Carrying to a pub in Boston...aka Meninoland

[pdm]

That's an exceedingly bad idea.

Fix Massachussetts. Don't screw the rest of the country up with more unconstitutional federal laws.

I almost wouldn't mind federal CCW if someone rational wrote it. Especially if it trumped MA's dumbassery.

 

[FunYun]

What!

Wouldn't you just love to be able to carry in all 50 States without going through every States different ideas as to how we should carry?

Thats not what he said. Some states like NH and VT do not require any license to carry, and now you want to force them too?

Licensing is a step back wards, if you can buy a gun, you should be able to take it anywhere.

 

[jar]

The federal permit should be sufficient to carry in any state, but not necessary given state law providing for carry.

 

[dwarven1]

I value my freedom too much (and my anus in its present, non flaccid condition) to find myself in prison because I tried to be Steve McQueen or John Wayne and it backfired.

Little too much information there, Mark.

Thats not what he said. Some states like NH and VT do not require any license to carry, and now you want to force them too?

Not correct; NH DOES require a license to carry concealed. VT and (I think) AK are the only ones with no requirement for a concealed carry permit. I'm not 100% certain on Alaska, though... never looked it up because I don't expect to go there again.

 

[Jose]

Anyone who wants to give MORE power over firearms regulation to the Feds is crazy.

The tenth amendment specifically states that all powers not specifically granted to the Federal government are reserved to the states. Firearm controls is one of them.

 

[Jose]

Wouldn't you just love to be able to carry in all 50 States without going through every States different ideas as to how we should carry?

No. Because doing so is an unconstitutional usurpation of states' powers.

You cannot be for the Second Amendment and against the Tenth because it suits you.

 

[Jose]

VT and (I think) AK are the only ones with no requirement for a concealed carry permit. I'm not 100% certain on Alaska

When it comes to CCW, Alaska = Vermont except Alaska will still issue a license if requested so that Alaskans can enjoy the reciprocity Alaska has with other states without having to get a NR license from somewhere else.

 

[Jose]

I almost wouldn't mind federal CCW if someone rational wrote it.

Like Charles Schumer?

Those of us in free states want NOTHING to do with more federal regulation of firearms. Nothing good can come of it.

Besides, it is unconstitutional anyway.

 

[FunYun]

Little too much information there, Mark.

Not correct; NH DOES require a license to carry concealed. VT and (I think) AK are the only ones with no requirement for a concealed carry permit. I'm not 100% certain on Alaska, though... never looked it up because I don't expect to go there again.

Half-right, open carry is unrestricted, but whatever, the point is still the same.

 

[pdm]

I wouldn't consider Schumer rational. Especially when it comes to guns. And do note I did say "almost".

 

[FunYun]

Anyone who wants to give MORE power over firearms regulation to the Feds is crazy.

The tenth amendment specifically states that all powers not specifically granted to the Federal government are reserved to the states. Firearm controls is one of them.

Where does the 2nd allow for control over arms?

 

[drgrant]

No. Because doing so is an unconstitutional usurpation of states' powers.

You cannot be for the Second Amendment and against the Tenth because it suits you.

What if the 2nd amendment was INCORPORATED?

This would solve a lot of problems, and the states would essentially
be told to FOAD, and nobody would need silly permits or
have to beg for permission anymore.

I also think it's nonsensical that I can get a drivers license that
"works" in all 50 states for a PRIVILEGE (something the state can
take away that isn't constitutionally protected) but I need a
metric ton and a half of licenses to excercise something which is
often considered a god given/natural RIGHT (which is supported
and protected by the constitution) and at that, only be able to do
so in about 40 out of 50 states. WTF is wrong with that
picture?

-Mike

 

[Jose]

Where does the 2nd allow for control over arms?

WTF are you talking about?

Fix your own state. Mine does not need nor want federal intervention in an area that it is NOT its province anyway.

 

[drgrant]

Half-right, open carry is unrestricted, but whatever, the point is still the same.

Open Carry in NH is NOT without constraints.... If you get into
a motor vehicle in NH with a loaded handgun without having a valid
NH CCW (or reciprocal equivalent) you are breaking the law. It
doesn't matter whether the gun is concealed or not. A seemingly
minor detail but worthy of mentioning...

-Mike

 

[GSG]

Dwarven, you're correct. Vermont, no need for a permit, you own it you can carry it. Alaska, permit is optional, handy since it counts as an NICS check and if you want reciprocity in other states, but it's not required or expected.

 

[Higgy]

I really am in favor of that idea of open carry while in a bar!

I was amazed when I was in Las Vegas, to see people walking down the City sidewalks with drink in hand & a 357 Magnum revolver on there side holster. Just like there was no care in the world at all!

Now! That is the way it should be, everywhere!

I want a "Federal License to carry in all 50 States" Now!

Live Free or Die.

I feel sad for folks who live in anti-gunner states, and I'll probably be labelled an ass for this remark, but the onus is on everyone who owns or would like to own a gun and use it. If someone lives in a state like Mass or CA and all they do is whine and complain on a forum instead of becoming involved in programs to change the legislation on weapons laws, then they are indeed part of the problem. These states are truly fine examples of only criminals having the guns... and there are still plenty of them.

Of all the truly lame-ass movements and advertisments you see on television and hear on the radio - you never ever hear an ad for Smith and Wesson. Why? We shooters spend millions every year on the product - why arent our rights protected?

The media always spins anything concerning guns way out of control. Its annoying, because its really a lawless world out there, and any semblance of civilization is only tenuous. A gun is only a modern bow, which is only a modernized spear, which is only a modernized club, which is only a modernized rock or stick. When will it all stop?

Sorry for the rant.

Seems like things are rather upside down.

 

[Coyote33]

You need to know the type of bar you are going to be in. I don't mean the theme, I mean is it a place known for trouble or not. ...

Both of those are "clubs" and not bars. There are several places where you can go to drink and never have to worry about a fight or any sort of violence. ...

...

The choice to carry, bar or not, is a personal one. If you are going to carry, at least in this state, you have to be very low key and walk away whenever possible. But I expect that everyone here knows that.
...

My gun club has a bar.

Trouble is, they don't allow guns.

That said, I feel pretty safe going there if I want a drink. The only thing I'd fear is the stench of smoke in my clothes.

 

[pdm]

Live Free or Die.

I feel sad for folks who live in anti-gunner states, and I'll probably be labelled an ass for this remark, but the onus is on everyone who owns or would like to own a gun and use it. If someone lives in a state like Mass or CA and all they do is whine and complain on a forum instead of becoming involved in programs to change the legislation on weapons laws, then they are indeed part of the problem. These states are truly fine examples of only criminals having the guns... and there are still plenty of them.

Of all the truly lame-ass movements and advertisments you see on television and hear on the radio - you never ever hear an ad for Smith and Wesson. Why? We shooters spend millions every year on the product - why arent our rights protected?

The media always spins anything concerning guns way out of control. Its annoying, because its really a lawless world out there, and any semblance of civilization is only tenuous. A gun is only a modern bow, which is only a modernized spear, which is only a modernized club, which is only a modernized rock or stick. When will it all stop?

Sorry for the rant.

Seems like things are rather upside down.

We've been successfully cowed over the past couple of decades. For the children.

 

[dwarven1]

My gun club has a bar.

Trouble is, they don't allow guns.

That said, I feel pretty safe going there if I want a drink. The only thing I'd fear is the stench of smoke in my clothes.

Ah, I see you're a member of Riverside Gun Club.

 

[Coyote33]

Ah, I see you're a member of Riverside Gun Club.

Wrong, guess again. (But I've heard they are pretty bad there.)

...The media always spins anything concerning guns way out of control. Its annoying, because its really a lawless world out there, and any semblance of civilization is only tenuous. A gun is only a modern bow, which is only a modernized spear, which is only a modernized club, which is only a modernized rock or stick. When will it all stop?

...

Seems like things are rather upside down.

On the news last night were 3 stories.

1. Mother shakes baby to death: Mother released
2. Kid tries to take a gun from Transit cop: $25,000 bail
3. Hit and run resulting in death: $5,000 bail


Bad gun, bad bad gun.

 

[dwarven1]

Wrong, guess again. (But I've heard they are pretty bad there.)

There are TWO clubs like that???

On the news last night were 3 stories.

1. Mother shakes baby to death: Mother released
2. Kid tries to take a gun from Transit cop: $25,000 bail
3. Hit and run resulting in death: $5,000 bail

Bad gun, bad bad gun.

*sigh* Predictable.

 

[matt]

Wrong, guess again. (But I've heard they are pretty bad there.)

You shoot in Winchendon?!

 

[matt]

The federal permit should be sufficient to carry in any state, but not necessary given state law providing for carry.

sounds like a one legged table... it would fall over real easy...

 

[Scrivener]

On the news last night were 3 stories.

1. Mother shakes baby to death: Mother released
2. Kid tries to take a gun from Transit cop: $25,000 bail
3. Hit and run resulting in death: $5,000 bail


Bad gun, bad bad gun.

In two of the three stories, there was no gun involved whatsoever.
In the third story, the "bad gun" was the transit cop's.

Your point?

 

[dwarven1]

I believe that he was pointing out that in the two cases where someone was killed, in one case the killer was released, and the other the bail was set at $5000. In the case where someone attempted to steal a gun but no one was even hurt, the bail was 5x greater.

 

[pdm]

In two of the three stories, there was no gun involved whatsoever.
In the third story, the "bad gun" was the transit cop's.

Your point?

I think he's pointing out the disparity in punishment for the crimes. At least, that's how I read it.

[edit] Beaten by minutes!

 

[Scrivener]

I think he's pointing out the disparity in punishment for the crimes. At least, that's how I read it.

What "punishment" might that be? Note that there has not even been a jury empanelled, still less a trial and conviction.

You have all confused punishment with bail, which is what was really presented. Apples and pomegranates.

Bail is NOT a function of the crime charged; it is determined by the likelihood of the accused to appear for trial. Period.

"Dangerousness" is a separate issue and is addressed in a separate hearing, when necessary.

 

[Garys]

In two of the three stories, there was no gun involved whatsoever.
In the third story, the "bad gun" was the transit cop's.

Your point?

Knowing you're a stickler for detail, I'll point out once again that the revenue agent (money collector) is not a transit PO. Big difference.

Gary

 

[Garys]

Bail is NOT a function of the crime charged; it is determined by the likelihood of the accused to appear for trial. Period.

"Dangerousness" is a separate issue and is addressed in a separate hearing, when necessary.

Dangerous aside, what part, if any does a previous record play in setting bail? I'd think that the judge has the BOP in front of him when he's setting bail.

Gary

 

[bostonasphalt2]

What the f**K is wrong with you? If he can carry, he can carry. Jesus! Peel off the Light Days With Wings and think before you post. If you can carry legally, why give up that right anytime? The first step to losing your rights is to make up laws limiting them, and then obey them on your own.

(Thanks DrGrant for that line).

Pretty sure that concealed carry is NOT honored in places where the primary revenue is from alcohol sales. So, in that case, I would say you are rather out of line with your post there.