No, no idea, nope.
I open carry from time to time. You would be surprised at the number of people who don’t notice a gun that’s right under their noses.
And besides, as OpenCarry.org says, “A right unexercised is a right lost.” Would you refrain from voting because of concerns that some police might not realize you were eligible to vote?
Well, I refrain from yelling derogatory stuff at everyone I think deserves it because I don’t want to have to get in arguments and fights with dozens or hundreds of people every day, but I don’t think that’s gonna cause me to lose my 1st Amendment rights.
I too open carry from time to time. It’s shocking how oblivious people are about it.
Plus a lot more people are aware that it is legal and don’t get their shit hot over it, contrary to what some on these boards believe.
In the many places OC is legal law enforcement tends to be well educated to it’s legality. Since the open carry movement started gaining momentum in the last few years there has been more specific training regarding open carry. I’m in a large metro area and it’s not really that big of deal anymore.
One of the measures in Heller was “dangerous and unusual” so there is definitely a basis for exercising certain rights. If not ownership of certain arms or exercise of certain rights could be considered unusual and fall out of grace. There is no such parallel in other arenas.
Looking at it this morning, it looks like no – I just glanced at it last night and reached the wrong conclusion :smack:
I agree that this is a concern. But this could be addressed. The laws could be written in such a way that there is a minimum threshold of requirements for all states.
I totally disagree that “this is clearly what their (the NRA’s) goal is.” As I said in the OP, there is a real problem here. The patchwork of laws can and does trap people who are trying to follow the rules but inadvertently cross a state line and become serious criminals.
The NRA is a gun rights organization, not a state’s rights organization. There’s no hypocrisy in that.
A similar situation was when the NRA supported laws forcing companies to allow guns in their employees cars. This time it was gun rights vs property rights and some gun owners that are also libertarian leaning conservative types were conflicted.
Sometimes rights are in conflict with each other.
The problem with open carry is that there is a huge “common sense” element to it. When I’m up in the North Woods on a hunting trip, I’ll walk into the local store with a pistol openly holstered and no one would think twice about it. It wouldn’t even be that unusual if I had a long gun openly being carried for some reason. (If I were bringing it in to be repaired for instance.)
However, in the same state I would never bring those guns into a city like Portland, ME and walk around downtown with it. That would alarm people.
These sorts of distinctions are hard to legislate.
Here’s a thought: Is it possible to get universal reciprocity (or close to it) by working at the state level instead of the federal level? Some states will recognize any other state that returns the favor. Should the NRA focus on expanding this list?
There are going to be holdouts. MA and others don’t recognize any other state laws, which is absurd.
But would it be worthwhile to try and get 40-45 states that all have reciprocity agreements with each other? Then you could try and work on the few remaining anti-gun states.
Sorry, what I meant was that imposing it top-down from the federal level would be a no-go. Hopefully as more states allow constitutional carry (and marijuana :D), and we don’t see the sky come crashing down, it will become more common.
I agree that SCOUTS has not recognized this right, but several states have. And the fact that SCOTUS has not recognized this civil right does not mean that it does not exist - the right to arms is a pre-existing right, remember? Of course, in practice this makes little difference and I am more concerned with the practical realities rather than the philosophical when it comes to gun rights.
So I agree that SCOTUS has only recognized a limited civil right here, but it is one none the less however limited. In that sense this is not a matter of state’s rights and when considering the issue gun rights supporters do not consider this a state’s rights issue at all, rather one of a fundamental civil right, not unlike the free speech.
For the same reasons I wouldn’t personally open carry. I support those who choose to in their jurisdictions that allow it. That includes forcing police to comply with the law when they make illegal arrests.
Of course, I’m in CA so we have virtually no rights at all. I’m hoping Peruta sticks or Drake wins (in that order). In the meantime national reciprocity has virtually no chance of overcoming a veto. The strategy should be to attach it to a bill that must pass, like a debt ceiling increase or an omnibus budget.
You sure you want to go that route? Once there are federal standards in place to get a CC license, the requirements can be ratcheted up just as easily as down.
You really want Diane Feinstein to have a say in how your state issues gun licenses?
I’m not Debaser, but I understood his proposal to mean that in order for a state permit to qualify for national concealed carry reciprocity, it must meet certain federal standards. If Idaho wants to hand out permits like coupons to McDonalds, then that is okay for Idaho carry, but the permit wouldn’t qualify for national reciprocity.
So what is to stop, say, New Jersey, from passing a law saying that people with permits cannot carry within a mile of a church, school, bus terminal, restaurant, another permit holder, etc. so that the whole state is basically a no-carry zone?
Ok, maybe the courts would see through such an obvious attempt, but they could make the list so onerous that a person just leaves his gun at home because he is bound to come into contact with a no-carry place at some point.
But then how does that resolve the problem of the patchwork system of laws that make it hard for gun-owners to travel between states?
One more refocusing. Reading this far it appears there are two views concerning the NRA goal in this matter.
First, correctly, that the goal is for universal reciprocity. That a license issued in one state is valid in all states, restricted by the regulations of the state a person is visiting. Essentially identical to driver’s licenses.
Second, incorrectly, that the goal is to have all states adopt the same guidelines for issuing permits, or alternately, that the federal government will take over permitting and remove it from the purvue of the states. These are not on the table at this time.
NRA calls for universal conceal carry gun law for crossing state lines
Attempts to argue this as violating states rights is humorous at best, and ludicrous hypocracy at worst.
Most of the people arguing for states rights would be the same ones trampling them into the dust if the argument were for universal background checks rather than universal reciprocity. For the good of the people and all.
Of course. Let’s also wait for 40-45 states to adopt same sex marriage. Like we waited for 40-45 states to recognize mixed race marriage. Rights are rights.
Absolutely nothing. Except maybe the threat of the lawsuit that would invariably follow. This is, in fact, the exact tactic that was adopted by Chicago once SCOTUS threw out Illinois complete ban. There will always be holdouts, so get to the end that should/will be gotten to as economically as possible and then focus on the problems.
In Heller, the Court expressly held that laws against concealed carry were not forbidden by the 2nd amendment or any preexisting right.
I have no problem with states that want strict gun laws so long as they allow basic rights which Heller and McDonald have rightly concluded encompasses the right to own common firearms (“keep” arms) and it’s just my opinion that they also must allow some reasonable form of carry whether open or concealed (“bear” arms).
I don’t see where you get the idea that national reciprocity is a constitutional right.
“Full faith and credit”?