• 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!

New York is against National Conceal Carry.

Are you for National Conceal CArry.

  • Total voters
    31
Cryptic said:
Do you have a source for this? Why must they recognize Driver Licenses,but not medical licenses? Both have the same underlying concept.
Click to expand...
the same underlying concept, with different particulars.

medical licenses used to be reciprocal in all 50 states... until unlicensed doctors crossing state lines became a problem.
state medical boards actually got together and canceled automatic reciprocity as a stop-gap measure....getting a medical license in a new state is really easy, as long as you are a license holder in good standing in another ....
so they basically still have reciprocity, but with a safety measure in place to protect the public health from unlicensed doctors.
it operates in much the same way the Drivers license compact does( sharing information), but it includes new licensing from the new state.
 
Cryptic said:
Does NewYork recognize Alabama licenses as a voluntary courtes?, or because they must? There is a huge difference.

As neither New york, nor Alabama are required to recognize each other's medical licenses, BAR memberships for attorneys, or say, electrician licenses, there is a good chance that the recognition of driver licenses is a courtesy only.
Click to expand...

Do you have a constitutional right to be an attorney, MD, or electrician?
 
EMNofSeattle said:
It's not any worse density wise then Portland or Seattle where gun laws are very lenient. the city is larger, but there are dense cities in the country with shall issue licensed.

I'm not a fan of state's rights, as you are demonstrating, states rights is a code word for depriving people of their civil rights.
Click to expand...

Well, those two western cities have populations of 600,000. New York city has 8 million people. It's just not smart to let anybody carry guns in a population that large and dense. Common sense tells us that. The city knows this and is trying to do something abut it.
 
jet57 said:
Well, those two western cities have populations of 600,000. New York city has 8 million people. It's just not smart to let anybody carry guns in a population that large and dense. Common sense tells us that. The city knows this and is trying to do something abut it.
Click to expand...

it's not about "letting just anyone carry".... we're talking about people whom posses valid concealed carry licenses issued in other states.

in short, it's about the proven "good guys" being allowed to carry, without fear of criminal prosecution, no matter what state they are in at the time.
 
Paleocon said:
No. Local governments should have the right to exercise discretion regarding issuing these permits.
Click to expand...

Local governments shouldn't have the authority to violate Constitutional rights-- whether they're 1st, 2nd, 4th, or otherwise.

What's the point of having a Bill of Rights if you allow the government to ignore it?
 
jet57 said:
Well, those two western cities have populations of 600,000. New York city has 8 million people. It's just not smart to let anybody carry guns in a population that large and dense. Common sense tells us that. The city knows this and is trying to do something abut it.
Click to expand...

But their downtown cores are as dense. There is zero public safety consideration here. Common sense as you define it is not backed up by the numbers. If concealed carry went shall issue in New York maybe 3% of the population would get licensed, 10% of those will carry regularly. The majority of tourists will not carry. So in reality even if "more guns equals more crime" (which is false) the maximum possible effect will be statistically insignificant. Justifiable homicides may increase, but that's a positive chamge
 
cpgrad08 said:
No it applies to license and permits as well.
Click to expand...

No it doesn't. If you believe it does, then get a law license in Washington and then go dispense legal advice in Oregon, and tell me how that goes.

Korimyr the Rat said:
Local governments shouldn't have the authority to violate Constitutional rights-- whether they're 1st, 2nd, 4th, or otherwise.

What's the point of having a Bill of Rights if you allow the government to ignore it?
Click to expand...

I don't think possessing deadly weapons should be considered a right.
 
jet57 said:
Well, those two western cities have populations of 600,000. New York city has 8 million people. It's just not smart to let anybody carry guns in a population that large and dense. Common sense tells us that. The city knows this and is trying to do something abut it.
Click to expand...

speaking of dense, that comment is a straw man. common sense has nothing to do with that silly argument because we are talking about law abiding people legally able to own guns who have a license to do so. and "dense" populations is where people need to be armed.
 
Paleocon said:
No it doesn't. If you believe it does, then get a law license in Washington and then go dispense legal advice in Oregon, and tell me how that goes.



I don't think possessing deadly weapons should be considered a right.
Click to expand...

the founding fathers disagree with you. so do most real conservatives
 
“Times Square is different than rural Wyoming, and our police don’t need even law abiding citizens having the right to carry guns,” Schumer said.
Click to expand...

Only because your string-pullers are militarizing them...
 
Paleocon said:
No it doesn't. If you believe it does, then get a law license in Washington and then go dispense legal advice in Oregon, and tell me how that goes.



I don't think possessing deadly weapons should be considered a right.
Click to expand...

Because Congress hasn't enacted full faith and credit when it comes to a law license. If the Feds wanted to, they can enact under that clause.
 
Last edited:
cpgrad08 said:
No we just have the ability to read the constitution.
Click to expand...

The Constitution is a liberal document.

cpgrad08 said:
No it applies to license and permits as well.
Click to expand...

No it doesn't. If you believe it does, then get a law license on Washington and then go dispense legal advice in Oregon, and tell me how that goes.
 
Paleocon said:
Almost every gun fanatic I've read has been a right-liberal.
Click to expand...

almost every gun hater on this board has been a marxist/socialist/progressive collectivist
 
Paleocon said:
The Constitution is a liberal document.



No it doesn't. If you believe it does, then get a law license on Washington and then go dispense legal advice in Oregon, and tell me how that goes.
Click to expand...

in the sense of what liberal meant 250 years ago. Liberal meant freedom.
 
Thrilla said:
does NY recognize Alabama drivers licenses as valid?.... yes, they do

does that mean that Alabama legislated New Yorks drivers license laws/requirements?... no.. it does not.
Click to expand...

So, why wouldn't Georgia recognise New York marriage licences? Would that mean that New York was legislating Georgia's marriage laws? By your logic, no it would not.

It's amusing and very telling to see how those right-libertarians are prepared to ditch their states-rights advocacy in favour of their gun obsessions.
 
LagerHead said:
You have no idea how freedom works. This statement proves it.
Click to expand...

It seems to me that you don't understand how freedom is not one thing, nor is it a process. Read some JS Mill and Isaiah Berlin and you'll understand exactly what Paschendale means.
 
Andalublue said:
It seems to me that you don't understand how freedom is not one thing, nor is it a process. Read some JS Mill and Isaiah Berlin and you'll understand exactly what Paschendale means.
Click to expand...

you cannot defend that silliness no matter how hard you try. My being able to POSSESS something has absolutely no deleterious impact on his freedom. Its as stupid as saying if gays can marry that deteriorates the marriages of heterosexuals
 
Andalublue said:
It seems to me that you don't understand how freedom is not one thing, nor is it a process. Read some JS Mill and Isaiah Berlin and you'll understand exactly what Paschendale means.
Click to expand...

I only need to understand that freedom belongs to the individual. Another person's irrational fear of inanimate objects is no justification to deny my freedoms. No person's opinion is going to change that.
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1064325523 said:
Do you have a constitutional right to be an attorney, MD, or electrician?
Click to expand...

No, there is none. The Supreme Court has also apparently ruled that the right to bear arms is not automatically equated with the ability to carry concealed weapons. Rather, individual States can decide whether a permit is needed, and if so, whether a "shall issue" or "can apply for" concept is used.

Please note that I am not a fan of New York's permit restrictions, but I am a huge fan of state's rights. At the end of the day, the proposed law is an infringement on states rights. As authority in the US has historically been localized when ever possible, I think the negative impact of infringements on states rights will be larger than how easy it is the people actually living in New York have made it to get a concealed weapons permit in New York.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom