• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do you think a concealed carry license should be national like a drivers license?

Do you think a concealed carry license should be national like a drivers license?


  • Total voters
    44
Anyone have any idea on how this might be handled? Speculation?

Interesting...good to bring up: there are states that dont require a permit to cc....what happens with those states/people?
 
Like with gay marriage.

.....

Much like I think a marriage liscence granted in one state should be respected and treated as legitimate in another state, regardless of the second states stance on whether or not they would've issued said liscence, I would think the same thing here.
 
Interesting...good to bring up: there are states that dont require a permit to cc....what happens with those states/people?

To my understanding, those people would not be covered becuase they've not been issued some form of public record.

IF national reciprocity was enforced by the feds, what you'd likely see is states that don't require a permit to CC to begin issuing permits that likely simply affirm the persons ability to conceal carry as opposed to being inherently required to do so in that state. Essentially, you don't need a permit to CC in that state, but the state will issue you a permit as a public record noting you have the ability to conceal carry in that state.

Also a note...if a state does not allow for CC in typical fashion and has no such permit process, then they would not be forced to reciprocate. It would only be if the state has some kind of permit process allowing for CC.
 
I'd support a bill like that in principle. Article IV, sec. 1 requires each state to "give full faith and credit" to the "public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state." But the same section qualifies that requirement, by giving Congress power to make laws that "prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effects thereof."

This federal law, as I understand it, would prescribe what effect a state's concealed-carry law was to have in other states.
 
To my understanding, those people would not be covered becuase they've not been issued some form of public record.

IF national reciprocity was enforced by the feds, what you'd likely see is states that don't require a permit to CC to begin issuing permits that likely simply affirm the persons ability to conceal carry as opposed to being inherently required to do so in that state. Essentially, you don't need a permit to CC in that state, but the state will issue you a permit as a public record noting you have the ability to conceal carry in that state.

Also a note...if a state does not allow for CC in typical fashion and has no such permit process, then they would not be forced to reciprocate. It would only be if the state has some kind of permit process allowing for CC.

Interesting. States that dont require a cc permit have the standard that you must just be legally allowed to own a gun. In my own state, there are no other requirements than that either, except the state chooses the option to verify that for the permit. (Fingerprint/background check). A fairly small distinction but it does give them the ability to track people and data.

I prefer no permit but I'd take our method if they did create an acceptable national reciprocity law.
 
Cool, and if I dont know the property owner's wishes, I do what I want. I most certainly never assume a person hates Christians, gays, guns, etc.

You are confusing a business owner's inability to discriminate on the basis of a protected group with your inability to practice whatever amendment freedom you feel like on private property.

If it's a business, again, they arent responsible for my right to life...*I am*. And unless they are planning on guaranteeing it, I will exercise my right *privately*. Let's face it, if they have security, it's to protect them and *their property.* Not my life.
If a business forbids weapons, distributing poltical fliers etc then I do not do those things at that business, or I simply dont enter it. This is for two reasons:

A- I respect the property rights of others as a philosophy
B- Practical- I know that some owners take property rights very seriously. A hypothetical, a gun banning owner would be unlikely my cocnealed weapon, but it could happen. I dont want to be caught in an escalating situation that I could have avoided had I just stayed off the property in question. Win or lose, I could still lose in the end.
 
You are confusing a business owner's inability to discriminate on the basis of a protected group with your inability to practice whatever amendment freedom you feel like on private property.


If a business forbids weapons, distributing poltical fliers etc then I do not do those things at that business, or I simply dont enter it. This is for two reasons:

A- I respect the property rights of others as a philosophy
B- Practical- I know that some owners take property rights very seriously. A hypothetical, a gun banning owner would be unlikely my cocnealed weapon, but it could happen. I dont want to be caught in an escalating situation that I could have avoided had I just stayed off the property in question. Win or lose, I could still lose in the end.

No, not really, regarding discrimination. It was more about opinions and beliefs than group. It seemed like an easier example to understand. It was more about the FIrst Amendment....and if he or she was completely against my political leanings for instance. Or my position on abortion, things like that. They dont know unless I tell them.

I take property rights seriously...do they take my right to life and safety (pursuit of happiness) just as seriously?

Edit: I'm being a bit contentious, yes, but please dont take it personally. It's a topic I like to explore.
 
So I am carrying my First Amendment rights with me at all time. If I exercise them, and you dont like what I say, you can ask me to leave. However you have no idea what my opinion is on any issue until I express it. Same with my religion. I am a Christian....if you object to Christians in your home, and dont know I'm a Christian....I am still exercising my right to practice my religious beliefs....but if you see my cross necklace and object, you can ask me to leave.

Same thing if I am concealing my firearm. If you learn, somehow, that I am carrying it, you can ask me to leave. And I would. My firearm is no different than my 'beliefs'

when we look at rights, we have to use basic common sense

you have no exerciseable rights on my property, 99.9% of the time i would not care what you do own their property.....<---------common sense.

however you have no right to carry a firearm on my property, pray, [meaning to perform some kind of ceremony] protest on my property , say bad things about me of others on my property.

if you do things i dont like i ask you to leave, if you refuse i call the law and they arrest you........i cannot touch you to enforce my property unless you pose a threat to me or others.
 
Liberty is exercisable and the various levels of govt can remove it for cause and do so all the time.

rights can be infringed for a person, when they violate the rights of other people or threaten the health and saftey of the public.

but the"right itself" for the people cannot be infringed.
 
when we look at rights, we have to use basic common sense

you have no exerciseable rights on my property, 99.9% of the time i would not care what you do own their property.....<---------common sense.

however you have no right to carry a firearm on my property, pray, [meaning to perform some kind of ceremony] protest on my property , say bad things about me of others on my property.

if you do things i dont like i ask you to leave, if you refuse i call the law and they arrest you........i cannot touch you to enforce my property unless you pose a threat to me or others.

Absolutely I recognize your right to ask me to leave. And I would. However I would still have my opinions, political leanings, gun, and religious beliefs with me up to that point.

Of course, I'd do that if someone didnt like the color of my socks too. Because unless it's discrimination, for the most part if someone asks you to leave their property or business, you have to or it's trespassing.
 
Slightly tangential...is that your personal choice on your property?

when property belongs to me, i make the descions about it unless, ..again it violaltes the rights of others or threaten the health and safety of the public......because without doing those 2 two things government has no authoirty to act.
 
rights can be infringed for a person, when they violate the rights of other people or threaten the health and saftey of the public.

but the"right itself" for the people cannot be infringed.

I dont understand your distinction.
 
when property belongs to me, i make the descions about it unless, ..again it violaltes the rights of others or threaten the health and safety of the public......because without doing those 2 two things government has no authoirty to act.

Perhaps I wasnt direct enough (not usually a problem I have however).

Do you allow people carrying firearms on your property?

If not, what do you do to prevent it?
 
I dont understand your distinction.

we the people have say a right to bear a firearm, however a individual citizn can have that right infringed upon becase he broke the law.

but the right itself, meaning that for every citizen as whole, cannot be infringed upon by government.....meaning the government cannot take away a right from the public.

governments duty is to secure rights...thats it only purpose, if a person is not violating the rights of another person or threaten the health and safety of the public, then by what authoirty does government have to act since there is no victim.
 
Perhaps I wasnt direct enough (not usually a problem I have however).

Do you allow people carrying firearms on your property?

If not, what do you do to prevent it?

if i didnt want you to carry on my property i would ask you to leave my property...if you refuse i call the law.

Government is to secure rights, it cannot prevent some rights violations from happening, but it can others by regulations.
 
if i didnt want you to carry on my property i would ask you to leave my property...if you refuse i call the law.

Government is to secure rights, it cannot prevent some rights violations from happening, but it can others by regulations.

You didnt answer my question. Do you allow people to carry on your property? (And yes, I realize that you probably do not know if a person is carrying or not)
 
You didnt answer my question. Do you allow people to carry on your property? (And yes, I realize that you probably do not know if a person is carrying or not)

yes i would allow them on my property in general , if i had a bad feeling about an individual i would tell them no.
 
yes i would allow them on my property in general , if i had a bad feeling about an indidual i would tell them no.

Thank you.

I would do the same in general, not even related to guns. Just IMO.
 
Thank you.

I would do the same in general, not even related to guns. Just IMO.

most of the itme in our lifes when we enter the property of another person, 99.9 % of the time they do not care what we do because they want our business.

it thats small faction when people get out of hand and the law needs to be called.
 
The ability to excersize any amendment freedom (carry a weapon, hold a church service, hold a poltical protest etc.) is always at the discretion of the property owner. As no one is obligated to enter the property, there is no restriction on rights, and any threats to safety are taken voluntarily.



I consider private property that is not normally open to the public, and private property that IS open to the public, two different categories.

Also, if the property is owned by one's employer, one is OBLIGED to enter the property in order to perform one's job. Because the "balance of power" favors the employer in such situations, it is well established that the gov't protect the employee from abuse by the employer... hence OSHA, etc.

Which is one reason we have laws in may state saying an employer may not forbid you from keeping your gun in your automobile, even though it may be parked in the employer's owned lot.
 
I guess where I'm coming from is that if a permit must be issued then I'd prefer that the states choose how/whether to do so than to hand that authority over to the feds as well. I like the option of moving to a state where they believe in liberty if I need to but if this whole thing is dictated by the feds we'll all be screwed.



Which is why I favor "full faith and credit" RECOGNITION of other state's permits, rather than a Fed Permit.
 
Which is why I favor "full faith and credit" RECOGNITION of other state's permits, rather than a Fed Permit.

Fed permit leads to registration.
 
Exactly, unless he or a business owner can guarantee my right to life on their property.



Simple solution: business owner can ban guns on their property if they want... BUT if anyone suffers from a criminal assault on their property while thus disarmed, the burden of proof will be on the OWNER that he took great care to provide security for those he invited onto his property (albeit under the demand they disarm)... and if that doesn't include metal detectors manned by armed security officers at every entrance, he's probably liable...


That would take care of that bull****...
 
Which is why I favor "full faith and credit" RECOGNITION of other state's permits, rather than a Fed Permit.

I'd go for that.

If SCOTUS came down with a decision that said "Under Article IV, Section 1, if a state allows Constitutional Carry for the citizens of that state then all other states have to recognize that right for those citizens" I'd be fine with that.

Well, come to think of it, I'd hate it because we'd have Californians lining up at the state line to come here and that would suck.:lol:
 
I'd go for that.

If SCOTUS came down with a decision that said "Under Article IV, Section 1, if a state allows Constitutional Carry for the citizens of that state then all other states have to recognize that right for those citizens" I'd be fine with that.

Well, come to think of it, I'd hate it because we'd have Californians lining up at the state line to come here and that would suck.:lol:

amen!
 
Back
Top Bottom