Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: MillCreek on September 18, 2015, 07:57:44 PM
-
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/09/18/trump-plan-calls-for-nationwide-concealed-carry-and-an-end-to-gun-bans/
Mr. Trump calls for a nationwide carry permit, an end to firearm and magazine bans and the inclusion of mental health and criminal records in background checks.
-
Crap. I can't disagree with anything he said there.
-
Is he talking about federal carry permits? Or nationwide reciprocity? (which the Full Faith and Credit clause already demands, but the states ignore it, and the feds don't like it so they don't care. And federal judges know who signs their paychecks)
-
I read it as reciprocity.
-
Um, don't background checks always include a check for criminal records? Or do they currently just check your surname against the Mayflower's manifest?
-
Um, don't background checks always include a check for criminal records? Or do they currently just check your surname against the Mayflower's manifest?
"I'm sorry Moses Fletcher, but I have some bad news from NICS."
-
Um, don't background checks always include a check for criminal records? Or do they currently just check your surname against the Mayflower's manifest?
I question that also.
-
I question that also.
Yeah, I think that's him again hitting the popular talking points without knowing all the facts. If I were to give him the benefit of the doubt, I'd say he was reinforcing that background checks should always include both criminal histories as they do, and also add more extensive mental health histories. I can't really trust that he's not just playing fast and loose to an audience though.
-
It sounds like national reciprocity. Which may have certain problems in states with severe training/performance testing recognizing permits from states with lower standards. Which brings us the the possibility of a national standard. [tinfoil]
Trump said in the paper he has a concealed carry permit. The permits, which are issued by states, should be valid nationwide like a driver's license, Trump said.
When did Trump move out of NYC? A NY State permit is as good as used toilet paper inside the city limits
stay safe.
-
It sounds like national reciprocity. Which may have certain problems in states with severe training/performance testing recognizing permits from states with lower standards. Which brings us the the possibility of a national standard. [tinfoil]
When did Trump move out of NYC? A NY State permit is as good as used toilet paper inside the city limits
stay safe.
There's a lot of celebrities with NYC permits. Are those permits no good for actually carrying?
-
There's a lot of celebrities with NYC permits. Are those permits no good for actually carrying?
IF they are NYC residents they are perfectly good. If they are not a NYC resident possession is supposed to be a felony. (Just keep in mind that NYC issues possession permits and CC permits. CCing with the lesser permit is also a felony.)
NYS only issues permits to NYS residents.
stay safe.
-
"I'm sorry Moses Fletcher, but I have some bad news from NICS."
According to the Google, Moses Fletcher arrived on the Mayflower. So that would be good news.
-
According to the Google, Moses Fletcher arrived on the Mayflower. So that would be good news.
Oh, I thought NICS denied passengers on the Mayflower.
The more you know.
-
IF they are NYC residents they are perfectly good. If they are not a NYC resident possession is supposed to be a felony. (Just keep in mind that NYC issues possession permits and CC permits. CCing with the lesser permit is also a felony.)
NYS only issues permits to NYS residents.
stay safe.
I was thinking specifically of Robert De Niro, and the members of the band Aerosmtih, all of whom have been issued NYC carry permits. I don't think Steve Tyler is a NYC resident. Dunno about De Niro or the others.
-
I was thinking specifically of Robert De Niro, and the members of the band Aerosmtih, all of whom have been issued NYC carry permits. I don't think Steve Tyler is a NYC resident. Dunno about De Niro or the others.
They're rich and famous and could easily afford armed bodyguards. So they don't need NYC carry permits except to have something peons can never get (that's why they are allowed them. They probably don't even have to pay the fee) It's just a status symbol, and it keeps us in our place. :spit: I don't blame them, I blame the politicians.
-
Um, don't background checks always include a check for criminal records? Or do they currently just check your surname against the Mayflower's manifest?
They include the check, but the problem is that not all of the relevant records are in or available to the federal database for criminal records, much less mental health ones, which run into HIPAA roadblocks.
Basically, if you were convicted of a felony a 'long time ago' in a place that's particularly bureaucratically backwards, your name might not be in the database, and thus able to pass a NICS check.
A bigger problem is when you've been committed three times for being a danger to others but aren't in the system because the state you're in isn't sharing them.
Neither is actually that huge of a problem though. It might of stopped 1-2 of the spree killings over the last decade, no more.
-
Getting back to The Donald, I read his position statement on the Second Amendment. I don't think his call for national carry advocates for either a national permit, or universal state reciprocity. He simply points out that we should all be able to carry in every state -- I can't argue with that.
But he uses the driver's license analogy, which suggests that he may be looking more toward universal reciprocity rather than a national carry license.
-
It sounds like national reciprocity. Which may have certain problems in states with severe training/performance testing recognizing permits from states with lower standards. Which brings us the the possibility of a national standard. [tinfoil]
When did Trump move out of NYC? A NY State permit is as good as used toilet paper inside the city limits
stay safe.
I think you are probably right, but the devil is in the details. Also, who will be drafting the proposed law makes a big difference.
-
Direct quote and source:
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/second-amendment-rights
PROTECTING OUR SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS WILL MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
Donald J. Trump on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms
The Second Amendment to our Constitution is clear. The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed upon. Period.
The Second Amendment guarantees a fundamental right that belongs to all law-abiding Americans. The Constitution doesn’t create that right – it ensures that the government can’t take it away. Our Founding Fathers knew, and our Supreme Court has upheld, that the Second Amendment’s purpose is to guarantee our right to defend ourselves and our families. This is about self-defense, plain and simple.
It’s been said that the Second Amendment is America’s first freedom. That’s because the Right to Keep and Bear Arms protects all our other rights. We are the only country in the world that has a Second Amendment. Protecting that freedom is imperative. Here’s how we will do that:
Enforce The Laws On The Books
We need to get serious about prosecuting violent criminals. The Obama administration’s record on that is abysmal. Violent crime in cities like Baltimore, Chicago and many others is out of control. Drug dealers and gang members are given a slap on the wrist and turned loose on the street. This needs to stop.
Several years ago there was a tremendous program in Richmond, Virginia called Project Exile. It said that if a violent felon uses a gun to commit a crime, you [sic; he --230RN] will be prosecuted in federal court and go to prison for five years – no parole or early release. Obama’s former Attorney General, Eric Holder, called that a “cookie cutter” program. That’s ridiculous. I call that program a success. Murders committed with guns in Richmond decreased by over 60% when Project Exile was in place – in the first two years of the program alone, 350 armed felons were taken off the street.
Why does that matter to law-abiding gun owners? Because they’re the ones who anti-gun politicians and the media blame when criminals misuse guns. We need to bring back and expand programs like Project Exile and get gang members and drug dealers off the street. When we do, crime will go down and our cities and communities will be safer places to live.
Here’s another important way to fight crime – empower law-abiding gun owners to defend themselves. Law enforcement is great, they do a tremendous job, but they can’t be everywhere all of the time. Our personal protection is ultimately up to us. That’s why I’m a gun owner, that’s why I have a concealed carry permit, and that’s why tens of millions of Americans have concealed carry permits as well. It’s just common sense. To make America great again, we’re going to go after criminals and put the law back on the side of the law-abiding.
Fix Our Broken Mental Health System
Let’s be clear about this. Our mental health system is broken. It needs to be fixed. Too many politicians have ignored this problem for too long.
All of the tragic mass murders that occurred in the past several years have something in common – there were red flags that were ignored. We can’t allow that to continue. We need to expand treatment programs, because most people with mental health problems aren’t violent, they just need help. But for those who are violent, a danger to themselves or others, we need to get them off the street before they can terrorize our communities. This is just common sense.
And why does this matter to law-abiding gun owners? Once again, because they get blamed by anti-gun politicians, gun control groups and the media for the acts of deranged madmen. When one of these tragedies occurs, we can count on two things: one, that opponents of gun rights will immediately exploit it to push their political agenda; and two, that none of their so-called “solutions” would have prevented the tragedy in the first place. They’ve even admitted it.
We need real solutions to address real problems. Not grandstanding or political agendas.
Defend The Rights of Law-Abiding Gun Owners
GUN AND MAGAZINE BANS. Gun and magazine bans are a total failure. That’s been proven every time it’s been tried. Opponents of gun rights try to come up with scary sounding phrases like “assault weapons”, “military-style weapons” and “high capacity magazines” to confuse people. What they’re really talking about are popular semi-automatic rifles and standard magazines that are owned by tens of millions of Americans. Law-abiding people should be allowed to own the firearm of their choice. The government has no business dictating what types of firearms good, honest people are allowed to own.
BACKGROUND CHECKS. There has been a national background check system in place since 1998. Every time a person buys a gun from a federally licensed gun dealer – which is the overwhelming majority of all gun purchases – they go through a federal background check. Study after study has shown that very few criminals are stupid enough to try and pass a background check – they get their guns from friends/family members or by stealing them. So the overwhelming majority of people who go through background checks are law-abiding gun owners. When the system was created, gun owners were promised that it would be instant, accurate and fair. Unfortunately, that isn’t the case today. Too many states are failing to put criminal and mental health records into the system – and it should go without saying that a system’s only going to be as effective as the records that are put into it. What we need to do is fix the system we have and make it work as intended. What we don’t need to do is expand a broken system.
NATIONAL RIGHT TO CARRY. The right of self-defense doesn’t stop at the end of your driveway. That’s why I have a concealed carry permit and why tens of millions of Americans do too. That permit should be valid in all 50 states. A driver’s license works in every state, so it’s common sense that a concealed carry permit should work in every state. If we can do that for driving – which is a privilege, not a right – then surely we can do that for concealed carry, which is a right, not a privilege.
MILITARY BASES AND RECRUITING CENTERS. Banning our military from carrying firearms on bases and at recruiting centers is ridiculous. We train our military how to safely and responsibly use firearms, but our current policies leave them defenseless. To make America great again, we need a strong military. To have a strong military, we need to allow them to defend themselves.
My informal comments:
• There are some syntactical errors in the document, although it's OK in terms of business English.
• The meaning of "shall not be infringed" is not so clear to certain legal types, who use circuitous logic to legally "prove" that the second Amendment does not mean what it says. I have seen abstruse arguments from known lawyers even on gun boards who have watered down that clause to meaninglessness. Those same types of lawyers have rendered meaningless arguments about the "full faith and credit" clause, maintaining that this clause does not apply to gun ownership or CCW permitting
• He does not say from where his Concealed Carry Permit is, whether from NYC or elsewhere, and it's none of my business. My understanding is that no concealed carry or "ownership" permits are valid in NYC unless they were issued by NYC authorities themselves or WRT qualified LEOs.
• He emphasizes the self-defense aspect of gun ownership, but kind of brushes over the defense of our country against all enemies foreign and domestic in his third paragraph. This is a sort of touchy subject --since it implies resistance to government by an armed populace.
• I have a slight problem with "tens of millions of Americans have concealed carry permits." It might be documentably true, but unless he's "baiting" anti-gunners into arguing with that number as an "ace in the hole" move, I'd prefer to see it as just "millions" of Americans.
• I've said this before, and some agree with me and some disagree, that I do not want the Federal govenment mucking around with private gun permits in any way, shape or form. Any "ironbound," "well-protected" system of national carry permits set up by the Feds automatically opens the door to later tinkering and amending to our detriment. As in, "§ 3, Sec 14 shall be amended to include 'having been convicted of spitting on the sidewalk.' " There's also, for example, the fun question of State-legal marijuana use and possession of a firearm. Soooo, I ain't takin' back my statement about the Feds mucking about with CCW.
• On the mental health stuff, my main concern with that whole mental health movement is the question of who would be making any firm, scientifically valid, judgment on mental health. Too much of that is too wooly-headed and in fact variable, as different editions of the Diagnostic Manuals come out. Seems to me that if you get a hoplophobic "soup Nazi" doctor, it's an automatic "no guns for you" situation. (I note that on the Hawaii gun board, there are several complaints about a particular health organization which will not "endorse" anyone's application for even a gun ownership license/permit, leading to a heap of frustration out there.)
That's that for now. It's a very strong, very positive statement of the core right of Americans to keep and bear arms, and I'm delighted to see that publicized by a prominent American personality, to the American public as a whole, and without wishi-washiness.
This man ain't just preaching to the choir.
Terry, 230RN
(Edited for housekeeping at 8:17 am MDT 20 Sep 15.)
-
• He emphasizes the self-defense aspect of gun ownership, but kind of brushes over the defense of our country against all enemies foreign and domestic in his third paragraph. This is a sort of touchy subject --since it implies resistance to government by an armed populace.
Remember that the SCOTUS, in Heller and affirmed in McDonald, has now stated that the "core" right to keep arms (no, they ducked the "bear" part) pertains to self-defense. So The Donald is really just echoing what the Supreme Court has pronounced. That makes his position much more defensible against attacks from the opposition.
-
Remember that the SCOTUS, in Heller and affirmed in McDonald, has now stated that the "core" right to keep arms (no, they ducked the "bear" part) pertains to self-defense. So The Donald is really just echoing what the Supreme Court has pronounced. That makes his position much more defensible against attacks from the opposition.
Excellent point. So noted.
(That's why I said it was a touchy subject.)
Thanks.
Terry
-
"stronger mental health checks"
the gateway to a complete ban, imo. Especially with the yahoos and douchenozzles who will be making those calls.
-
Speaking of drivers licenses, is it a lot easier in some states over others to get one?
-
Speaking of drivers licenses, is it a lot easier in some states over others to get one?
I can't say which states are which, but yes, there are states where it's easier. I wouldn't go so far as to say that any one state is half/twice as difficult as another.
Not the orders of magnitude between states for CCW permits.
-
Marriage licenses Marriages* are recognized everywhere, too, with state-to-state variations in age, blood tests, etc.
Cain't think of others offhand, but then again, it's gettin' up toward my nap time.
* Edited with my thanks per Hawkmoons' remarks in a following post:
Correction: Marriage licenses are recognized only in the jurisdiction where issued. In some states that covers an entire county. In my state, a marriage license is only valid for the municipality in which it is issued (meaning you have to get the license in the town/city in which the wedding will be held).
Marriages are recognized by all states (although some states still balk at recognizing same-sex marriages from other states).
Told ya it was close to my nap time.
-
Marriage licenses are recognized everywhere, too, with state-to-state variations in age, blood tests, etc.
Cain't think of others offhand, but then again, it's gettin' up toward my nap time.
Correction: Marriage licenses are recognized only in the jurisdiction where issued. In some states that covers an entire county. In my state, a marriage license is only valid for the municipality in which it is issued (meaning you have to get the license in the town/city in which the wedding will be held).
Marriages are recognized by all states (although some states still balk at recognizing same-sex marriages from other states).
-
Thanks for the correction. Slip of the brain on my part. Original corrected.
I'd like to make a remark about Mr. Trump's turnabout on guns, which has been a point that's been made a couple of times here and on other gun boards.
Having been born and lived my first 25 (+/-) years in New York City, I can testify that its population is so inculcated with the idea that "guns is bad" and only "cops and soldiers should have guns" that it is no surprise that he also carried those ideas into adulthood.
He, after all, was also born and raised in New York City, and I can't blame him for having those same ideas.
I did too, until I moved out to Colorado in the early sixties and made the interesting discovery that a resident could buy (EEK!) a handgun over the counter in a Department store, no hassles, no nothing beyond proving one's residency in Colorado.
I believe, therefore, that it was a legitimate "coming of age" for him with respect to the right to keep and bear arms being an actual "right." As opposed to merely being a high privilege grudgingly granted by the Authorities.
So, to anyone who gives him grief for "changing his mind" on that issue for political expediency, please keep that in mind.
The trouble is that he would have a hard time explaining that without sounding like he was trying to weasel out of something.
Terry, 230RN
-
230RN, did you change your mind on an as many issues as Trump has?
Stolen from another thread:
https://www.facebook.com/jebbush/videos/746439785485067/
-
230RN, did you change your mind on an as many issues as Trump has?
<snip>
Yes, yes, indeed yes.
Mostly though, not in terms of individual issues so much as general outlook, which of course reflected back to individual issues.
I, in common with most of the other 7 million people in New York, grew up with the attitude of "you can't fight City Hall," and whatever the Power Magnates did, that was it.
Hell's bells, it even required circumcision of the newborn, and nobody thought too much about this requirement. Hey, the Health Department wants it, and so it must be. I'll put my $100 against anybody's $10 that Donald J. Trump was also subject to this regulation. :D Not that it's provable except by direct evidence, but...
:rofl:
But seriously, the City mostly did what it wanted to. And of course, even in elementary school Civics sections, New York was touted as the greatest and bestest City in the world. This was not-so-subtly drummed into our heads, and exemplary thereof, I cite the famous cover of the New Yorker magazine:
http://www.hoodedutilitarian.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Steinberg_View_9th_ave_03291976.jpg
Despite the humor in that cover/cartoon, underlying it was a solid ugly truth.
Moving out to Colorado was a refreshing enlightenment.
"Free Air," and all that.
So yes, yes, indeed yes.
Terry, 230RN
REF (Image lifted from this site, but is quite famous and is found elsewhere):
http://www.hoodedutilitarian.com/2012/10/new-yorker-cartoons-a-legacy-of-mediocrity/