Skip to main content

Currently, if you have a concealed carry permit from your state, it's only good in so many other states. There are multiple problems with this.

There's the legal side: a state issuing a license should have that license recognized in all other states and DC (just like I'd want to see INRE any marriage licenses).

There's the criminal side: people make mistakes and carry into a state that doesn't recognize their permit. The best example I can think of is Wisconsin. Their original standards for concealed carry led other states (quite a few actually) to recognize their permit. They changed their standards and now only 25 states recognize their permit. Obviously this doesn't excuse ignorance or not double checking local law if you leave your state, but this situation could be easily fixed with a national carry system.


Right to Keep and Bear Arms is a DKos group of second amendment supporters who have progressive and liberal values. We don't think that being a liberal means one has to be anti-gun. Some of us are extreme in our second amendment views (no licensing, no restrictions on small arms) and some of us are more moderate (licensing, restrictions on small arms.) Moderate or extreme or somewhere in between, we hold one common belief: more gun control equals lost elections.  We don't want a repeat of 1994. We are an inclusive group: if you see the Second Amendment as safeguarding our right to keep and bear arms individually, then come join us in our conversation. If you are against the right to keep and bear arms, come join our conversation. We look forward to seeing you, as long as you engage in a civil discussion.
My suggestions: a three tiered system (with the third tier having 'mini tiers').

First, let's look at Vermont. Bluest state in the union and allows anyone to carry a firearm concealed if they're legally able to own a firearm. No permit required. The problem here is that since there's no permit, who recognizes Vermont? The first tier of the national carry system would be state based. You never leave Vermont? You don't ever need to do anything other than stay a law abiding citizen. Arizona is similar. They have Constitutional Carry (no permit required) but they also have another option which will bring us to tier two.

Tier two is basically what we have today. Continuing with the Arizona example: say you want to leave Arizona and carry concealed. You can take the approved concealed carry course, get your permit, and where you're able to legally carry is based on whatever state agreements have been set up at the state level. Arizona permits are recognized by thirty two other states right now. But what if you go to California for some reason and you'd still like to carry?

This brings us to tier three. This is the suggested new tier for national concealed carry, administered at the federal level and good in all 50 states, DC, Puerto Rico, and any other US territory. I would suggest multiple levels of this license, similar to how we have multiple levels of a driver license (chauffeur, CDL, regular, etc). I'd also like to point out that none of these are just "take the class and you pass" classes.

The basic level of tier three would be taking a course that is federally approved, with range time, legal time, class time, and a federal background check. One of the more important parts: this would be shall issue. (I'll define shall/may issue at the bottom.) This basic level would ensure that you're able to carry in all 50 states and DC, regardless of local law.

The plus level would take all of the training of basic and add on additional training of the law enforcement variety. This would include advanced deescalation techniques, additional marksmanship training, and more legal time. You'd be able to carry in areas that would normally be off limits like hospitals, casinos, and the like. This would not override private property owners wishes (for example: if they posted a No Guns sign when the sign has the force of law).

The next level (what's better than plus? double plus!) would include all the plus level training and include Federal Flight Deck Officer (FFDO) training. FFDO training is law enforcement training that currently (once passed) arms volunteer pilots on commercial flights to prevent highjacking. This would be open to the general public, not just pilots.

There's probably room for more levels but I'm going to leave it here for now. This should make for an interesting conversation in the comments.

Shall issue: a shall issue style of concealed carry is when you meet all the requirements (EG: not a felon, took the class, passed the background check) then the issuing authority doesn't have discretion to issue a license or not. They just issue the license. Think Michigan or Arizona or Washington or Illinois.

May issue: a may issue style of concealed carry is when you meet all the requirements but the issuing authority can still tell you to go whistle and deny your permit. Think New York or Cali or Delaware or New Jersey or Hawaii (which basically denies ALL permits).

Poll

Three tiered carry system as described above?

41%35 votes
16%14 votes
41%35 votes

| 84 votes | Vote | Results

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  National Concealed Carry + National gun registion. (4+ / 0-)

    Meet you half way?

    I wish I didn't know now what I didn't know then.

    by peterfallow on Thu Jan 30, 2014 at 06:20:58 AM PST

      •  You are thinking imperial - I am metric. (8+ / 0-)

        You want a national thing - I want a national thing. Here I  am "reaching across the aisle", and you are offering me 5 cents on the dollar.

        I wish I didn't know now what I didn't know then.

        by peterfallow on Thu Jan 30, 2014 at 06:46:56 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  A national system of UBCs is national... (10+ / 0-)

          Not sure how it isn't.

          No registration of commonly owned and used arms at the federal level. Ever.

          •  Why no registration when your gun is in public (8+ / 0-)

            Your car has tags doesn't it? It's details and ownership are on a database aren't they?

            I wish I didn't know now what I didn't know then.

            by peterfallow on Thu Jan 30, 2014 at 06:53:09 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  No one has proposed bans on my registered (13+ / 0-)

              vehicle.

              People have proposed bans on some of the firearms I own. They've even been implemented in other states (see NY SAFE ACT).

              Registration can make bans/confiscation more effective. No thanks.

              •  No bans on vehicles? Seriously (7+ / 0-)

                Can you buy a car without seat belts, or with excessive pollution levels, or inadequate collision protection. These are defacto bans. Of course, vehicles manufactured before the rules were grandfathered in - but they still have to be registered to be used in public

                I wish I didn't know now what I didn't know then.

                by peterfallow on Thu Jan 30, 2014 at 07:01:57 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  So you want to flout the law if they are banned? (0+ / 0-)

                Is that what a registry means?  Without one you can keep your gun illegally?  Doesn't build trust for your side.  

                For me, I would be much less antagonistic toward gun ownership if I knew there was some kind of system to quickly ID illegal guns, owners, etc.  Right now, it's a free for all.

                America, where a rising tide lifts all boats! Unless you don't have a boat...uh...then it lifts all who can swim! Er, uh...um...and if you can't swim? SHAME ON YOU!

                by Back In Blue on Thu Jan 30, 2014 at 07:02:27 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Gun owners have earned my trust.... (6+ / 0-)

                  Why's that???

                  99.7% of all gun owners weapons are never used in the commission of any crime, any where, ever.

                  .03% is what this fear porn is all about these days.

                  Compared to drivers, there are 10 million accidents each and every year.

                  Odds are, throughout your lifetime, you'll have 4 accidents with your vehicle.

                  -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                  by gerrilea on Thu Jan 30, 2014 at 10:42:49 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Your percentages don't add up. nt (0+ / 0-)
                    •  Opsy...thanks...99.97 +.003 =100.... (0+ / 0-)

                      11,000 murders, 300+ firearms = 99.97%  not used in crimes ever.

                      http://www.cdc.gov/...

                      Of that 11,000, 8,900 or 80% are gang related, leaving 2,200.

                      That 2.200 is what all these gun restrictions/bans are attempting to target, nothing is being suggested to stop gangs whatsoever.

                      In the really big picture, that 2200 # then equals .0007% of all firearms in the US owned by private citizens.

                      Why are we arguing over gun control again???

                      -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                      by gerrilea on Fri Jan 31, 2014 at 06:42:57 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                  •  Well they haven't earned mine. (0+ / 0-)

                    Mainly because of the "fear porn" of needing to carry a gun to defend yourself and the paranoid statements that often accompany that position.  Another reason is meaningless statistics such the ones you cite.  Not all gun related injuries or deaths occur during a crime.   But most homicides are committed with guns.  

                    And the car comparison?  Did you even consider that amount of time and number of miles a person in America drives?  Do you think the amount of time the average american interacts with a gun comes even remotely close?

                    And how many car accidents result in death?  According to your link .003% of car accidents involve fatalities.  That's far less than the .3% of whatever your statistic was supposed to mean—# of guns vs. accidents, #firearms not used in crimes?  You might as well compare apples to moon rocks, at least they're both round.

                    Another reason is the violent rhetoric so many gun owners use when it is even suggested that any gun is banned—characterized as "over my dead body".  And that's just right here.  The call to armed insurrection is out of control on other less sane web communities.  You trust those guys?  Well, there seems to be an awful lot more of them than of you.

                    America, where a rising tide lifts all boats! Unless you don't have a boat...uh...then it lifts all who can swim! Er, uh...um...and if you can't swim? SHAME ON YOU!

                    by Back In Blue on Fri Jan 31, 2014 at 08:42:27 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Cars kill over 200,000 people each year. (0+ / 0-)

                      Not including the ones that die from car accidents.

                      The ownership of cars will destroy this planet's ecosystem to the point it will kill us all.  Tell me again guns are doing that.

                      This issue has pushed centrists, on both sides, to the extremes.  The debate is useless, nothing good will come of it.

                      The statistic is: 99.97% of all firearms are never used in the commission of a crime.

                      The same cannot be said of automobiles.  Cars enable crimes of all sorts, from drug shipping, drug dealing to murder, theft etc, etc, etc.

                      There are 230 million cars in the US with 33,561 deaths or .010 % of population.  There are 300 million+ firearms in the US with 11,000 deaths or 0.003% of population.

                      Meaning you're 3.3 times more likely to be killed by a car than a gun.

                      Let's even the score, shall we?

                      If cars licenses were denied to anyone with a criminal arrest, we'd have less crimes.  After all, that is the goal, right?

                      65 million+ people have a criminal past.  UBC's for all auto licenses! Mandatory mental screening too! If you want your death machines, let's tax the shit out of gas to reflect their true costs.  

                      What would be a "reasonable" price for all life on this planet versus your privilege to drive?  How many must die before we stop this insanity?!

                      Are you getting the picture yet?  It's all BS and propaganda.

                      And, btw, what the hell do I have to do with what others say on other websites???  That is the most dishonest attempt at a red herring that I've ever seen!  If you don't like what others say on these "intertubes", then don't read it!  But don't tell me it's about "rhetoric" that I haven't used!

                      Let's keep focused, okay?

                      -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                      by gerrilea on Sat Feb 01, 2014 at 02:05:01 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  It doesn't matter if you don't say it. (0+ / 0-)

                        You said gun owners have earned your trust.  Well that includes ALL gun owners, not just the ones who are responsible.  If you didn't mean all gun owners, then don't say it.   Secondly, there's plenty of paranoid rhetoric right here on dkos.  

                        As for cars, that was your metaphor not mine and it's one we have to get away from as it's again meaningless.  Although I'd love to know where or what that 200,000 deaths killed by cars is or comes from.

                        However, if you want to start on the climate death by cars (which they certainly are one, but not the only, major source greenhouse gasses) you can lump guns and their use here in the US by criminals and stand your ground murders and all over the world in enabling despotic regimes, and their supply by the US and other manufacturing countries for keeping guns and all the other weapons (like rocket launchers, etc) commenters in this diary say we should all be able to buy readily available in their hands.   99.7% of guns may or may not be used in crimes (got a link? haven't seen one yet) but then that 0.3% are extremely effective considering all the stats  of gun use by criminals the RKBA crowd loves to throw around.

                        As for car licensing? You won't get an argument from me on drastically restricting them.  I'm for regulation if you haven't noticed.  I have no problem with UBC's,  for car licenses.  Metnal health too.  In fact, I'd like to see mandatory re-testing every five years for life to keep your license.  And I'd like to see exponentially more rigorous exams to earn that license.  

                        America, where a rising tide lifts all boats! Unless you don't have a boat...uh...then it lifts all who can swim! Er, uh...um...and if you can't swim? SHAME ON YOU!

                        by Back In Blue on Sat Feb 01, 2014 at 07:18:49 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Semantics...I trust civilian gun owners more (0+ / 0-)

                          than I trust our armed LEO.  Why?  They can kill me with impunity.  My neighbor down the street, if he kills me, he'll most likely be prosecuted when caught.

                          And now here in NY, if I argue with a cop I can be summarily arrested for "contempt of cop" and if that cop things I'm a threat, whether real or imagined, they can summarily seize my property...all thanks to our new "reasonable gun law" called the Safe Act.  To hell with the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th and 6th Amendments!

                          NOW they're pushing for even more gun control here!

                          NYAGV Announces 2014 Gun Safety Legislative Priorities

                          Slippery slope indeed!

                          As for your Orwellian doublespeak: "climate death by cars":

                          Study: Air pollution causes 200,000 early deaths each year in the U.S.

                          New MIT study finds vehicle emissions are the biggest contributor to these premature deaths.
                          Op-Ed: Remembering the millions of innocents killed in US imperial wars

                          Deaths In Other Nations Since WW II Due To Us Interventions

                          Different sources give different numbers on the dead worldwide we have killed for the resources for the almighty automobile.  That staggering number is at least 20 million up to 40 million.

                          Then we have those Americans whom die from poverty CAUSED by that imperialism which takes our ever decreasing tax revenues away from social safety nets and poof...add another 133,000 per year to the total killed by cars.

                          Dying of poverty

                          Final analysis:  Guns kill 11,000 a year...Cars kill over 330,000 a year.  Imagine that real number for a moment, wipe 1+ Buffalo, NY  (my current residence) off the map each and every year and then you'll understand the scale of these false arguments you present.

                          As for this:

                          all over the world in enabling despotic regimes, and their supply by the US
                          Sounds to me like we'd almost agree on this.  The US government funds despotic regimes all over the world that have gone on to kill millions, not included in the totals above.  My neighbor down the street that has his Smith & Wesson, didn't do that. Or my neighbor up the street that has a 12 gauge.

                          Your vain attempt to equate our preexisting right to American Imperialism won't work.  We The People haven't controlled our government in a very very long time. Corporate Amerika controls our government and it is used to enhance and protect their profits, planet wide.

                          -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                          by gerrilea on Sat Feb 01, 2014 at 09:26:42 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  You have blinders on. (0+ / 0-)

                            You can't separate guns from all the carnage they have have been used for throughout history and substitute cars or any other man-made thing.  

                            I really feel for you that live in such fear.  I can't imagine ever living that way. Life is too short.

                            I think we actually agree on a lot cause we wouldn't be hear if didn't, would we.  But I'll never agree with you on guns.

                            America, where a rising tide lifts all boats! Unless you don't have a boat...uh...then it lifts all who can swim! Er, uh...um...and if you can't swim? SHAME ON YOU!

                            by Back In Blue on Sun Feb 02, 2014 at 06:28:12 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  1st off, I do not live in fear...please do not (0+ / 0-)

                            place any false sympathy upon me...I do not need or want it.

                            History teaches us that mankind is brutal and barbaric and still is today.  It also teaches us that the masses have been manipulated and brainwashed into a perpetual state of fear, loathing and pure hatred that is then utilized by those in power to slaughter them.

                            The world is ruled by force, be it physical or mental or spiritual...it has the same result, the subjugation of humanity.

                            I've evolved beyond that "rule" and slowly so will others.  You see, I do not believe an inanimate object has any power, the person welding said does.  And when you claim it's the gun that did all that evil history teaches us, I say you need to break free of that trained belief system. Man does it to man.  Unrealized even to himself, he may not know why he hates, why he fears and why he kills...

                            Man is the problem, not the object he has fashioned with his hands and then uses.  Ban "x" tomorrow, he'll pick up "y", ban that and he'll use "z".  Man is fiendishly ingenious, ban everything, he'll create something tomorrow to use in it's place, because he only knows what he's been taught...

                             

                            -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                            by gerrilea on Sun Feb 02, 2014 at 09:07:22 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Oh please. (0+ / 0-)

                            First off, lets agree not to put thoughts or "beliefs" into each others heads.   I agree man is the problem. You'll notice in my first response to you, I never once suggested guns or cars kill.  You brought the argument of objects killing people into the discussion in your response:  Cars kill over 200,000 people each year.  I have only replied to your arguments as you have presented them and when inconvenient, you write my comments off as semantics or "Orwellian doublespeak" and now accuse me of being brainwashed.  

                            But since we have one point of agreement, I'll move forward on that point.  Man is the problem.  And as such, the car is no more the cause of our demise than the gun.  Both are tools used by man.  Once was designed to bring mobility to mankind, the other was designed to kill.  Both have been used incredibly irresponsibly by people.

                            Man kills people with guns, weapons of all kinds, cars, pollution, disease, greed, religion, and on and on.  And since man cannot control himself, there must be laws and regulations.  That is the basis of western civilization.  I think that there is zero reason not to regulate guns, like any other man made object, process, industry, etc.  The second amendment is no more free from regulation that any other right that has been regulated.

                            I don't think any weapon should be banned.  I do think every weapon should be regulated.  Some of those regulations would not allow some people to buy some weapons or let some weapons be allowed for sale to civilians in a lawful society.  

                            I think capitalism has been the greatest economic system in history in providing freedom and opportunity to individuals.  It has also been used incredibly irresponsibly by people.  It is my argument that since the inception of unregulated capitalism that is completely unaccountable for it's impact on the world is the root of all our ills, including the vast majority of all violence.
                            It has pitted nation against nation, state against state, people against people.  Growth, success, worth are measured by money instead of by who we are.  As such, we have codified a world of unending competition, where every facet of life pits man against each other.  History showed us how religion, nationalism, racism, and bigotry of all kinds can be used to gain advantage over millions for the benefit of the few.  There is nothing left in this world that isn't used for the same purpose.

                            So it matters not what the object, tools, practice or process is, regulations must be in place if there is ever any hope to limit abuse.  Period.

                            America, where a rising tide lifts all boats! Unless you don't have a boat...uh...then it lifts all who can swim! Er, uh...um...and if you can't swim? SHAME ON YOU!

                            by Back In Blue on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 07:26:00 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You see, this is where we disagree: (0+ / 0-)
                            And since man cannot control himself, there must be laws and regulations.  That is the basis of western civilization.

                            -cut-

                             I do think every weapon should be regulated.  Some of those regulations would not allow some people to buy some weapons or let some weapons be allowed for sale to civilians in a lawful society.  

                            Instead of helping your fellow man break free from those false beliefs that you so eloquently stated AND might I add, agree with 100%, you wish to control the object.   This approach will have us chasing our tails for generations...no thanks.  Soon, we'll be "regulating" anything and everything that be used to hurt another...no thanks...  The British are doing exactly that, they're pushing to ban knives now.

                            But we must debate the extent the constitution allows for said "regulation".  What's been done here in New York, under our "Safe Act" is an abomination to said principles enumerated in said.  Did you know the police, can, without judge, jury OR court order, seize private property, if they believe the person is a threat?

                            This is beyond any rationality.

                            When it comes to "regulating" to prevent abuse, as you've concluded your argument with, WE have that already.  If you hurt someone while exercising your right, you can be prosecuted.  Isn't the very foundation of our "justice" system to mete out punishment???

                            What IS happening in this debate is that many wish to deny as many as possible from exercising said right.  California is doing it today.

                            California Begins Confiscating Legally-Purchased Guns

                               Earlier this year, the state legislature expanded the list of what they call “prohibited persons” – people who have legally registered a firearm but, for various reasons, are no longer allowed their Second Amendment rights. These reasons were expanded to include people who are behind on state taxes, did not pay toll fees in a “timely” manner and a wide range of other minor misdemeanors or reported mental health concerns.
                            Expanding the list of "prohibited persons" to include more and more people.

                            -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                            by gerrilea on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 09:15:50 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  What beliefs are you talking about? (0+ / 0-)

                            I can only assume they are the ones you state and to which I responded.  I'll say it again. Man is the problem.  I do not blame inanimate objects for what man does.  

                            I have seen plenty of evidence that you can limit abuse by making it harder to do, including by limiting access to inanimate objects that make doing that thing and doing it on a much larger or even massive scale far too easy.  It's called deterrence.  Something our current regulations aren't achieving very well.  Punishment after the death of victims is not acceptable.  Life is not replaceable.

                            I'm glad you are willing to debate the extent the constitution allows for said "regulation". I'm sure we'll disagree on that, but most 2nd amendment champions feel there is no room debate, so I applaud you for that.

                            Regardless, we disagree.  We will continue to disagree.  I do not and will never understand your position.  So I am done.  

                            America, where a rising tide lifts all boats! Unless you don't have a boat...uh...then it lifts all who can swim! Er, uh...um...and if you can't swim? SHAME ON YOU!

                            by Back In Blue on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 03:15:14 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  "Something our current regulations aren't..." (0+ / 0-)

                            When I read that violence, including gun violence is down to historic levels, we're doing something right.  Making your arguments, moot. Let's keep the facts in this debate, shall we?

                            Those facts will most certainly change with California's actions of releasing violent convicts because they don't have the money to keep them incarcerated.  Those facts may also change with the majority of States cutting mental health services across the board.

                            The position I hold, as a non-gun owner, is very easy to understand.  The supreme law of the land is the constitution, which includes the 2nd Amendment.  The Bill of Rights is not just a list of "strong suggestions", those things Congress, the POTUS or the SCOTUS cannot abrogate, period.

                            -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                            by gerrilea on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 03:52:21 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Ugh, more pointless statistics... (0+ / 0-)

                            Moot? Hardly. But you sure like to be the decider don't you?  I remember another guy like that.  No imagination.

                            um...Duh. ALL crime is down to historic levels.  Despite that fact the US still has the highest homicide rate in the developed world.  Homicide in the US is committed most often with guns (around 70% if I recall correctly).  Efficient tool, as I mentioned before.  Deterrence? quite low.

                            Interestingly, we are not the leader of any other type of crime (save probably for white collar & corruption but we don't count that, or prosecute it either, do we).

                            We also have the highest rate of gun ownership.  Imagine that.

                            Yes. The constitution is the supreme law of the land (nice right-winger phrasing, too).  It also includes Article Five.  I'm sure I don't have to tell you what Article Five is.

                            See, we can go back and forth and back and forth.  I'm really done. I won't be reading any more of your posts related to guns or RKBA.  In fact, I'm sorry I bothered to wade in again.  I'm done with RKBA on DKOS and anywhere else.  But I'll be happy to engage with you on other issues of which I'm sure you'll find we agree on many.

                            Peace.

                            America, where a rising tide lifts all boats! Unless you don't have a boat...uh...then it lifts all who can swim! Er, uh...um...and if you can't swim? SHAME ON YOU!

                            by Back In Blue on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 09:11:56 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Thanks, moving the goal posts to compare us (0+ / 0-)

                            to the rest of the world? A bit dishonest, imo.

                            When we compare our previous rates to our rates today, we are moving in the right direction without more gun control.

                            That is the point right? To reduce violence within the US and not falsely compare our rates to other nations.

                            I thought we were getting somewhere too, I guess not.

                            Thanks anyways.

                            -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                            by gerrilea on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 03:20:20 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

            •  False equivalence (10+ / 0-)

              You do not have a constitutional right to own a car.

              •  Are you sure of that? (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                splashy

                What you are saying is that the means to own a method of transport is not codified in either the constitution or the bill of rights. But the right to displace oneself is clearly defined in the first amendment, for if one cannot travel how can one freely assemble?

                Is it possible that the right to own a method of transport, at the time a horse or horse and buggy, was such a fundamental human right that there was no need to express it separately.

                According to your logic - since there is no amendment creating the right to have food and water, then the Government has the power to withhold food and water from whomever they want - which I am sure you would agree is total nonsense.

                I wish I didn't know now what I didn't know then.

                by peterfallow on Thu Jan 30, 2014 at 08:48:14 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Your last paragraph clearly (7+ / 0-)

                  would ignore the 9th and 10th amendments and the federalist and anti-federalist papers and the writings of the founders on the issue and judicial rulings.

                  •  So you would agree that the right to a own (0+ / 0-)

                    a means of transport would be covered under the 9th amendment?

                    I wish I didn't know now what I didn't know then.

                    by peterfallow on Thu Jan 30, 2014 at 09:15:56 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I would say it is as is the right to own any (4+ / 0-)

                      property such as arms.  That is so long as we understand a right is limited by respect for the rights of others and don't look at it as a way to mandate others provide that good or service.

                      •  So you have no problems with guns being (0+ / 0-)

                        registered, and that gun owners have to pass a proficiency test, maintain insurance and that ammo would be taxed to support an infrastructure like EMS services and ER's

                        I wish I didn't know now what I didn't know then.

                        by peterfallow on Thu Jan 30, 2014 at 11:14:09 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Of course I would. (8+ / 0-)

                          The taxation of and tests for the exercise of a right is unconstitutional.  This was decided with poll taxes.  Unless you would like to see a return of the poll tax or you just generally like disenfranchising the poor.

                          •  So would you claim that drive and vehicle (0+ / 0-)

                            licensing is unconstitutional for the same reasons.

                            Having some difficulty following your logic - since you agree that the right to travel is a constitutionally protected right.

                            What have poll taxes got to do with registration anyway? Don't you have to register to vote? Are you allowed an unlimited number of votes in each election?

                            Are you clutching at straws?

                            I wish I didn't know now what I didn't know then.

                            by peterfallow on Thu Jan 30, 2014 at 11:43:13 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  The issue with the driver licensing is that (7+ / 0-)

                            it is only required for access to roads that are publicly funded.  No difference than someone only allowing skilled drivers on their closed race track.

                            Poll taxes were ways of increasing the cost of exercising a right therefore they acted in a way to prevent the poor from exercising a right which is not equitable treatment under the law.  The same increasing the hoops and fees associated with exercising a right would decrease the ability of the poor to exercise those rights its also unconstiotional (I really never thought I'd have to defend the idea that the poor and everyone should be able to exercise their rights on this board).

                            Registering to vote is at most the cost of a stamp as the forms are free and there is no filing fee nor mandatory class to take.  The amount required is considered not an infringement (and you can avoid that small cost of a stamp by dropping them off to many organizations and locations).

                            I don't understand how you could in anyway not understand how poll taxes worked to disenfranchise many people in this nation's history nor confuse it with the idea of voting multiple times.

                          •  But we were not discussing poll taxes (0+ / 0-)

                            You introduced that as a straw man.

                            We were discussing the right to freely travel the US with the right to carry a gun.

                            You accept that a US citizen has the right to freely move within the various states, and you accept that the Government has the right to regulate certain issues related to that - e.g. driver training, no drink driving, vehicle registration etc.

                            So please proceed and explain if I should need to pass a driving test in order to drive a legally registered vehicle on the public roads why a gun owner should not be subject to the same restrictions.

                            Do you think your right to carry a gun is more important than someone's right to freely travel in the US?

                            I wish I didn't know now what I didn't know then.

                            by peterfallow on Thu Jan 30, 2014 at 01:46:15 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Wrong use of strawman. (7+ / 0-)

                            I introduced it as a comparison for having a fee imposed by government on the exercise of a right - because that is what you were proposing thus the comparison is apt.

                            A strawman would be if I made an argument you do not put  forward and attacked that argument - something I did not do.

                            No I don't think that any right is more important than another the problem with this is the creation of public roads which the states used as a way to gain requirements for access.  Although in many states licensing requirements and registrations are still technically only for "drivers" which are operators of a vehicle of conveyance for profit which excludes most people we consider to be drivers.  Blacks Law dictionary only recently changed the term to how it is used now but the law as written uses the definition at the time of writing.  

                            Now I'm beginning to stray though.

                          •  Uh Huh - so you are driving down I 10 (0+ / 0-)

                            and get pulled over. And you tell the cop some bullshit about Blacks Law Dictionary when he asks you for your drivers license and vehicle registration. How do you think that works out?

                            You like body cavity searches?

                            Why can't you answer the question? If its a right to move freely between the States, but when driving a motor vehicle you need an operator's license and a vehicle registration, why should guns be different?

                            I'm guessing you don't have an answer.

                            I wish I didn't know now what I didn't know then.

                            by peterfallow on Thu Jan 30, 2014 at 02:22:04 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  The police have a lower standard of being (4+ / 0-)

                            required to know the law than the average citizen.  They are protected by qualified immunity for illegal actions if they believe them to be legal while ignorance of the law is no excuse for anyone else.

                            I wouldn't expect a police officer to know what was actually illegal from their opinions.  I wouldn't expect the first judge to care either as their job is simply to deal with the everyday cases they see 99% of the time.  On appeal however we can begin actual legal discussion and it is on appeal where these cases have been reversed.

                            Asking if I like body questions is the fallacy of dire consequences and is irrelevant to the discussion.

                            I did answer your question. I answered it above where I said "No I don't think that any right is more important than another...".   The problem is instead of you assuming that I would be force to accept licensing for firearms I believe there should be none for normal non-commercial transportation.

                          •  You do not need a driver's license (4+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            gerrilea, theatre goon, FrankRose, CarlosJ

                            or vehicle registration to drive a motorized vehicle between states.

                            You only need those things if you do so on public roads.

                            If you were to drive, say, from Wisconsin into Minnesota, off-road, neither you nor your vehicle would need any documentation from either state, or the Federal government, to do so legally.

                            Even in California, which registers Off Highway Vehicles, (many states do not,) such registration is only required if you are operating the vehicle on public land. If I buy a dirt bike and only ride it on private land, I am not required to inform the state that I own it, nor to pay them any money for doing so.

                            The analogy to guns, (although it is weaker than gun control advocates tend to think it is, and also leads to places they wouldn't like to go,) is pretty simple:

                            Government permission can only be required to operate the machine in public spaces, not for merely owning it. The government should have no discretion in who receives such permission. And that permission should extend throughout the territory of the United States, regardless of which government granted it.

                            --Shannon

                            "It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees." -- Emiliano Zapata Salazar
                            "Dissent is patriotic. Blind obedience is treason." --me

                            by Leftie Gunner on Thu Jan 30, 2014 at 07:25:07 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                        •  That would ban the ownership of arms (5+ / 0-)

                          by the working class.  

                          We talked about that yesterday here:  http://www.dailykos.com/...

                          I'm a 4 Freedoms Democrat.

                          by DavidMS on Thu Jan 30, 2014 at 06:57:51 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                    •  You're mistaken on this analysis. (5+ / 0-)

                      The constitution does not protect our right to own a transport vehicle, it does, in a roundabout way imply we can travel.

                      The right to travel was in the Articles of Confederation, it was missed when they updated it or they assumed it was a preexisting right that need not be mentioned.

                      The current treaty we have makes clear we have a preexisting right to own/possess/buy/sell/trade an object, ie "arms" and we can also "bear" them, when need be.

                      The constitution doesn't say we have a right to a quill and inkwell or a printing press or paper for that matter, but without those objects, we could not exercise parts of the 1st A.

                      -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                      by gerrilea on Thu Jan 30, 2014 at 10:48:43 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                •  Incorrect again (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  gerrilea

                  Your definition of my logic presupposes that anything not codified in a constitutional amendment can be denied you by gov't. That is, of course, ludicrous.  

                  •  You know many people want to convert that (0+ / 0-)

                    treaty we have into a Napoleonic Code system.

                    Meaning if the "right" isn't listed, you don't have it and it's the privy of the State, not We The People.

                    -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                    by gerrilea on Fri Jan 31, 2014 at 06:53:19 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

    •  How about (7+ / 0-)

      National Concealed Carry + National gun registration + National Gun Liability Insurance.

      Election Day is Nov 4th, 2014 It's time for the Undo button on the 2010 Election.

      by bear83 on Thu Jan 30, 2014 at 08:14:44 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  How about no conceal carry whatsoever? nt (16+ / 0-)

    “In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.” Terry Pratchett

    by 420 forever on Thu Jan 30, 2014 at 06:27:17 AM PST

    •  Err... concealed. nt (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      peterfallow, gerrilea

      “In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.” Terry Pratchett

      by 420 forever on Thu Jan 30, 2014 at 06:27:37 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Why would you wish to infringe on the rights (10+ / 0-)

        of others?

        This sets a bad precendent that this is acceptable politically and morally.  

        •  Your right is already" infringed" (6+ / 0-)

          by many laws that have been upheld by SCOTUS. Full auto weapons laws for example.

          I wish I didn't know now what I didn't know then.

          by peterfallow on Thu Jan 30, 2014 at 07:04:37 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yes they are and I see no reason to continue (7+ / 0-)

            with those infringements.

            •  Seriously? (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              S F Hippie, peterfallow, murrayewv

              Grenade launchers for all? An M-1 tank in every driveway?

              Election Day is Nov 4th, 2014 It's time for the Undo button on the 2010 Election.

              by bear83 on Thu Jan 30, 2014 at 08:17:07 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  full auto for those who want them (11+ / 0-)

                my brother in law keeps a full auto AK under the seat of his truck everywhere he goes, grandfather in law has one behind the door. They aren't much different than any other firearm, can be used for bad or not, depends on the user.

                “Conservation… is a positive exercise of skill and insight, not merely a negative exercise of abstinence and caution…” Aldo Leopold

                by ban nock on Thu Jan 30, 2014 at 08:25:36 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  For all who want one and can afford one (10+ / 0-)

                and who aren't a violent criminal?  Yes.

                If you're so concerned about what people might do with that you should ban people from owning and flying planes - we've already seen what one person can do with their private plane.

                However I think this comes down to a basic and deep-seated mistrust of other people.  In my mind if you can't trust the average person to not shoot their grenade launcher at you then you should never trust them to vote.  After all the worst a population of reckless idiots with no common sense (what you would have to view the population as if you don't trust them to act moderately responsible) can do with a grenade launcher is destroy something and kill a few people but the damage they can do to everything and everyone world wide if they got to control who gets into office is expoentially worse.

                A system of democracy requires a basic trust in the basic human interactions of its people and you seem to not trust the majority to not actively go out and blow other people up.  If you can't trust them with a basic interaction like this there is no way you could trust them with the greater responsibility and greater effort and nuance requried in understanding the nature of rights, investigating and applying that to the research they do on would-be elected officials.

                •  This isn't working out well (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  murrayewv, splashy, Joy of Fishes
                  basic trust in the basic human interactions
                  for the tens of thousands of people killed with guns in the US annually. The idea of advocating for the general public having even more deadly weapons of mass destruction is simply insane.

                  Election Day is Nov 4th, 2014 It's time for the Undo button on the 2010 Election.

                  by bear83 on Thu Jan 30, 2014 at 09:13:13 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  One can say the same... (7+ / 0-)

                    ...of the tens of thousands of people killed in auto accidents in the US. It fails as an argument.

                    •  Not really = Almost 100% of the population (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      bear83

                      interacts with a vehicle in use every single day, so the potential is very high.

                      How many people are around guns being shot each day  probably less than 1%

                      I wish I didn't know now what I didn't know then.

                      by peterfallow on Thu Jan 30, 2014 at 09:33:12 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  But, they are constantly working on safety (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      bear83

                      To make the vehicles far less dangerous, along with licensing people, requiring insurance, and registering them.

                      Can that be said about guns?



                      Women create the entire labor force.
                      ---------------------------------------------
                      Sympathy is the strongest instinct in human nature. - Charles Darwin

                      by splashy on Thu Jan 30, 2014 at 10:36:24 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Good question...do firearms need to be (4+ / 0-)

                        made more safe or do the people using them need to be???

                        I've never heard of people getting their hands blown off when using a firearm correctly or blowing up.

                        Don't they work as they are supposed to, for the most part?  They have been making them for centuries.

                        Now others do get maimed and killed when someone else uses them both legally and illegally, sadly...but that isn't the point right???

                        -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                        by gerrilea on Thu Jan 30, 2014 at 11:08:15 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  Fatal gun accidents are down a factor of 7 over (5+ / 0-)

                        the last 50 years, Waldman's lies-by-anecdote notwithstanding.

                        Much of this has come from the replacement of long guns kept for defense with pistols, which are inherently less lethal; and the replacement of older semi-autos and revolvers with modern semi-autos, which are far less likely to discharge when shocked. So yes, guns are vastly safer now.

                        Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath; μολὼν λαβέ - att. Leonidas I

                        by Robobagpiper on Fri Jan 31, 2014 at 05:15:59 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                  •  You're giving undue weight to rare occurances. (7+ / 0-)

                    Statistically speaking its less than 1% of gun owners (far less) that having any issue at all.  

                    This isn't surprising though its a common human action to be more worried about the spectatular and that which one is uninformed of than to rationally understand actual risk.  (http://www.psychologytoday.com/...)

                    •  if 1% of people have a problem..... (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      coquiero, bear83

                      that is a common problem, not a rare problem.  in a population of 330 million, that is 3.3 million people with a problem.

                      You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you mad. Aldous Huxley

                      by murrayewv on Thu Jan 30, 2014 at 03:49:54 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Hey, with that logic, then the 1% really do (4+ / 0-)

                        need all that money they've stolen.

                        Great, now OWS has to go back to the drawing board!

                        Ugh.

                        -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                        by gerrilea on Thu Jan 30, 2014 at 11:02:08 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  It is truly sad... (5+ / 0-)

                          ...how quickly so many posters here at the GOS will happily embrace concepts that support the 1% when it happens to coincide with some other belief of theirs.

                          Sure, let's tax and require insurance on guns, make them too expensive for the vast majority of people, all in the name of safety -- and making it certain-sure that only the wealthy can defend themselves.  Or, rather, hire someone to do it for them.  

                          We certainly wouldn't want the great unwashed masses on equal footing in any way whatsoever...

                          "No amount of belief makes something a fact." --James Randi

                          by theatre goon on Fri Jan 31, 2014 at 03:58:50 AM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                        •  what does that statistic 1%.... (0+ / 0-)

                          have to do with assuming I am arguing for the "1%" wealthy?  I am talking about the 1% of firearms owners who are a problem, not the 1% of wealthy people and their problem.  Although doubtless their is some intersection.  

                          You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you mad. Aldous Huxley

                          by murrayewv on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 06:29:54 AM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Your argument is still the same... (0+ / 0-)

                            no matter whom it's addressed to.  You need to get a better one.

                            When less than .003% of gun owners are the problem, you wish to make the other 99.97% pay for it.

                            -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                            by gerrilea on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 09:05:58 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Gun owners..... (0+ / 0-)

                            are just pulling out their weapons and killing people all the time.  Every day.  Every week.  Tens of thousands a year.  Slaughtering their families and friends, strangers and people they think are breaking into their homes.  Tens of thousands a year, hundreds of thousands wounded.  It is a slaughter out there.  Responsible firearms owners are starting to come around to realizing that regulation is necessary- everyone shouldn't be able to run out and buy a firearm with no background check.  

                            A week or so ago, a man in Barboursville WV who loved firearms, murdered two men.  Rodney Bruce Black owned over 50 weapons.  He shot at targets regularly and reloaded his own brass- he had three machines to do this.  He lived alone and had no known employment.  Responsible gun owner?  He certainly was a good shot.  

                            Firearms ownership represents a moral choice.  If you chose not to regulate them, you own in part the cost of what happens when you fellow firearms owners snap and start gunning down the men who bought the lot next to him, that his sister sold to pay his mother's bills after she died.  And I own it if I sit back and say or do nothing.

                            You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you mad. Aldous Huxley

                            by murrayewv on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 04:35:32 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  every time I argue with you guys..... (0+ / 0-)

                            and get frustrated at your lack of logic and twisting of my opinions into supporting the wealthy like this thread, I am going to donate to $10 to Americans for Responsible Solutions.  http://americansforresponsiblesolutions.org/....

                            So every dead end just helps support firearms regulation initiative.

                            You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you mad. Aldous Huxley

                            by murrayewv on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 04:41:19 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I stand with Gabby Giffords and Mark Kelly (0+ / 0-)

                            Two years ago, a mentally ill young man shot Gabby Giffords in the head, killed six of her constituents, and wounded 12 others. Since that terrible day, America has seen 11 more mass shootings – but no response from Congress to prevent gun violence. After the massacre of 20 children and six of their teachers at Sandy Hook Elementary though, it’s clear: This time must be different.

                            Americans for Responsible Solutions will encourage elected officials to stand up for solutions to prevent gun violence and protect responsible gun ownership by communicating directly with the constituents that elect them.

                            Join me today by signing up to demand responsible solutions to reduce gun violence:

                            http://americansforresponsiblesolutions.org/

                            You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you mad. Aldous Huxley

                            by murrayewv on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 04:46:54 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                      •  Pure numbers is not a good measure (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        theatre goon, gerrilea

                        for reasons you can look up in any number of books on statistics.

                        I doubt you will find anyone to agree with you and I doubt you yourself would agree that 1% represents a thing being common if this were about any other discussion.  You're ego is forcing you to continue to argue because it doesn't want to have been wrong.  However being wrong is to be human and what your ego should internalize is that you have a chance to become better than you were by shedding an incorrect opinion and adopting a more correct one.

                        Nameste

                        •  thanks for this.... (0+ / 0-)

                          millions of people are affected by firearms violence- far more than 1%.  People I know are afraid of their neighbors and their firearms, and their negligent and potentially angry use.  But the rights of the firearms owners somehow are paramount in this discussion.  I actually had a student say 10,000 firearms murders a year wasn't that big a problem- and he meant it.    

                          You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you mad. Aldous Huxley

                          by murrayewv on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 06:32:31 AM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                  •  I might never advocate for more guns for more (8+ / 0-)

                    people but I will always advocate for their right to do so.

                    Being free isn't for the weak-minded.  I accept that others may wish to exercise a right I do not, it's their choice.  Being free means we accept the responsibility for our actions, both good and bad.  And we afford the same to others.

                    I'd agree that our government could take steps to mitigate the consequences of this right, just like they do with vaccinations.  They established a "Vaccine Court" to provide compensation to people injured by a private product when voluntarily used.

                    Imagine if both parties in this debate were to use their collective monies on education and helping people exercise this right safely instead of fighting each other?

                    Imagine that.

                    -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                    by gerrilea on Thu Jan 30, 2014 at 09:37:10 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

          •  another restriction I don't agree with. (9+ / 0-)

            “Conservation… is a positive exercise of skill and insight, not merely a negative exercise of abstinence and caution…” Aldo Leopold

            by ban nock on Thu Jan 30, 2014 at 08:23:42 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  What about the line of fire? (0+ / 0-)

          Isn't it a right to be able to get out of it? You know, the right to the pursuit of happiness, which means not getting shot "accidentally" because you don't know where the guns are pointed?



          Women create the entire labor force.
          ---------------------------------------------
          Sympathy is the strongest instinct in human nature. - Charles Darwin

          by splashy on Thu Jan 30, 2014 at 10:33:00 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  No congealed carry either n/h (0+ / 0-)

        I'm from the Elizabeth Warren wing of the Democratic Party

        by voicemail on Thu Jan 30, 2014 at 11:15:08 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Well, since all states allow some form (13+ / 0-)

      of concealed carry, my guess is that's a no.

    •  How about we end the false dichotomy (6+ / 0-)

      that has been created for us???

      "The right to keep and bear arms" does not state "concealed" or "open"...that's a creation made up out of thin are to deny people a right.

      We can keep and bear arms in whatever manner we so chose.  If it's raining out, and if I actually owned a firearm, I'd probably keep it under my coat, making that act, illegal because I'd be "concealing" it.  What if I had a horse and I put it in my saddle bag?  Again, I'm concealing it...

      I never bought the false argument that there was a difference between "concealed" or "open"...

      Ugh.

      -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

      by gerrilea on Thu Jan 30, 2014 at 06:41:29 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  The difference is others being able to see (0+ / 0-)

        Where they are pointing and able to get out of the line of fire.

        You know, like how in the movies when someone waves a gun around everyone ducks? If you can see it, you can at least know what direction it's going to shoot if it happens to fire accidentally.



        Women create the entire labor force.
        ---------------------------------------------
        Sympathy is the strongest instinct in human nature. - Charles Darwin

        by splashy on Thu Jan 30, 2014 at 10:38:39 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •   FYI 99.5% of all concealment holsters point down (9+ / 0-)

          the only holster design that isn't muzzle down is either a horizontal shoulder holster or a belly band and neither are common in use.

           I don't like being behind someone in line who is wearing a HZ shoulder rig either, it's uncomfortable and I have my gun on me too.....However it's not against the law, I've seen one in use in the last 5 years, and there's not much to do except hope the person in question is experienced and doesn't need to pull it out.

          It's also a good way to shoot yourself, using a horizontal rig.  imo of course ymmv.

          Vaya con Dios Don Alejo
          I want to die a slave to principles. Not to men.
          Emiliano Zapata

          by buddabelly on Thu Jan 30, 2014 at 12:30:16 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I once had someone kneel down before me (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            gerrilea, buddabelly

            while working on a project for Occupy and their 1911 with one in the chamber fell out of their shoulder rig and tumble end over end the barrel sweeping down my center line several times.

            Ever since then I steer clear of shoulder holsters in anything approaching a physically active environment.

        •  Don't base what you know on movies (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          gerrilea, theatre goon, FrankRose, CarlosJ

          People spend lots of time waving guns around in movies.  Not so much in real life.  In movies actors don't keep their fingers out of the trigger guard.  In real life, its repeated over and over.  

          I'm a 4 Freedoms Democrat.

          by DavidMS on Thu Jan 30, 2014 at 07:13:26 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  That's not reality is it? nt (7+ / 0-)

      "I'm a progressive man and I like progressive people" Peter Tosh

      by Texas Lefty on Thu Jan 30, 2014 at 06:56:54 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  How about no pot forever? /snark (12+ / 0-)

      Seriously, concealed carry already exists in all states, in one form or another.  Illinois is the most recent state to enact concealed carry, as a result of a Seventh Circuit decision holding that Illinois' prior no-carry status violated the Second Amendment.  

      For the record, I live in a state that falls within tier 2 of what KV is proposing - we have constitutional carry in-state, and the ability to obtain an permit to carry out of state (at least in states that honor Wyoming CC permits).  And we're not the wild West here, at least in the sense that we're not all shooting each other over a parking space.

    •  The Reason for Concealed Carry (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      peterfallow, voicemail

      I have always wondered about Concealed Carry licenses.  It seems to me that only someone who is up to no good needs to conceal the fact they are carrying a weapon, so why (I wondered) did gun enthusiasts seem so enthusiastic about concealing their guns?

      So I asked around, and this is what the gun enthusiasts themselves have told me: most state legislatures do not want people to carry their guns in the open, and there are good reasons for this.

      First, citizens get upset when they see people carrying guns around, and the police get lots of calls from concerned citizens about armed men in the streets.  The police don't want to field calls like this when it simply involves some gun enthusiast with their grown-up transitional objects.

      But worst: carrying a gun makes you a target.  If you are openly carrying a gun, and some criminal activity takes place nearby, the criminals will target you, because you are a threat to them.  And when the police show up to deal with the criminals, the police will target you because you have a gun.  By openly carrying your gun, you can quickly end up dead.

      It turns out carrying a gun makes you a target (insert here favorite claims from gun enthusiasts about how having a gun makes them safer).  So most state legislatures have decided the better course is to outlaw open-carry, and instead permit concealed carry.  

      Many gun enthusiasts would prefer to openly carry their guns (the better to intimidate those people the gun enthusiast hopes to intimidate by openly carrying their guns), but are prevented from doing so by the state laws.  So gun enthusiasts are forced instead to accept concealed carry.

      "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

      by Hugh Jim Bissell on Thu Jan 30, 2014 at 08:12:04 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I assume the #1 reason is my reason (7+ / 0-)

        My state issues a "handgun carry" permit. It does not specify open or concealed. So I could open carry if I wished.

        In among all the other crap you actually mentioned the real reason. I don't want someone, like you, to freak out and call the cops. I don't want to have to answer questions from Joe Shmoe at the grocery store. It just reduces the chance of it creating an annoyance.

        •  Yes, Of Course (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          peterfallow, splashy, jrfrog

          For interest's sake: what state(s) have licenses that do not specify open or concealed carry?

          Yes, of course.  You as a gun enthusiast do not want to get questioned by cops, or get worried looks from the people with whom you hope to do business, or see the children crying and the mothers scurrying to the other side of the street when you approach.

          All of which suggests the question: why then do you want to carry a gun?  You must know at some level that your carrying a gun provokes fearful responses from people around you, so why then do you want to provoke fearful responses from the people around you?

          "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

          by Hugh Jim Bissell on Thu Jan 30, 2014 at 08:49:56 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  As far as CC: (10+ / 0-)

        It is cold out and I have a coat on.

        What would you suggest I do?

        As far as OC:
        You may feel intimidated but that is your feeling and the result of your brain chemistry and imparts nothing at all to the reason why someone OC's as you attempt to fuse.

        Again - your feelings and emotions don't impact the intent of others.  To think otherwise is solopsism and irrational.  

        •  Feeling Safe vs. Being Safe (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Joy of Fishes, splashy, coquiero

          Science show us (in a variety of different studies using a variety of different methods) that where there are more guns, there are more people getting shot.

          Empiric studies have shown that people who live in a home where there is a gun have AT LEAST a two-fold increase risk of getting shot compared to people who live in a home where there is no gun (and the risk increases three-fold for woman who live in a home where there is a gun).

          So while having a gun makes you "feel" safer, you are objectively at greater risk for gunshot injury and death because you have a gun.

          It is sorta like those people who "feel" unsafe in airplanes and therefore drive instead, when it is well-recognized that more people die in car accidents than in plane accidents.

          I'm not sure what you mean by this

          "... and imparts nothing at all to the reason why someone OC's as you attempt to fuse."

          "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

          by Hugh Jim Bissell on Thu Jan 30, 2014 at 09:00:33 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  This is not true at all and you're (12+ / 0-)

            mispresenting studies or quoting studies that have been revealed to have flawed methodology (mostly in regard to bad data sampling procedure).  It is tripe repeated by the same organizations that instruct would-be rape victims to not resist when the data shows resisting and resisting with force are statistically more likely to be successful in avoiding rape: https://www.ncjrs.gov/...

            Bad science is not science - it's merely an exercise used to affirm a belief.

            That out of the way the statistics show from the averaging of several actually scientifically valid studies show that handguns are used far more often in defense than they are in offense.

            However while you're right that feelings don't change actual reality you're still not seeing that you're engaging in that error yourself.

            When you stated: "Many gun enthusiasts would prefer to openly carry their guns (the better to intimidate those people the gun enthusiast hopes to intimidate by openly carrying their guns),"  you're stating that you believe the reality of their intent is defined by the subjectiveness of your personal emotional reaction to the act.  It is absolutely not and that is what I mean in the section you've quoted.

            •  What research specifically? (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              splashy, coquiero

              You say that I am misrepresenting studies.  Please tell us al what study(ies) exactly I am misrepresenting.

              You say I am quoting from studies that have been revealed to be flawed.  Again, please tell us specifically which studies I have quoted from that have been shown to be flawed.

              I notice the article (which I point out is not peer-reviewed and not published) includes the following:

              "We did not find significant effects of specific SP (self-protective) actions on injury or serious injury, in part because injuries, particularly serious injuries, beyond rape itself, are rare."
              By which the authors report that self-protective actions (ALL self-protective actions, both those involving a gun and those not involving a gun) DO NOT result in fewer or less severe injuries for rape victims.  AND the authors make no claims that carrying a gun or other self-protective measures result in fewer rapes.

              BTW, the very best scientific study of defensive gun uses (McDowall and Wiersema, published in the peer-reviewed American Journal of Public Health, 1994) showed there are on average 64,000 defensive gun uses annually in the USA, less than the number of committed crimes by at least an order of magnitude.

              "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

              by Hugh Jim Bissell on Thu Jan 30, 2014 at 10:04:47 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  The research that you pulled those statistics from (6+ / 0-)

                Those statistics are oft repeated without knowing from whence they came. I assumed that you of course new the studies from which you were citing the conclusions so you should be aware of precisely which studies to which I refer.  Perhaps this was my error and you are simply repeating oft-repeated and seldom examined statistics without knowing their origin.

                I'll point out that simply labeling a study "the best" does not make it so.  Because of the error of non-reporting which your study does not take into effect by the way and includes a great amount of speculation such as judging that some self-reporting would be criminal acts and assuming motives.

                Of the multiple studies on the subject no other study comes close to 64,000 range excelt for another outlier at over 75% of the study you cited which was 108k.  The range is 800,000 - 2.5 million with the Clinton era DOJ report estimating 1.5 million http://www.ncjrs.org/...

                •  Your Link Is Flawed! (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  coquiero

                  The link in your comment above results in a "page cannot be displayed" error.

                  It is interesting to me that you say some research is flawed, yet you have no idea what research it is that is flawed.  

                  You cannot cite any flawed studies, so how can you or anyone else verify your claims of flawed research?

                  AND at the same time, you cite research that is neither peer-reviewed or even published.  Would not a failure to pass peer-review or failure to publish a research study be taken as a flaw?

                  "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

                  by Hugh Jim Bissell on Thu Jan 30, 2014 at 11:14:57 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  If you haven't figured it out by now the point (5+ / 0-)

                    in my not saying is to illuminate the fact that you're unaware of whence those statitics came for if you did you would have cited then at some point in order to defend them.   You didn't because you didn't know the source - as most people don't actually know (nor have easy access to the those sources) of the statitics they site and usually only remember and cite the ones that they are predisposed to agree with and as such care not for the methodology and veracity of those statitics.    By the way you brought the claim of those statistics so the burden of verification rests on you and has since you mentioned them.

                    I am getting a timeout error but I was able to access that link less than two weeks ago so it is likely an error on their side.  You should be able to google to find a copy of the report.

                    By the way I've presented two actual studies that others can read in this thread (barring site errors in the one) you've simply mentioned one study whose data is such a statistical outlier in most models it would simply be discarded.  Given this I'd be very careful about attempting to critique based on scientific backing and facts.  (You know since  you still haven't sourced the studies for your statistics.)

                    As a deep aside - there is a huge problem with the peer-review process currently to the point that several nobel award winners are calling out major scientific journals for their exclusion.  And peer review is up to peers reviewing - anyone in the same field can look at the data and methodology or repeat the surveys with the same view if they like but the latter is not usually done in social science to the same degree it is done in the hard sciences.  http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/...

      •  Out of curiousity... (0+ / 0-)

        who do you think they are trying to intimidate?

      •  I would prefer open carry (0+ / 0-)

        So everyone can see where the  guns are pointing. You at least have a chance to get out of the line of fire that way.



        Women create the entire labor force.
        ---------------------------------------------
        Sympathy is the strongest instinct in human nature. - Charles Darwin

        by splashy on Thu Jan 30, 2014 at 10:39:59 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  I do like the idea of being able to SEE (0+ / 0-)

      The guns, so we can get out of the line of fire. Too many guns in pockets, purses and other places end up being pointed at others.



      Women create the entire labor force.
      ---------------------------------------------
      Sympathy is the strongest instinct in human nature. - Charles Darwin

      by splashy on Thu Jan 30, 2014 at 10:31:43 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Not sure about tier 3 being administered (8+ / 0-)

    by the feds.

    This would give them control that constitutionally they have not been granted.

    I'm still of the opinion that all federal gun control laws cannot be passed because of the constitution.  Only States have that authority, when it comes to their citizens.

    The Federal Government can only regulate the arms of militia members, while called up for service or training.  Then we go back to that pesky argument of "firearms vs ordnance" and how those terms are defined.

    To make your plan work the States would have to negotiate a new amendment for the treaty, ie the constitution.

    As it stands, the States cannot ban firearms or pass laws that create a de facto ban, anything else up to and between each State.

    National registration would be the only solution for your proposal...I do not agree with that on a basic fundamental level, in any way shape or form.

    I know, we have a de facto national registration already and it's very very dangerous, IMO.

    -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

    by gerrilea on Thu Jan 30, 2014 at 06:35:15 AM PST

    •  For once, we agree on a couple of points. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Sylv

      If you want to leave it to the States, then the toughest law would have to be the basis of the national agreement - DC or NY or CA.

      If you want to make it federal, then the feds can decide what the law is. And you don't think that might have a ratchet effect. If we lefties get control of the house and senate in 2014 - Bingo.

      And what is this defacto national registration of which you speak.

      I wish I didn't know now what I didn't know then.

      by peterfallow on Thu Jan 30, 2014 at 06:44:32 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Remember that the 2nd has been incorporated (5+ / 0-)

      That could mean that ALL gun control is constitutionally prohibited, even at at the state level.

      Personally, I find the "declare it not an infringement" to be something that has been played too fast and too loose with by .gov when it comes to rights in general, not just guns.  That is part of why I take the stance of supporting gun rights with few to no restrictions even though I don't have a personal stake in it.

      "It's not surveillance, it's data collection to keep you safe"

      by blackhand on Thu Jan 30, 2014 at 11:12:54 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  No lowest common denominator, (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    peterfallow, bear83, Sylv, coquiero

    which is what national concealed carry would become.  Absolutely NOT.

    With the Decision Points Theater, the George W. Bush Presidential Library becomes the very first Presidential Library to feature a Fiction Section.

    by Its the Supreme Court Stupid on Thu Jan 30, 2014 at 06:38:11 AM PST

  •  I do not like this idea. (6+ / 0-)

    While it is better than what we have now Constitutional Carry is the only form that should exist.  The Constitution protects the pre-existing right of people to keep(own) and bear(carry) arms.  While this may be a small step forward it plays into the idea that the government my do exactly what it is prohibited from doing and that is infringing on any natural right of the people as per the 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8, and 9th amendments.

  •  Needs to be simpler (4+ / 0-)

    Would the latter two levels of Tier3 be shall issue as well?

    The Tier3 levels would have the potential to become overly complicated. In fact, that is exactly what would happen as states imposed reactionary restrictions following shootings. The entire intent of the federal license would be lost. Think FOPA today in which, even if you are transporting legally per federal law, you could be prosecuted in ban states.

    Additionally, levels + and ++ should be combined. If you do not force it to be simple, it will grow unmanageably complex.

  •  Opening this avenue for people that want it (7+ / 0-)

    Sounds like a good idea. A (probably) pretty rigorous process to get a permit that allows carry in all 50 states, DC, and US territories.  As long as the state systems and state reciprocity remain in place as well.

  •  How about NO Conceal Carry at all? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    peterfallow, goObama

    You are just allowed to own.

    "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." --M. L. King "You can't fix stupid" --Ron White -6.00, -5.18

    by zenbassoon on Thu Jan 30, 2014 at 07:50:54 AM PST

  •  The part I like is that you, we, us the general (9+ / 0-)

    public would have no idea who is at that third tier of licensure. I happen to like the idea that some anonymous person might be very well trained and carrying.

    “Conservation… is a positive exercise of skill and insight, not merely a negative exercise of abstinence and caution…” Aldo Leopold

    by ban nock on Thu Jan 30, 2014 at 08:21:21 AM PST

  •  I certainly don't see this from this president... (3+ / 0-)

    ...or congress.  Like better drug laws, I think we're going to have to wait until 2016.

  •  Why Concealed? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    88kathy

    If you're so law-abiding, why is it so important to sneak around with your gun?  If you want the deterrent effect, open carry is much more effective.  It has the additional benefit that it respects the choice of others whether they wish to be in the vicinity of loaded firearms or not.  I would choose "no", but how am I to know when the streets are crawling with people sneaking around with loaded weapons?   Don't I have  a right not to have deadly weapons within a few feet of me?  Don't I at least have a right to a choice in the matter?  Or do ONLY your rights matter?  Mine are contemptibly dismissible to anyone with a gun?  Concealed carry guarantees that I have no such choice.

    "Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will." ~Frederick Douglass

    by ActivistGuy on Thu Jan 30, 2014 at 09:16:42 AM PST

  •  we still have the human (error) element (4+ / 0-)

    the passion of both sides, as in
    Austins two tier system
    1 a permit allows the holder to prance thru the airport style security checkpoint in the St Capitol
    (similar to what many freq flyers want)
    2 youre stooped by city/county cops driving = u get treated as a probableDavid powell, a meth head, who shot a cop thru his vest 10 times w/ an AK

    Who is mighty ? One who turns an enemy into a friend !

    by OMwordTHRUdaFOG on Thu Jan 30, 2014 at 09:31:14 AM PST

  •  I understand the reasons for concealed carry. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    88kathy, Joy of Fishes

    I know that there are lots of folks wherever I go probably doing concealed carry, and it's not led to mayhem.

    But I also read GunFail.  And I also see the increase in dubious or absurd claims of "stand your ground," with tragic consequences.  I am worried that as the socially and intellectually uneducated population gets more knee-jerk hysterical about "liberals coming to kill us" and "the tyrannical Obama", and as people are more inclined to rage and fight rather than reason and turn the other cheek, they'll be more likely to do stupid things with their concealed weapons.

    As the diarist put it, it depends on the person carrying the weapon.  I'm very worried about our populace's sanity.

    That's one more thing to add to my long list of small problems. --my son, age 10

    by concernedamerican on Thu Jan 30, 2014 at 09:38:47 AM PST

  •  Yearly, stringent, procficency and mental tests (0+ / 0-)

    for conceal carry.

    Now they have the 2nd (safety net for sloppy) Amendment, and can't be infringed to actually treat their gun like a gun and not a video game controller.

    by 88kathy on Thu Jan 30, 2014 at 09:52:01 AM PST

  •  Interesting idea....... I'm all in favor of far.. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    88kathy, Joy of Fishes

    more rigorous background checks, training in skills and in knowledge of the laws in addition to an in depth course of ethics of, and in the use of force:  Knowing when it's appropriate to use, and when to avoid conflict at all possibilities and to remove oneself from the danger zone before any tragedy occurs. Firearms will never be eliminated in this country despite the efforts of many a well intentioned people who will never see the other side of the coin so to speak, but rather it's how we as a society deal with their existence, and making sure that all citizens feel comfortable with a viable solution that is realistic, ethically and morally understood, and enforceable.  

    As I stated, there will never be a time when the society will feel 100% comfortable with firearm ownership as there will always be those tragic incidents that will occur due in part to the size and population factors.  What needs to be accomplished is allowing for all citizens to feel secure in many fashions be it from senseless violence, to economic security, trust in government, trust in the free market forces, to having a society that is fair to all without the conflicts of feeling left out, or segregated by our own citizen neighbors, families, and friends:  We need to work to improve our own ailing and injured society, and at this point in time, it is critical we do so.  It really boils down to the quality of life for all, and how we view ourselves in society, and in our personal lives.

    "It's only the giving, that makes what you are." - Ian Anderson

    by LamontCranston on Thu Jan 30, 2014 at 10:03:57 AM PST

  •  T & R for discussion. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    KVoimakas, Mark Mywurtz, DavidMS, gerrilea

    Figuring out this kind of stuff can be fun.

    But, I really dont care that some gun owner is inconvenienced because different state laws make it hard to take his gun from state to state.   What I care about is reducing gun injuries and deaths.  Tell me, why should I support national carry?

    an aside,  pehaps best in a separate diary - I have a request for those who do carry in public places.   ...  Help me understand, because I really dont get it -  Why do you carry?  A related question is what training have you had to ensure that you are proficient with your gun?

    •  Couple different things. (6+ / 0-)

      1. tipped for convo.
      2. Why shouldn't you support national carry? Having a state issued license good in all 50 states falls under full faith and credit.
      3. Why wouldn't I carry? It doesn't cost much. It's another piece of safety equipment to me, like a seatbelt or a helmet/leathers (at least with regards to carrying concealed).
      4. I've taken various NRA courses that teach competence, shoot at the range, and I've taken LEO oriented courses. Oh, and dry fire drills.

    •  The biggest issue here that I see is the (8+ / 0-)

      statement "I really don't care..." when you should care about the free exercise of all people rights especially those you personally don't undertake.  "I disagree with what you say but I will fight to the death for your right to say it" is not a defining liberal iconic statement for no reason but because it is the highest level of moral fortitude to understand rights to the point that one internalizes the fight for the exercise of rights of others even when they disagree.  Respect for rights is not about having an easy nor polite society but one in which the natural equality that the status of being human renders us all in all our ways as different as they may be.

      •  CarlosJ, this sounds an awful lot ... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        coquiero, Mark Mywurtz

        ... like you are saying I lack moral fortitude. Uh huh.  You of course are welcome to think whatever you like.

        But in case I am totally missing something that is glaringly obvious to everyone but me, how is my not caring about you being inconvenienced when complying with respective state laws – laws that, to my knowledge, are all consistent with the second amendment – equivalent to me disrespecting your rights?    

    •  I have earned the privlege of obtaining a CWL... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Crookshanks, Joy of Fishes

      for my state of NC, but do not carry as of this post, and don't feel the need to do so at this time.  My good friends are the opposite and carry 100% of the time.

       I am very trained and up to date on the legal issues I face in my state, and on the national level, and keep up my skill set and competency.  If I did decide to carry on a particular day, then I would consider that approach to be the sensible and most responsible and mature position I personally could, and would follow.  I found that for myself, obtaining the training and going through the procedure of obtaining a CWL, I could best learn all of the criteria, and requirements along with the proper techniques of firearm usage and issues in addition to getting a better understanding of the entire CWL picture, and national debate and dialogue from the perspective of one that can carry concealed via having gone through extensive training and education (ongoing, of course).
       Having said all that, I can best sum it up by stating that I have better feel for the serious responsibility I bear when and if I do carry anytime, anyplace, anywhere.

      "It's only the giving, that makes what you are." - Ian Anderson

      by LamontCranston on Thu Jan 30, 2014 at 02:18:39 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Thank you, LamontCranston. (0+ / 0-)

        I appreciate your explaining your approach to the responsibilities that come with carrying.  Would you help me with some perspective - I read the gun fail and this week diaries, read the news, etc.  The people involved in these tragedies are surely not representative of gun owners as a whole, but I don't have a benchmark for assessing this.  Of the people you personally know who have CWL, what proportion of them do you think prepare themselves sufficiently to be "proficient" in handling their guns?  

    •  For me? (5+ / 0-)

      Some do it because they can.  In my state, carry licenses require political connections or evidence of someone making a specific threat against you.  

      If they were more widely available, I'd get one for regulatory reasons, it would make getting gas on the way to the range or a meal on the way home legal (right now, I must drive straight to the range and straight back home).  

      If I lived in or traveled through a truly rural area or one that has minimal human habitation (like parts of the mountain west) , I would consider open carry if I thought the weight and bother were worth the added options.  

      I have always wanted to take a good self defense class that emphases de-escalation and basic methods to get out of trouble unarmed.  

      I'm a 4 Freedoms Democrat.

      by DavidMS on Thu Jan 30, 2014 at 08:10:37 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Here's the thing: (3+ / 0-)
      But, I really dont care that some gun owner is inconvenienced because different state laws make it hard to take his gun from state to state.   What I care about is reducing gun injuries and deaths.
      Those two items are not in conflict.

      Statistics kept by the state of Texas show that CCW holders are less than 1/3 as likely to commit crime as police officers, and fully 12 times less likely than non-CCW holders. If you don't like gun crime, you should want more gun owners to be in this category.

      The people that want to do this, who want to obtain this ability to carry around the country, are not the people who cause or commit gun crimes.

      I have a request for those who do carry in public places.   ...  Help me understand, because I really dont get it -  Why do you carry?
       
      For personal protection and to ensure the safety of myself and those I care about. I used to live in rural West Virginia, which is notorious for meth and home invasion. Now I live on the outskirts of DC, which is notorious for hopeless youth robbing and shooting things. Safety is a valid concern.  
      A related question is what training have you had to ensure that you are proficient with your gun?
      I received all of my training in the Marine Corps, including concealed carry- which is very unusual. Some 40-45 hours of range and class time. Several hundred rounds fired.

      General firearms use/safety: 300+ hours of range and class time, with several thousand rounds fired.  

      •  Thank you Neo Control. (0+ / 0-)

        I greatly appreciate your response, and what you are saying makes sense to me.  Mostly I see the argument for national carry permit being based on convenience.   Show me a national carry proposal that has a good chance of reducing gun deaths and injuries, and I'll support it.  The experience in TX that you cite suggests that this is possible.  And looking at this map - http://www.usacarry.com/... - suggests that the TX or MI models might be pretty good starting points for at least an intermediate level uniform carry license, with states that have more stringent standards being to continue to do so.

        How much of this -

        ... training in the Marine Corps, including concealed carry- which is very unusual. Some 40-45 hours of range and class time. Several hundred rounds fired.

        General firearms use/safety: 300+ hours of range and class time, with several thousand rounds fired.

        - would you advise your kid, if you have one, to obtain before carrying a gun?  Or advising lawmakers for a minimum permitting standard?
        •  Speaking for myself: (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Joy of Fishes

          A minimum standard would be 8 hours of class time (covering safety rules, laws and deescalation) along with 32 hours of range time covering application of safety principles, marksmanship and draw drilling. A written test would be given on principles of safety and firearms law. Two practical tests would be given: one on marksmanship and a second on draw/reload/fire drills.

          Maintainence of the license would require completing four hours of computer based training per year (which would serve as notice of recent law changes as well,) as well as passing the aforementioned practical test each year (the training would not be required for requalification.

          An aside, though the license would be shall issue, the testing to obtain it would be fairly difficult. Not expensive though. Training and testing at federally approved vendors would be tax deductible, and hardship credits would be availible to those showing imminent need and poor financial means.

  •  Deal breaker (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    88kathy, Joy of Fishes, Mark Mywurtz
    regardless of local law.
    In other words, you want to force people to have hidden guns in their presence, no matter what they want.

    You want to be able to sneak guns into their town, their restaurants, their public places, without them having any way to stop you except by staying home.

    Yeah, that's just wonderful. Not.



    Women create the entire labor force.
    ---------------------------------------------
    Sympathy is the strongest instinct in human nature. - Charles Darwin

    by splashy on Thu Jan 30, 2014 at 10:27:41 AM PST

    •  You do realize all 50 states have some (7+ / 0-)

      form of concealed carry right?

      •  I prefer open carry (0+ / 0-)

        That's all.  I want to see where the guns are pointed. That way I can duck or move out of the line of fire. It's the "concealed" part I don't like.



        Women create the entire labor force.
        ---------------------------------------------
        Sympathy is the strongest instinct in human nature. - Charles Darwin

        by splashy on Thu Jan 30, 2014 at 10:53:40 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  You completely sidestepped my point. (6+ / 0-)
          In other words, you want to force people to have hidden guns in their presence, no matter what they want.
          This is already happening. There are civilian concealed carry laws in all 50 states.
        •  For Modern firearms (7+ / 0-)

          Carried by 99.5% of people carrying today. It's basically impossible for that firearm to discharge without pulling the trigger. All the "Gun Fails" you see, they pulled the trigger thinking the firearm was unloaded. I could repeatedly throw my carry pistol against a brick wall and it would not discharge.

          Not "sweeping" someone with a firearm is one of the measures we use and enforce on others as a way of being safe. We stack rules on top of each other (finger not on trigger until ready to fire, always pointed in safe direction, treat every gun as loaded, etc...) so that if one fails (or is not obeyed) the others will save you.

          If my carry gun discharges magically without me pulling the trigger it's going to blow my right ass cheek off, not injure you.

          •  that cheek is why only the revolver rides appendix (5+ / 0-)

            Though I do agree that modern firearms are remarkably reliable, I still won't carry a chambered semi in appendix just because....

            The 1911 rides cocked and locked at about 4-5 the Glock it's all about Israeli style (unchambered) carry same or maybe a little further forward.

            I just don't trust the trigger safety or the heavy trigger not to get caught on a drawstring or similar...at least that seems to be the most common method of shooting yourself inadvertently with striker fired semis.

             Maybe I'm just an old grouch who thinks the last decent designer was John Moses Browning......I have to admit though the 23 fits well and is smooth shooting.....maybe eventually I'll trust it chambered.

            Vaya con Dios Don Alejo
            I want to die a slave to principles. Not to men.
            Emiliano Zapata

            by buddabelly on Thu Jan 30, 2014 at 01:03:59 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I also carry at between 4 and 5 o'clock (4+ / 0-)

              I have a bum right shoulder, so that is twinge inducing on the draw, but don't trust going any further forward, even though as we both stated, it's damn hard to fire one by accident. You'd have to snag the trigger on something on the draw while also having the grip safety depressed.

              I'd love a "real" 1911, it's on the list to get eventually. Current carry is an XDS which for all practical purposes is a Glock. Beside table is a Ruger Security Six .357. That's my favorite handgun, but way to big to carry concealed except maybe in winter.

            •  I'm 32 and was taught everything I know by a huge (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              buddabelly, gerrilea

              Glock guy, but I've still got this hangup with them:

              I just don't trust the trigger safety or the heavy trigger not to get caught on a drawstring or similar.
              I'd settle for a grip safety, that gives you the same level of protection with the advantage of not having to manually work a safety when fighting for your life.  I recall reading somewhere that JMB didn't have the thumb safety on the original 1911 design, it was added at the request of the Army.  Not sure if that's true or not, there's so many rumors flying around in the RKBA community that it's hard to separate fact from fiction.

              There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap box, ballot box, jury box and ammo box. Use in that order.

              by Crookshanks on Thu Jan 30, 2014 at 05:07:06 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  My only complaint about the 1911 (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              buddabelly, gerrilea, theatre goon

              is that I wish it had a hammer drop safety.  I know its safe to carry newer ones cocked and locked but my first center fire handgun was a SIG P6.  Its like a double action revolver on the first shot (heavy trigger pull) and subsequent shots are single action (lighter trigger pull).  When done, there is a lever on the side that is used to safely drop the hammer without firing the gun.  

              As for striker fired guns, if the holster is in good condition, even without anything beyond a safe action trigger, I would trust it not to fire without a finger on the trigger.  

              I'm a 4 Freedoms Democrat.

              by DavidMS on Thu Jan 30, 2014 at 08:18:53 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

    •  Gosh darn (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Wordsinthewind, Crookshanks, gerrilea

      that forced integration!  Seperate and equal seperate and equal!

  •  Huge fan of the graduated training requirements. (7+ / 0-)

    I understand the Constitutional Carry arguments, however practical and safe application of this right is what will ensure it's long term survival.

    That means training. Lots of it.

  •  I can support this (9+ / 0-)

    and to answer to some as to why concealed? There have a quite a few on this site that have stated that any time they see a open carry- they will make a fuss, scream and call the cops- no matter how legal.  

    And no one should be hassled by others and especially authorities for legal activities.

    Concealed removes the hassling for the most part.

  •  You can simplify things greatly by removing (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Joy of Fishes

    the federal management of Tier Three with the issuance of federal stamps to federally approved state programs: in other words, the same national imprimatur sought for under national reciprocity.

    And as I mentioned in our previous discussion, I'd be willing to trade the gun rights lobby's abeyance on massive NICS reform in exchange for federally secured reciprocity.  At the end of the day, we're not going to reduce gun violence or gun ownership through haphazard paper prosecutions.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site