:wave:
69.) Swamp Fox - 12/14/2017
Just because I no Luv2 is going to ask when he returns to the forum for two weeks after Christmas: I ask such questions as above on a tiny forum in hopes that a passing Googler will see it.
It's kinda like sitting on the beach of a deserted island with one coconut tree and a dog. You know the dog isn't gonna answer, but you keep talking to it anyway, and keep an eye out for distant ships.
It's kinda like sitting on the beach of a deserted island with one coconut tree and a dog. You know the dog isn't gonna answer, but you keep talking to it anyway, and keep an eye out for distant ships.
70.) Swamp Fox - 12/14/2017
This is Burlington, Vt. Police Chief Brandon del Pozo on his opposition to reciprocity:
[QUOTE]"It's gonna make this place a destination for criminals who get our ID cards, go back home and end up doing things like shooting at cops and citizens just because they've got two pieces of mail in Vermont and federal law has empowered them to do that," said del Pozo.
[url]http://www.mychamplainvalley.com/news/burlington-police-chief-says-concealed-carry-reciprocity-act-not-sensible/871323830[/url][/QUOTE]
First of all, what ID card is he talking about? I know Vermont doesn't issue a CC permit, but do they issue some other form of handgun ID? I don't think so, but I'm asking.
Also, somebody really ought to look into federal law and maybe the Post Office in Vermont, because obviously if there's mail like that going out, that would be problematic.
[QUOTE]"It's gonna make this place a destination for criminals who get our ID cards, go back home and end up doing things like shooting at cops and citizens just because they've got two pieces of mail in Vermont and federal law has empowered them to do that," said del Pozo.
[url]http://www.mychamplainvalley.com/news/burlington-police-chief-says-concealed-carry-reciprocity-act-not-sensible/871323830[/url][/QUOTE]
First of all, what ID card is he talking about? I know Vermont doesn't issue a CC permit, but do they issue some other form of handgun ID? I don't think so, but I'm asking.
Also, somebody really ought to look into federal law and maybe the Post Office in Vermont, because obviously if there's mail like that going out, that would be problematic.
71.) DParker - 12/14/2017
[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;53752]In reply, I thought about posting a link to a short article which explains that the idea that humans have attention spans shorter than a goldfish is a myth, but I didn't think anyone would read it. :wink[/QUOTE]
TL;DR
TL;DR
72.) DParker - 12/14/2017
[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;53755]This is Burlington, Vt. Police Chief Brandon del Pozo on his opposition to reciprocity:
First of all, what ID card is he talking about? I know Vermont doesn't issue a CC permit, but do they issue some other form of handgun ID? I don't think so, but I'm asking.
Also, somebody really ought to look into federal law and maybe the Post Office in Vermont, because obviously if there's mail like that going out, that would be problematic.[/QUOTE]
"Chief del Pozo says he feels passionate about this..."
Sorry, Chief Bozo, but ignorance-based feelings and passion are piss-poor substitutes for topical knowledge and the application of reason.
First of all, what ID card is he talking about? I know Vermont doesn't issue a CC permit, but do they issue some other form of handgun ID? I don't think so, but I'm asking.
Also, somebody really ought to look into federal law and maybe the Post Office in Vermont, because obviously if there's mail like that going out, that would be problematic.[/QUOTE]
"Chief del Pozo says he feels passionate about this..."
Sorry, Chief Bozo, but ignorance-based feelings and passion are piss-poor substitutes for topical knowledge and the application of reason.
73.) Swamp Fox - 12/14/2017
He's a Dartmouth grad, ex-NYPD and has at least three masters degrees ... So you know he's worth listening to ....LOL
74.) DParker - 12/14/2017
[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;53763]He's a Dartmouth grad, ex-NYPD and has at least three masters degrees ...[/QUOTE]
So then he has no excuse for his stupidity....except for maybe the NYPD experience.
So then he has no excuse for his stupidity....except for maybe the NYPD experience.
75.) Swamp Fox - 12/14/2017
It's just a matter whether you have three strikes against you or you're some type of human miracle to not become a full-fledged central planner with a resume like that, LOL.
76.) Bob Peck - 12/14/2017
[I]"The State neither issues nor requires a permit to carry a weapon on one's person, openly or concealed. This permissive stance on gun control is known in the U.S. as constitutional carry, since one's "permit" is said to be the United States Constitution. Vermont is the only state where this has always been the case (hence the alternative term Vermont carry). Vermont law does not distinguish between residents and non-residents of the state; both have the same right to carry permit-free while in Vermont."
[/I]
[/I]
77.) Swamp Fox - 12/14/2017
So, still no evidence of any Vt. firearms documents, even "by request"?...
What ID is the police chief talking about? Is he talking about someone fraudulently obtaining Vt. residency documents and then leveraging that into "valid" reciprocity out of state? (And by "valid" I mean invalid.) Because that's what it seems like.
That appears to be a problem with Vermont government, not national reciprocity, Chief.
What ID is the police chief talking about? Is he talking about someone fraudulently obtaining Vt. residency documents and then leveraging that into "valid" reciprocity out of state? (And by "valid" I mean invalid.) Because that's what it seems like.
That appears to be a problem with Vermont government, not national reciprocity, Chief.
78.) Swamp Fox - 12/14/2017
I could see why the Vermont Secretary of State or whoever might not want to have to try to fix that, but I'm not sure what business it is of a local police chief.
79.) Bob Peck - 12/14/2017
He clearly:
[B]a.[/B] doesn't understand the proposed legislation
[B]b.[/B] isn't making sense [B]
c.[/B] incorrectly is drawing a parallel between Vermont's liberal gun laws being similar/identical to what H.R.38 would allow
If a Vermont gun holder travels to another state, the Vermont gun holder (concealed or open carry) may be unable to abide by H.R.38 because no permit is required in Vermont. The investigating officer would have to verify the person they stopped is a Vermont resident (presumably a driver's license?) and somehow KNOW Vermont has no requirement for a CC permit for residents or non-residents as Vermont state law doesn't distinguish between residents and non-residents.
del Pozo was in Washington earlier this week to voice his opposition.
"If it were to become a law, it would impose Vermont's gun laws on every other city in the country, every other state in the country. That's just not, that's not sensible," said del Pozo."
The bill forces states to honor conceal carry permits from other states. However, the permitting process varies across the country.
"Every place has their right to set their local laws. We've decided what laws work for us. We've decided we're gonna have very little gun regulation. That's fine for Vermont," said del Pozo.
H.R.38 says in part:
"... a person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, who is carrying a valid identification document containing a photograph of the person, and who is carrying a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of a State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm or is entitled to carry a concealed firearm in the State in which the person resides, may possess or carry a concealed handgun (other than a machinegun or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, in any State that—
“(1) has a statute under which residents of the State may apply for a license or permit to carry a concealed firearm; or
“(2) does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms by residents of the State for lawful purposes.
[B]a.[/B] doesn't understand the proposed legislation
[B]b.[/B] isn't making sense [B]
c.[/B] incorrectly is drawing a parallel between Vermont's liberal gun laws being similar/identical to what H.R.38 would allow
If a Vermont gun holder travels to another state, the Vermont gun holder (concealed or open carry) may be unable to abide by H.R.38 because no permit is required in Vermont. The investigating officer would have to verify the person they stopped is a Vermont resident (presumably a driver's license?) and somehow KNOW Vermont has no requirement for a CC permit for residents or non-residents as Vermont state law doesn't distinguish between residents and non-residents.
del Pozo was in Washington earlier this week to voice his opposition.
"If it were to become a law, it would impose Vermont's gun laws on every other city in the country, every other state in the country. That's just not, that's not sensible," said del Pozo."
The bill forces states to honor conceal carry permits from other states. However, the permitting process varies across the country.
"Every place has their right to set their local laws. We've decided what laws work for us. We've decided we're gonna have very little gun regulation. That's fine for Vermont," said del Pozo.
H.R.38 says in part:
"... a person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, who is carrying a valid identification document containing a photograph of the person, and who is carrying a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of a State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm or is entitled to carry a concealed firearm in the State in which the person resides, may possess or carry a concealed handgun (other than a machinegun or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, in any State that—
“(1) has a statute under which residents of the State may apply for a license or permit to carry a concealed firearm; or
“(2) does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms by residents of the State for lawful purposes.
80.) Bob Peck - 12/14/2017
In the context of everything he is quoted as having said:
[I]"It's gonna make this place a destination for criminals who get our ID cards, go back home and end up doing things like shooting at cops and citizens just because they've got two pieces of mail in Vermont and federal law has empowered them to do that,"[/I]
Translation:
Perps or citizens looking for a way to circumvent H.R.38 are going to fake residency in Vermont (i.e. "they've got two pieces of mail in Vermont") where there is no law requiring a CCP and there is no restriction on open or CC and be able to travel anywhere in the U.S with their "fake" Vermont residency proof. If they get stopped or questioned or investigated the perp or citizen will just say "Hey, I live in Vermont."
By using the words "...this place" it is my belief he means the U.S.A [B]*not* [/B]Vermont where anyone can already own a handgun and CC or open carry. Not clear by any means but .... there's my .02 cents.
[I]"It's gonna make this place a destination for criminals who get our ID cards, go back home and end up doing things like shooting at cops and citizens just because they've got two pieces of mail in Vermont and federal law has empowered them to do that,"[/I]
Translation:
Perps or citizens looking for a way to circumvent H.R.38 are going to fake residency in Vermont (i.e. "they've got two pieces of mail in Vermont") where there is no law requiring a CCP and there is no restriction on open or CC and be able to travel anywhere in the U.S with their "fake" Vermont residency proof. If they get stopped or questioned or investigated the perp or citizen will just say "Hey, I live in Vermont."
By using the words "...this place" it is my belief he means the U.S.A [B]*not* [/B]Vermont where anyone can already own a handgun and CC or open carry. Not clear by any means but .... there's my .02 cents.
81.) Swamp Fox - 12/14/2017
Yeah. I originally read "this place" as meaning Vermont, but I see where you're coming from. As you say, not very coherent, and the new read doesn't make it any better, LOL
[QUOTE=Bob Peck;53780]
If a Vermont gun holder travels to another state, the Vermont gun holder (concealed or open carry) may be unable to abide by H.R.38 because no permit is required in Vermont. The investigating officer would have to verify the person they stopped is a Vermont resident (presumably a driver's license?) and somehow KNOW Vermont has no requirement for a CC permit for residents or non-residents as Vermont state law doesn't distinguish between residents and non-residents.
[/QUOTE]
I'm always in favor of law enforcement knowing the laws when they stop someone.
This is why Vermonters go out and get non-resident CC permits, I guess. Those permits would be recognized in something like 20+ states, if I'm not badly mistaken, even though you have have no Vermont papers to show. :fire:
I would guess that somebody in Vermont is pushing for some "by request" documentation to be made available to avoid the problem. If anyone knows of such, let me know.
Moving on, if we want, is anyone aware of any other documentation issues in any other unrestricted carry states?
[QUOTE=Bob Peck;53780]
If a Vermont gun holder travels to another state, the Vermont gun holder (concealed or open carry) may be unable to abide by H.R.38 because no permit is required in Vermont. The investigating officer would have to verify the person they stopped is a Vermont resident (presumably a driver's license?) and somehow KNOW Vermont has no requirement for a CC permit for residents or non-residents as Vermont state law doesn't distinguish between residents and non-residents.
[/QUOTE]
I'm always in favor of law enforcement knowing the laws when they stop someone.
This is why Vermonters go out and get non-resident CC permits, I guess. Those permits would be recognized in something like 20+ states, if I'm not badly mistaken, even though you have have no Vermont papers to show. :fire:
I would guess that somebody in Vermont is pushing for some "by request" documentation to be made available to avoid the problem. If anyone knows of such, let me know.
Moving on, if we want, is anyone aware of any other documentation issues in any other unrestricted carry states?
82.) Bob Peck - 12/14/2017
[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;53783]I'm always in favor of law enforcement knowing the laws when they stop someone. [/QUOTE]
Of course. Who wouldn't want law enforcement knowing the laws?! Especially the laws in the states in which they serve. Having said that it's not reasonable for anyone to know the mix-n-match gun laws in all 50 states. Until several months ago I didn't know the difference between Shall-Issue, May-Issue, No-Issue and Unrestricted States.
[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;53783]I would guess that somebody in Vermont is pushing for some "by request" documentation to be made available to avoid the problem. If anyone knows of such, let me know. [/QUOTE]
They'll likely go the "Shall Issue" *and* "Unrestricted" route. Alaska, Arizona and Vermont are the only states in the union to allow the general public to carry concealed, without need of license or permit. Alaska and Arizona are simultaneously unrestricted, and "shall issue." They will issue permits so that their residents can legally carry in states that recognize permits from Alaska and Arizona.
[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;53783]Moving on, if we want, is anyone aware of any other documentation issues in any other unrestricted carry states?[/QUOTE]
Since there's only three unrestricted states, Vermont stands alone in needing to come up with a documentation solution for H.R.38
Of course. Who wouldn't want law enforcement knowing the laws?! Especially the laws in the states in which they serve. Having said that it's not reasonable for anyone to know the mix-n-match gun laws in all 50 states. Until several months ago I didn't know the difference between Shall-Issue, May-Issue, No-Issue and Unrestricted States.
[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;53783]I would guess that somebody in Vermont is pushing for some "by request" documentation to be made available to avoid the problem. If anyone knows of such, let me know. [/QUOTE]
They'll likely go the "Shall Issue" *and* "Unrestricted" route. Alaska, Arizona and Vermont are the only states in the union to allow the general public to carry concealed, without need of license or permit. Alaska and Arizona are simultaneously unrestricted, and "shall issue." They will issue permits so that their residents can legally carry in states that recognize permits from Alaska and Arizona.
[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;53783]Moving on, if we want, is anyone aware of any other documentation issues in any other unrestricted carry states?[/QUOTE]
Since there's only three unrestricted states, Vermont stands alone in needing to come up with a documentation solution for H.R.38
83.) Swamp Fox - 12/14/2017
If you go with a fairly liberal definition of what "unrestricted" means, there are some more states in the mix. Sorry to use Wiki, but I can't find another place where everything's aggregated.
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry_in_the_United_States[/url]
But since you're saying that Vermont's the only state with the documentation problem, I'm gonna run with that. I haven't found anything to contradict, and that was my understanding in the past, but since the fine folks at Giffords wanted to make a big fuss about it, I thought I would inventory my ammunition.
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry_in_the_United_States[/url]
But since you're saying that Vermont's the only state with the documentation problem, I'm gonna run with that. I haven't found anything to contradict, and that was my understanding in the past, but since the fine folks at Giffords wanted to make a big fuss about it, I thought I would inventory my ammunition.
84.) Bob Peck - 12/14/2017
[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;53785]If you go with a fairly liberal definition of what "unrestricted" means, there are some more states in the mix. [/QUOTE]
You're right. I forgot Wyoming. It's an unrestricted state.
IMO, There's are no definition to interpret or debate especially in courts of law unless of course you want to have the last word in which case, go for it.
Here are the definitions according to the National Carry Academy with similar definitions on USACarry.com:
Unrestricted
This means that a permit is not required to carry a concealed handgun. Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Vermont and Wyoming allow residents to carry a concealed firearm without a permit.
Shall-Issue
The state must issue a permit to those applicants that meet the requirements, but there is no need for the applicant to demonstrate “ justifiable reason to carry a gun”. Requirements may include things like residency, fingerprinting, background check, taking a handgun safety class, and the like. Some states fall into more than one category. Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming are shall-issue states.
May-Issue
A permit is required to carry, and those permits are granted partially at the discretion of local authorities. In this case, criteria have to be met, and the applicant typically must have “justifiable reason to carry a gun”. May-issue states include: California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, DC (as of Oct 2017) and Rhode Island.
No-Issue
These are jurisdictions where with few exceptions private citizens are not allowed to carry concealed hand-guns in public. No permits are issued or recognized. While technically May-Issue under state law, Hawaii, Maryland, New Jersey, and certain cities and counties within California and New York are No-Issue jurisdictions.
You're right. I forgot Wyoming. It's an unrestricted state.
IMO, There's are no definition to interpret or debate especially in courts of law unless of course you want to have the last word in which case, go for it.
Here are the definitions according to the National Carry Academy with similar definitions on USACarry.com:
Unrestricted
This means that a permit is not required to carry a concealed handgun. Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Vermont and Wyoming allow residents to carry a concealed firearm without a permit.
Shall-Issue
The state must issue a permit to those applicants that meet the requirements, but there is no need for the applicant to demonstrate “ justifiable reason to carry a gun”. Requirements may include things like residency, fingerprinting, background check, taking a handgun safety class, and the like. Some states fall into more than one category. Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming are shall-issue states.
May-Issue
A permit is required to carry, and those permits are granted partially at the discretion of local authorities. In this case, criteria have to be met, and the applicant typically must have “justifiable reason to carry a gun”. May-issue states include: California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, DC (as of Oct 2017) and Rhode Island.
No-Issue
These are jurisdictions where with few exceptions private citizens are not allowed to carry concealed hand-guns in public. No permits are issued or recognized. While technically May-Issue under state law, Hawaii, Maryland, New Jersey, and certain cities and counties within California and New York are No-Issue jurisdictions.
85.) DParker - 12/15/2017
[QUOTE=Bob Peck;53788]You're right. I forgot Wyoming.[/QUOTE]
Also...
[LIST]
[*]Arkansas (though there is some dispute regarding statutory interpretation, so one could make an argument for not including Arkansas)
[*]Idaho (residents only)
[*]Kansas
[*]Maine
[*]Mississippi
[*]Missouri
[*]New Hampshire
[*]North Dakota (residents only)
[*]West Virginia.
[/LIST]
Things have changed on this front pretty rapidly in the past few years.
[URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_carry#/media/File:Rtc.gif"]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_carry#/media/File:Rtc.gif[/URL]
Also...
[LIST]
[*]Arkansas (though there is some dispute regarding statutory interpretation, so one could make an argument for not including Arkansas)
[*]Idaho (residents only)
[*]Kansas
[*]Maine
[*]Mississippi
[*]Missouri
[*]New Hampshire
[*]North Dakota (residents only)
[*]West Virginia.
[/LIST]
Things have changed on this front pretty rapidly in the past few years.
[URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_carry#/media/File:Rtc.gif"]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_carry#/media/File:Rtc.gif[/URL]
86.) Swamp Fox - 12/15/2017
[QUOTE=DParker;53789]Also...
[...]
Things have changed on this front pretty rapidly in the past few years.
[/QUOTE]
Yes. That's what I was getting at. A lot of web pages aren't accurate anymore, forget about comprehensive. Some will even tell you up front they're out of the updating business, LOL.
My Wiki link above lists two additional states, compared to the other Wiki page, LOL: Oklahoma and Montana.
So that page tallies 15, including Arkansas, without defining "unrestricted" absolutely literally, as I noted above (i.e., essentially meaning "no permit required" at least in very common situations).
[...]
Things have changed on this front pretty rapidly in the past few years.
[/QUOTE]
Yes. That's what I was getting at. A lot of web pages aren't accurate anymore, forget about comprehensive. Some will even tell you up front they're out of the updating business, LOL.
My Wiki link above lists two additional states, compared to the other Wiki page, LOL: Oklahoma and Montana.
So that page tallies 15, including Arkansas, without defining "unrestricted" absolutely literally, as I noted above (i.e., essentially meaning "no permit required" at least in very common situations).
87.) Swamp Fox - 12/15/2017
Hey, DP, your wiki link in # 85 goes here:
[url]http://www.gun-nuttery.com/rtc.php[/url]
LOL
Try it. Maybe it's just me. LOL
[url]http://www.gun-nuttery.com/rtc.php[/url]
LOL
Try it. Maybe it's just me. LOL
88.) Swamp Fox - 12/15/2017
Okay, now I see that I THOUGHT it was a Wiki link, but really isn't.
"I'm so confused."
:p
"I'm so confused."
:p
89.) Swamp Fox - 12/15/2017
90.) Swamp Fox - 12/15/2017
From this different Wiki link, add New Mexico as "possibly kinda-sorta unrestricted" if you want to play with loaded vs unloaded and on foot vs. in a vehicle.
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_carry[/url]
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_carry[/url]
91.) Swamp Fox - 12/15/2017
Okay, so my request for a heads-up on any other CC record-keeping issues besides Vermont's still stands, but in the meantime let me move on another part of Giffords' Myth Buster #1, which is the question of a lack of uniform CC training requirements among states.
I wondered what training requirements would satisfy Giffords, so I tried to find something from them about it. I was unsuccessful. In fact, I couldn't find any proposed training plan from any group, but maybe I missed something.
What training requirements would make anti-reciprocity people happy, whether they're official demands from groups or just points you've heard being made by individuals?
I wondered what training requirements would satisfy Giffords, so I tried to find something from them about it. I was unsuccessful. In fact, I couldn't find any proposed training plan from any group, but maybe I missed something.
What training requirements would make anti-reciprocity people happy, whether they're official demands from groups or just points you've heard being made by individuals?
92.) bluecat - 12/15/2017
[QUOTE=DParker;53760]"Chief del Pozo says he feels passionate about this..."
Sorry, Chief Bozo, but ignorance-based feelings and passion are piss-poor substitutes for topical knowledge and the application of reason.[/QUOTE]
+3 and -1 for making me look up TL;DR
Sorry, Chief Bozo, but ignorance-based feelings and passion are piss-poor substitutes for topical knowledge and the application of reason.[/QUOTE]
+3 and -1 for making me look up TL;DR
93.) Jon - 12/15/2017
Strangely enough, the discussion at hand pertaining to concealed carry gets muddled due to certain states that are MAY ISSUE but allow open carry without restriction. I live in one of those states.
Residents can open carry but need a CCW to conceal. strange but true laws
Residents can open carry but need a CCW to conceal. strange but true laws
94.) Swamp Fox - 12/15/2017
Yes, that's one thing that chaps my butt. Once upon a time, if you hid your arms you were of suspect character.
I guess if you're a bad hombre up to no good and want to carry a gun, it would be better to get the paperwork done and the references checked and the training certified, so you'd have the option of concealed OR open carry.
Who doesn't like options?
I guess if you're a bad hombre up to no good and want to carry a gun, it would be better to get the paperwork done and the references checked and the training certified, so you'd have the option of concealed OR open carry.
Who doesn't like options?
95.) Swamp Fox - 12/15/2017
I'm going to give the internet about an hour more to find all these training proposals from anti-reciprocity folks and then we'll more on to the next topic. Hopefullly Chuck Schumer or Diane Feinstein are reading, because they can tell us whether their own training for CC permits was adequate or should we be doing something different.
I wouldn't want something like a minor disagreement on a training requirement keep us from moving forward on this issue.
I wouldn't want something like a minor disagreement on a training requirement keep us from moving forward on this issue.
96.) Swamp Fox - 12/15/2017
[QUOTE=bluecat;53796]+3 and -1 for making me look up TL;DR[/QUOTE]
So then my reference to TS;DR probably REALLY threw you, LOL.
I only learned about TL; DR about a month ago. ---Those cray kids! (Too lazy to type "z".)
So then my reference to TS;DR probably REALLY threw you, LOL.
I only learned about TL; DR about a month ago. ---Those cray kids! (Too lazy to type "z".)
97.) bluecat - 12/15/2017
[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;53800]So then my reference to TS;DR probably REALLY threw you, LOL.
I only learned about TL; DR about a month ago. ---Those cray kids![/QUOTE]
I missed that. Where did you reference that?
I only learned about TL; DR about a month ago. ---Those cray kids![/QUOTE]
I missed that. Where did you reference that?
98.) Swamp Fox - 12/15/2017
[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;53799]
I wouldn't want something like a minor disagreement on a training requirement keep us from moving forward on this issue.[/QUOTE]
Speaking of moving forward, you can now probably get permission to own a suppressor faster than it takes to bring a baby to term and deliver it to the world, with about 30 days to spare. That's progress.
If you add the time it might take to convince another person to breed with you, things are pretty even between getting government approval for a gun part, and creating human life.
So what could go wrong with a federally-approved training program?
I wouldn't want something like a minor disagreement on a training requirement keep us from moving forward on this issue.[/QUOTE]
Speaking of moving forward, you can now probably get permission to own a suppressor faster than it takes to bring a baby to term and deliver it to the world, with about 30 days to spare. That's progress.
If you add the time it might take to convince another person to breed with you, things are pretty even between getting government approval for a gun part, and creating human life.
So what could go wrong with a federally-approved training program?
99.) Swamp Fox - 12/15/2017
[QUOTE=bluecat;53801]I missed that. Where did you reference that?[/QUOTE]
Might have been this thread, or one of the newsy ones. Trump's Diet Cokes? I said I saw an article on it but that I didn't read it.
"Too stupid; didn't read? TS; DR (?) ...Could that become a thing?" I asked.
I didn't get an answer from the judges, so I haven't implemented it yet. But I have an itchy typing finger, and one of these unlicensed keyboards.
:beer:
Might have been this thread, or one of the newsy ones. Trump's Diet Cokes? I said I saw an article on it but that I didn't read it.
"Too stupid; didn't read? TS; DR (?) ...Could that become a thing?" I asked.
I didn't get an answer from the judges, so I haven't implemented it yet. But I have an itchy typing finger, and one of these unlicensed keyboards.
:beer:
100.) bluecat - 12/15/2017
Gotcha, +2 for putting the definition next to acronym.
It's hard to read some forums (gun forums) where a lot of abbreviations and acronyms are used.
BTF (brass to face) :co:
p.s. Did I sound smarter? Don't answer that.
It's hard to read some forums (gun forums) where a lot of abbreviations and acronyms are used.
BTF (brass to face) :co:
p.s. Did I sound smarter? Don't answer that.
101.) Swamp Fox - 12/15/2017
LOL ...I was on "another archery forum" the other day and somebody had to explain that "FB" meant Facebook and "XX" meant the guy they were discussing (whose initials are XX, LOL). I thought that was a little overboard, but other much less obvious initials were flying around as well, so ...
What I can't stand is when forum members use another poster's real name instead of his handle. How am I supposed to know who "Jim" is? Is he Grizlyluvr48, or Whackmaster69? And why is "that A-hole who we all know who he is" talking bad about him on AFF?
He might build the darn-tootenist LRR north south east AAAaaandD west of the Pecos (!) but if I can't tell if I like how he measures HS or polishes his TG from reading his posts, I won't be able to stop by his shop next time I'm in the Big A.
Know what I mean, Vern?
What I can't stand is when forum members use another poster's real name instead of his handle. How am I supposed to know who "Jim" is? Is he Grizlyluvr48, or Whackmaster69? And why is "that A-hole who we all know who he is" talking bad about him on AFF?
He might build the darn-tootenist LRR north south east AAAaaandD west of the Pecos (!) but if I can't tell if I like how he measures HS or polishes his TG from reading his posts, I won't be able to stop by his shop next time I'm in the Big A.
Know what I mean, Vern?
102.) Swamp Fox - 12/15/2017
Okay, maybe those training proposals will turn up later. Unless somebody beats me to it, I'll see if I can prioritize an email to Giffords, Schumer and Feinstein asking if they know where we can find some.
So on to Myth #3, which is:
[QUOTE]Laws that make it easier for people to carry concealed guns will reduce crime. Every year, millions of gun owners and concealed carry permit holders use firearms defensively, thwarting crime and attackers.[/QUOTE]
In busting this myth, Giffords helpfully points out that various studies may not agree. Strangely, however, Giffords does not address the concept that *your* gun may not participate in a study when it comes time to use it. In addition, the idea that "permissive concealed carry laws may actually increase the frequency of some type of crime, such as assault" is just laughable, but maybe Giffords was just having a bad day when they highlighted that.
Let's sit down with some different studies and hash this all out. We'll get the Giffords studies and the studies that indicate something different from the Giffords studies and we'll figure this out together. With the right statistics and some central planning, all things are possible. Also, we're confident that Giffords won't find correlations or infer causations or draw conclusions that aren't justified, because they never do that. I mean, the evidence is right there in their argument:
[QUOTE]MYTH BUSTED!
There is no credible statistical evidence that shows that weak concealed carry laws reduce crime. In fact, the evidence suggests that permissive concealed carry laws may actually increase the frequency of some types of crime, such as assault. One recent study found that states that award concealed carry permits to anyone who meets minimum standards experience 13 to 15 percent more violent crime than states with stronger laws. Overall, research confirms the commonsense conclusion that more guns create more opportunities for injury and death, not fewer.
Claims that firearms are used defensively millions time every year have also been widely discredited. Even when a firearm is used in self-defense, which is rare, research shows that a firearm is no more likely to reduce a person’s chance of being injured during a crime than other various forms of protection. One study suggests that carrying a firearm may actually increase a victim’s risk of firearm injury during the commission of a crime.
Few Americans believe the U.S. would be safer if more people carried guns. Just 35 percent of voters surveyed by a June 2017 Quinnipiac Poll believe that the country would be a safer place to live if more people carried guns.
[/QUOTE]
So on to Myth #3, which is:
[QUOTE]Laws that make it easier for people to carry concealed guns will reduce crime. Every year, millions of gun owners and concealed carry permit holders use firearms defensively, thwarting crime and attackers.[/QUOTE]
In busting this myth, Giffords helpfully points out that various studies may not agree. Strangely, however, Giffords does not address the concept that *your* gun may not participate in a study when it comes time to use it. In addition, the idea that "permissive concealed carry laws may actually increase the frequency of some type of crime, such as assault" is just laughable, but maybe Giffords was just having a bad day when they highlighted that.
Let's sit down with some different studies and hash this all out. We'll get the Giffords studies and the studies that indicate something different from the Giffords studies and we'll figure this out together. With the right statistics and some central planning, all things are possible. Also, we're confident that Giffords won't find correlations or infer causations or draw conclusions that aren't justified, because they never do that. I mean, the evidence is right there in their argument:
[QUOTE]MYTH BUSTED!
There is no credible statistical evidence that shows that weak concealed carry laws reduce crime. In fact, the evidence suggests that permissive concealed carry laws may actually increase the frequency of some types of crime, such as assault. One recent study found that states that award concealed carry permits to anyone who meets minimum standards experience 13 to 15 percent more violent crime than states with stronger laws. Overall, research confirms the commonsense conclusion that more guns create more opportunities for injury and death, not fewer.
Claims that firearms are used defensively millions time every year have also been widely discredited. Even when a firearm is used in self-defense, which is rare, research shows that a firearm is no more likely to reduce a person’s chance of being injured during a crime than other various forms of protection. One study suggests that carrying a firearm may actually increase a victim’s risk of firearm injury during the commission of a crime.
Few Americans believe the U.S. would be safer if more people carried guns. Just 35 percent of voters surveyed by a June 2017 Quinnipiac Poll believe that the country would be a safer place to live if more people carried guns.
[/QUOTE]
103.) Swamp Fox - 12/15/2017
Use the box below to discuss Myth Buster #3, or post your own studies ...
104.) Swamp Fox - 12/16/2017
[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;53805]LOL ...I was on "another archery forum" the other day and somebody had to explain that "FB" meant Facebook and "XX" meant the guy they were discussing (whose initials are XX, LOL). I thought that was a little overboard, but other much less obvious initials were flying around as well, so ...
What I can't stand is when forum members use another poster's real name instead of his handle. How am I supposed to know who "Jim" is? Is he Grizlyluvr48, or Whackmaster69? And why is "that A-hole who we all know who he is" talking bad about him on AFF?
He might build the darn-tootenist LRR north south east AAAaaandD west of the Pecos (!) but if I can't tell if I like how he measures HS or polishes his TG from reading his posts, I wouldn't be able to stop by his shop next time I'm in the Big A.
Know what I mean, Vern?[/QUOTE]
....
What I can't stand is when forum members use another poster's real name instead of his handle. How am I supposed to know who "Jim" is? Is he Grizlyluvr48, or Whackmaster69? And why is "that A-hole who we all know who he is" talking bad about him on AFF?
He might build the darn-tootenist LRR north south east AAAaaandD west of the Pecos (!) but if I can't tell if I like how he measures HS or polishes his TG from reading his posts, I wouldn't be able to stop by his shop next time I'm in the Big A.
Know what I mean, Vern?[/QUOTE]
....
105.) Swamp Fox - 04/21/2018
I want to point out to/remind everyone that this sentiment belongs to a large subset of the group of whiners who need fainting couches over concealed carry, open carry and reciprocity.
[QUOTE]“[B]If I made him uncomfortable at his house, too bad, he deserves it[/B],” [Catherine] Koebel said in an interview. “I felt unsafe in my home because of his product.”…
[/QUOTE]
I doubt she knows how stupid she sounds with that coming out of her mouth.
[url]https://hotair.com/archives/2018/04/20/far-left-protesters-target-nra-lobbyists-home/[/url]
[QUOTE]“[B]If I made him uncomfortable at his house, too bad, he deserves it[/B],” [Catherine] Koebel said in an interview. “I felt unsafe in my home because of his product.”…
[/QUOTE]
I doubt she knows how stupid she sounds with that coming out of her mouth.
[url]https://hotair.com/archives/2018/04/20/far-left-protesters-target-nra-lobbyists-home/[/url]