Glock Forum - GlockTalk banner
1 - 20 of 28 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
214 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Usually called Constitutional Carry, only Wyoming requires non residents to have a permit to carry concealed. OC is OK In WY for all non prohibited persons.

In the other 3 states, Alaska,Arizona and Vermont, anyone of age,not a prohibited person (felon/mental,etc.), can legally carry a firearm without a permit. That person can be foreign or domestic. Vermont's permitless method goes back to at least 1902.

However,VT has no reciprocity with any other state.Vermonters can get Florida or Utah non-res permits to help overcome that difficulty and get them 34 or 35 states.

Some folks feel permits should be required shall issue wise, for purposes of training,background checks,etc. Others feel there should be no infringements.

Poll wise it would read somewhere along these lines:
1. Yes,this is the way all 50 states should operate.
2.No,all 50 states should require a permit on a shall issue basis.
3.Undecided.

Your thoughts,GT?

All comments will be appreciated.
 

·
Stop the steal!
Joined
·
18,573 Posts
:thumbsup::thumbsup:

If a person can legally buy a gun, then what purpose does a permit serve?

..
It disarms those who obey the law, and don't have the permit, and has no effect on criminals whose purpose is to break the law. The passage of these laws are passed with the thought that it's crime prevention, but it's nothing more than liberal "feel good" nonsense. Ultimately, it allows those who have an inner fear of guns, instead of the person whose intent is to misuse them, feel like their safety is improved by requiring a permit.

ooc
 

·
NRA Life Member
Joined
·
67,120 Posts
There is only 1 right answer: All states should adopt the system that the majority of people in that state want to adopt, as long as it doesn't fall below the minimum protections of the 2nd Amendment or their state constitution.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,944 Posts
There is only 1 right answer: All states should adopt the system that the majority of people in that state want to adopt, as long as it doesn't fall below the minimum protections of the 2nd Amendment or their state constitution.
An yes, civil rights by mob rule. (I know, I know, that is not EXACTLY what you said, but.....)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,350 Posts
one can buy a gun out of the want ads in your local paper. this, of course, does not mean he/she can legally own a gun.

I like the idea of trying to weed out the bad guys from carrying legally. it may at least give the bad guy more jail time, which means off the street with a gun.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
16,041 Posts
Vermont's system goes back to 1791 and I suspect further than that.

http://www.usconstitution.net/vtconst.html

Article 16
Right to bear arms; standing armies; military power subordinate to civil
That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State - and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power.




I thought before reading this I had a fairly good understanding of how our federal Constitution came about.

http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/41halvt.pdf



I think Vermont's is the system the Founders intended when they penned the Second Amendment. SJ 40
 

·
NRA Life Member
Joined
·
67,120 Posts
An yes, civil rights by mob rule. (I know, I know, that is not EXACTLY what you said, but.....)
What I said was a description of the form of government every conservative and even most liberals agree that our country was founded on, with emphasis the 10th Amendment. What would you prefer?

The whole premise behind our government is democracy, limited by constitutions that protect certain rights from the majority.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,361 Posts
There is only 1 right answer: All states should adopt the system that the majority of people in that state want to adopt, as long as it doesn't fall below the minimum protections of the 2nd Amendment or their state constitution.
Hence we have California.
Doesn't the constitution protect minority rights as well?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,606 Posts
The only argument I would make for a permit, is that it gives an individual at least some minimal training in safety and an awareness of the responsibility that goes along with carrying a weapon. I am speaking to those states that have some sort of mandatory training such as mine (8 hrs.).
 

·
NRA Life Member
Joined
·
67,120 Posts
Hence we have California.
Doesn't the constitution protect minority rights as well?
The constitution only protects minority rights. What else would it protect? The vote protects majority rights. The constitution protecting rights was described in both of my posts.
 

·
NRA Life Member
Joined
·
67,120 Posts
The only argument I would make for a permit, is that it gives an individual at least some minimal training in safety and an awareness of the responsibility that goes along with carrying a weapon. I am speaking to those states that have some sort of mandatory training such as mine (8 hrs.).
Most people who carry weapons have done it with no training as long as weapons have existed. Apparently it just became a problem around the time we decided people need helmets on bicycles.:upeyes: It seems too mainly be a problem among those same urban/suburban people, as well.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
59,811 Posts
I agree up to the people of the state as long as the laws pass Constitutional review.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
16,041 Posts
Some Vermonters say 1777. :cool:
From my understanding of the Allen's and Green Mountain Boys,I'm sure that as long as men roamed these mountains and hills guns were carried and used freely.

We are under assault every time the legislature is in session as we were this past year and currently from the city of Burlington and the leftist's/socialist's that control it.

They would like to end the Constitutional carry enjoyed by Vermont's citizens,to do so they will have to repeal the Sportsman's protection act,Preemption and amend the state constitution but they won't let that stop them from trying.


http://www.vtfsc.org/

They don't understand the word No just as they don't understand the sentence Shall Not Be Infringed. In the grand tradition of Billy Bubber the Horny Hick "what is the meaning of the word IS". SJ 40
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,056 Posts
While I can carry concealed without a permit, I still maintain mine. Saves me the background check while buying a gun, provides reciprocity, allows me into liquor establishments that aren't posted (as long as I don't drink), and I believe that if I were to be checked by the PD it would show that I was one of the good guys. The bad thing about eliminating permits is now every gangbanger who is not a prohibited possessor is legal carrying. Sales of cheap guns have skyrocketed and gun shows are filled with thugs looking for a cheap gun.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
32,711 Posts
Yes, constitution is "shall not be infringed" no state should ban concealed carry to any of its' citizens. The liberals, errr, mentally ill, and the violent felons forbidden of course.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
16,041 Posts
Yes, constitution is "shall not be infringed" no state should ban concealed carry to any of its' citizens. The liberals, errr, mentally ill, and the violent felons forbidden of course.
Yes that is what it says or at least the way it reads. SJ 40
 
1 - 20 of 28 Posts
Top