-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
A federal standard for ltc holders?
- Thread starter darkstorm
- Start date
J
Jose
Keep the feds out of this.
Well I think the Federal Government addressed the issue in the Bill of Rights with amendment number two and that is the way it should be.
National licensure is kinda scary to me. That's like a national driver's license or a national school cirriculum.
Now imagine the licensing fees, the bureauracy and the rules involved. What would happen is that it would be like the situation in New York City where a few elites were allowed to carry concealed. I suppose that low capacity rifles and shotguns would be allowed for the masses provided that the guns were stored at the local police department, and of course you would be subject to a no-knock inspection of your home at any time to ensure compliance with the provisions of the license which I believe is the case in the U.K..
The law that allows LEOs carry concealed in all 50 states has run into some real speedbumps too. If I am not mistaken the City of Chicago refuses to recognize it.
Maybe it sounds good in theory, but in actuality, I think it would be a nightmare.
Mark05
National licensure is kinda scary to me. That's like a national driver's license or a national school cirriculum.
Now imagine the licensing fees, the bureauracy and the rules involved. What would happen is that it would be like the situation in New York City where a few elites were allowed to carry concealed. I suppose that low capacity rifles and shotguns would be allowed for the masses provided that the guns were stored at the local police department, and of course you would be subject to a no-knock inspection of your home at any time to ensure compliance with the provisions of the license which I believe is the case in the U.K..
The law that allows LEOs carry concealed in all 50 states has run into some real speedbumps too. If I am not mistaken the City of Chicago refuses to recognize it.
Maybe it sounds good in theory, but in actuality, I think it would be a nightmare.
Mark05
![[laugh]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/012.gif "Laugh [laugh]")
yanici
NES Member
We all agree the best situation would be "NO LICENSE NEEDED." But, that just ain't ever gonna happen in most states. Even though it puts the camel's nose in the tent, I'd like to see our state license recognized by all states. It would be like a driver license.
Garys
NES Member
I think that Obama wants to have a federal license to carry. Which should tell you right there that it's a bad, bad, idea. Because when you have someone in DC deciding who can own and carry firearms, NO ONE will be able to own and carry firearms.
+1
I'm not going to ask the federal government to create a federal license that recognizes my right to not house soldiers or my right to free speech.
Why would I want them to "recognize" my right with a license that they can take away?
NFW!
Indeed - we don't need national licensing, we need the government held to account for violating the Bill of Rights and denying us our due process of law by presuming our guilt without trial...
There is no license to speak freely - you don't have to ask permission to choose your religion, no permission or license remain silent and refuse unlawful search and seizure...
Those rights were put there to constrain government, not the people...
So, while I understand the thinking behind a nation/standard LTC to prevent FOPA issues allow free travel (which we are now denied but also theoretically entitled to) - this medicine (national ltc) is worse than the disease...
Punish all usurpers by voting them out of office while we still have the power to do so...
I think a Federal License should be required for ALL self-defense. Seriously. There are different state laws regarding things like mace, knives, batons, brass knuckles, etc. If there was one large centralized place that citizens could apply to to ask permission to defend themselves, we could do away with ALL of these laws.
This one Federal license should also cover unarmed self-defense. Everyone applying for the Self-Defense license should have to take a mandatory 16 hour hand-to-hand combat course at the appropriate government facility. It is ridiculous to assume that just because someone has a fist, that they know how to use it in a government approved fashion.
This one Federal license should also cover unarmed self-defense. Everyone applying for the Self-Defense license should have to take a mandatory 16 hour hand-to-hand combat course at the appropriate government facility. It is ridiculous to assume that just because someone has a fist, that they know how to use it in a government approved fashion.
Garys
NES Member
We should, but we shouldn't need a federal license to do it. Do you have a federal driver's license? States SHOULD and some do recognize each others licenses. Which is the point people are making here.
You didn't "mess up", you're just a bit to trusting.
![[wink]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/002.gif "Wink [wink]")
The real problem with a federal license is that it is even less the place of the feds to be issuing licenses than it is the state.
IMO there shouldn't be a need for licenses anywhere. Period.
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2007
- Messages
- 11,135
- Likes
- 1,600
you ask for a national standard permit to carry and you start messing with state's rights as well.
pdm
NES Member
I got a national standard for ya, it starts with "A well regulated Militia..."
Correct. As I stated the last time darkstorm made this comment, these are powers reserved to the states. The Federal government has no business imposing licensing on the entire country, most of which does not require firearms owners to be licensed.
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2008
- Messages
- 245
- Likes
- 46
The 2nd amendment is a right given to the people to protect us. But when the government prevents us from owning firearms then they themselves are creating a serious and dangerous conflict of interest. Tell me how can someone who has sworn to protect the constitution violate it ? The right to carry anywhere in the U.S.A.is the 2nd amendment, only the federal government surrendered our rights when they gave it to the states. Now each state gets to decide who will or won't own a firearm.
CRSIII
NES Member
Just keep coming!
That is the most horrible horrible idea that I have ever heard. First of all, keeping and bearing arms is your right and does not and should never require a permit. Second of all, being denied in one state then would mean being denied in all fifty. We need less government, not more. Try again.
Incorrect.
None of the Rights in the BOR are "given" to us in any way, shape or form.
Those rights are our God-given birthrights. No earthly man, woman or government gives them to us.
Remember, if rights are given to us, they can be taken away.
Indeed... That and the BOR as it is written is a constraint on government not (as you say) a grant of rights to the people...
"Congress shall make no law"
"Shall not be infringed"
"No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house"
"The right of the people....shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue"
See a pattern there? They don't say what we "can do"... They tell the government what it cannot do...
