Patriot Act B - Concerned Citizens

[Lonestar49]

...

Being a new member, and have joined in some interesting topic discussions already, I thought I'd put this on the table.

I feel a new "Federal Concerned Citizen Act" should be brought up for debate, and then a vote.

My personal feeling is it should fall under the now existing Patriot Act-B, as the name sounds right, along with its true goal.

It would be titled: The Concerned Citizens Concealed Weapons Act.

All persons, of min age ( ? ) and with bi-annual reviews (oral and demonstration-shooting) up to the age of (?) at which time such ages would require every 6 month reviews.

Any that take full training, Basic safety thru tactical, certified courses, along with passing DOJ and Personal (by qualified testers) oral test and shooting demonstration, should be able to carry concealed weapons (at most times, or places, with *exceptions (*to be discussed) in a consorted effort to stem the tide of crime upon the innocent.

I hear that Texas allows non-concealed IIRC weapons for its Citizens, and weighing the good vs the bad of such privilege, that the crime rate has been lowered in that State. 

I say Federal Act, so that one can carry from State to State in a car, motored vehicle, *etc.  (*airports, aircraft, other forms of public transportation to be discussed)

I truly believe, people kill people, not guns, or take away all the guns, and only the criminals will have them.


The floor is open.. and my apologies if this topic has be hashed out long ago and for a long time, as my eyes are new to this sites print.
..........................

My first thought on this came from another post (in this site) on banning assault rifles and an AK 47 criminal incident, and wonder how many lives could have been saved had such a citizen/s had been present, and how would it change the/a criminals way of thinking or acting, along with saving the taxpayers court and legal fees if, like the criminal killer, the concerned citizens shot killed him/her/them?



LS

[Manedwolf]

Elitist. That's what that is, unfortunately.

Any that take full training, Basic safety thru tactical, certified courses, along with passing DOJ and Personal (by qualified testers) oral test and shooting demonstration, should be able to carry concealed weapons (at most times, or places, with *exceptions (*to be discussed) in a consorted effort to stem the tide of crime upon the innocent.

People in my state can already do that simply by not being a felon. They don't need to shell out money they might not be able to afford and time they might not be able to spare simply to exercise their already-guaranteed second amendment rights.

What you're suggesting would take that away from them. Unacceptable.

We need citizens carrying concealed. We have that here. The rest is wannabe cop. If you want to be a cop, apply to be a cop.

[garyk/nm]

Lonestar, welcome! Being a newb, we'll forgive you (just this once). What you propose is a whole bunch of further restrictions on an inalienable right. Sounds good on first perusal, but think about it. Many states already have open carry, and quite a few have "relaxed" CCW.
While nationwide CCW is an attractive endeavor, it aint gonna happen. Too many socialistic Senators and Reps in positions of power to ever let that happen.

[cosine]

Methinks we already have a "Federal Concerned Citizen Act."   It's called the 2nd Amendment. "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." No ifs, ands, or buts. No restrictions to carry, concealed or openly. No training requirements to carry, concealed or openly. No permits. No... etc.

There is no need for any laws (either at the State level or Federally) to "grant" us permission to carry, which is what an act like you propose would essentially do. The right to keep arms, the right to carry is a basic human right. You mention Texas, and mention the "good and bad of such privilege..." The right to keep and bear arms is not a privilege. It is a basic human right that shall not be infringed by any means. Because of that, there are no pros or cons to weigh.




And, if I recall correctly, Texas does not allow non-concealed carry. But you should check up with some of our Texas members about that.




Not trying to bust your balls, welcome to APS, but you'll find many of us posters here (and at www.thehighroad.org, APS's sister firearms site) take a very literal stance on the right to keep and bear arms and the 2nd Amendment.


Edit: gary beat me to it.

[Jamisjockey]

If the only goal is to allow citizens to protect themselves, there should be no federal permit.  Instead, use interstate commerce laws to withhold federal highway monies from any state without an attainable (um, Calif.) CFP.  In addition, penalize said monies to any state that is not reciprical of all other states.

Anything that expands federal power is not in our interest.  I'm also for the abolition of the Patriot act, so to see it expanded makes me wanna hurl.

Edit:
I just saw Cosine's post.  Amen.  Hallelujah.  Nix my proposal.  The government should instead withold federal highway monies from any state that restricts the rights of citizens to keep and bear arms.
 

[Lonestar49]

...

Interesting replies so far.  And the ongoing consensus is about the 2nd Amendment, the right to bear arms.  That is the ongoing debate, what does it mean to bear arms?  To own them?  To carry them? open or concealed?  It is a bag of worms that only our Forefathers could really answer, because "modern government" (or modern man) has just about fu@%*d up our Rights, along with the Ten Commandments IMO.  Both under 15 items, yet, too much to handle as they are so clearly written.

And I agree totally about Federal laws, be it this or that, but once in a red-moon, they get one law right..

All I know, you carry a non-concealed weapon, or a concealed weapon (without a CWP) in my State, and you're off to jail, loss of weapon, and a arrest record that would stop any legal purchase of any future weapons.

So, that's why I went for Federal Law, to cover ALL states, or as you say, take the 2nd Amendment and make it modern day legal..

No comment on the Patriot Act, other than, as I said, I like the name, for what I'd like to see it stand for..

I fear that the diehards of the 2nd to carry anytime, is outdated.  Back when it was written, each father, mother, took responsibility to teach their kids, the proper use of and reason for use, of weapons.  Can you really say that is what is happening Nationwide in today's kids, parental skills or responsibilities, etc. ?

That accounts for a certain age to own, training (courses) approved by today's Gun Owners Assoc.

But, I'm sure that we're always gonna have the Willie Nillies, 2nd Amendment people, that learn where the folks guns are, or how to get one at the right price (hot..stolen, etc.) and wave that right to bear arms speech.  It only took a few million in the last 100 plus years to ruin it for those that take the right steps in life, and step up to the plate and take responsibility for their actions, or lack of them.

And as far as the "wanna-be-cop".. not this person, as I have already put my time in around the Sun, and I'm just reaping my life's work profits, and enjoying the second half, less anyone that might have an idea to try and ruin it


JTO-L,

Peace to any, and all, Peaceful Warriors..


LS

[Jamisjockey]

...

Interesting replies so far.  And the ongoing consensus is about the 2nd Amendment, the right to bear arms.  That is the ongoing debate, what does it mean to bear arms?  To own them?  To carry them? open or concealed?  It is a bag of worms that only our Forefathers could really answer, because "modern government" (or modern man) has just about fu@%*d up our Rights, along with the Ten Commandments IMO.  Both under 15 items, yet, too much to handle as they are so clearly written.

And I agree totally about Federal laws, be it this or that, but once in a red-moon, they get one law right..

All I know, you carry a non-concealed weapon, or a concealed weapon in my State, and you're off to jail, loss of weapon, and a arrest record that would stop any legal purchase of any future weapons.

So, that's why I went for Federal Law, to cover ALL states, or as you say, take the 2nd Amendment and make it modern day legal..

No comment on the Patriot Act, other than, as I said, I like the name, for what I'd like to see it stand for..



LS

The second amendment doesn't need to be made "modern".  All one needs to do is read the federalist papers as well as apply some thought to the times.  It was generally accepted that the "militia" was the people.  It was generally accepted that one could defend oneself and property.  The federalist papers make it much more clear what the founding fathers intended. 

[cosine]

Actually, if one is honest about it, there is no "ongoing debate" about the right to keep and bear arms. There is a consensus, even if our legislators do not like to acknowledge it.

Also, the 2nd Amendment is modern-day legal. Any laws regarding firearms that affect one's right to purchase, keep, bear, carry, etc., firearms in any way or in any place need to be scrapped. No new laws need to be introduced to try and "remedy" a problem, because there is no problem. Except for the problem of hundreds and possibly thousand of unconstitutional laws passed over the years, which need to be stricken from the books.



Edit: Now jamisjockey beat me to it. Darn you guys!

[Manedwolf]

All I know, you carry a non-concealed weapon, or a concealed weapon in my State, and you're off to jail, loss of weapon, and a arrest record that would stop any legal purchase of any future weapons.

So, that's why I went for Federal Law, to cover ALL states, or as you say, take the 2nd Amendment and make it modern day legal..

Uh-uh. That's YOUR state's problem. You need to either move to another state, or work to change yours.

My state has no such unconstititional laws. Concealed carry is allowed, open carry is allowed. No registration. You'd be infringing on MY rights by imposing federal restrictions, under the guise of having the Big Government solve your states' problems.

Understand?

[cosine]

Don't get discouraged, Lonestar. We're nice guys here (except when someone talks about affecting our right to keep and bear arms).

And just so you know, it took me awhile to come around to my position. You're seeing the result of the influence THR and APS had on me.



Manedwolf: Vermont or Alaska?

[Manedwolf]

New Hampshire. Shall-issue CCW, no permit to own, legal open carry.

[cosine]

New Hampshire. Shall-issue CCW, no permit to own, legal open carry.

Ah, gotcha. When you said concealed carry is allowed, I took that as meaning the purity of permitless concealed carry. Don't know why. Sorry for the assumption.

[Manedwolf]

New Hampshire. Shall-issue CCW, no permit to own, legal open carry.

Ah, gotcha. When you said concealed carry is allowed, I took that to mean the purity of permitless carry. Don't know why. Sorry for the assumption.

That'd be nice, of course, but I'll settle for a document that's pretty much given to any non-felon who asks for it for $10. It's more like just a "proves you're not a felon" card if you happened to be involved in a self-defense shooting.

[cosine]

New Hampshire. Shall-issue CCW, no permit to own, legal open carry.

Ah, gotcha. When you said concealed carry is allowed, I took that to mean the purity of permitless carry. Don't know why. Sorry for the assumption.

That'd be nice, of course, but I'll settle for a document that's pretty much given to any non-felon who asks for it for $10. It's more like just a "proves you're not a felon" card if you happened to be involved in a self-defense shooting.

There are a lot of people here in WI who would gladly settle for such a "permission" or "privilege." I'm not totally an ideologue; I'm one of them. Work for the purity of permitless concealed carry once concealed carry is no longer against the law.

[The Rabbi]

For those pushing the "The 2A already confers those rights, we don't need anything else" I suggest you go open carry in Chicago or LA and see where your legal theories get you.
I am opposed to Federal licensing, as an intrusion on state's rights.  I am in favor of national reciprocity. In fact there is such a bill now pending in Congress.  Let's support it.

[cosine]

For those pushing the "The 2A already confers those rights, we don't need anything else" I suggest you go open carry in Chicago or LA and see where your legal theories get you.
I am opposed to Federal licensing, as an intrusion on state's rights.  I am in favor of national reciprocity. In fact there is such a bill now pending in Congress.  Let's support it.

I'm an idealogue; I'm not stupid. I'll fight my battles where I think I can win toward the end I wish to see. I'll still follow laws with which I don't agree, because in many cases trying to follow one's own legal theories is foolhardy. That doesn't mean I can't hold to those theories/opinion/facts though.

[Manedwolf]

For those pushing the "The 2A already confers those rights, we don't need anything else" I suggest you go open carry in Chicago or LA and see where your legal theories get you.
I am opposed to Federal licensing, as an intrusion on state's rights.  I am in favor of national reciprocity. In fact there is such a bill now pending in Congress.  Let's support it.

IMO, that's Chicago and LA's problem. Not my problem. Don't like it, don't live there. The majority of voters there have chosen to be defenseless and to render their fellow citizens defenseless.

I can open carry where I live. That's all I care about, it's why I live here. And I'm only for national reciprocity if it does NOT add a single line of additional regulation.

[Lonestar49]

All I know, you carry a non-concealed weapon, or a concealed weapon in my State, and you're off to jail, loss of weapon, and a arrest record that would stop any legal purchase of any future weapons.

So, that's why I went for Federal Law, to cover ALL states, or as you say, take the 2nd Amendment and make it modern day legal..

Uh-uh. That's YOUR state's problem. You need to either move to another state, or work to change yours.

My state has no such unconstitutional laws. Concealed carry is allowed, open carry is allowed. No registration. You'd be infringing on MY rights by imposing federal restrictions, under the guise of having the Big Government solve your states' problems.

Understand?

...

No, I don't understand why its my States problem, as the Bill of Rights is Federal (for all States, now and then) as I understand it, and it should be Federally mandated, then I might not have to move.  Can't see that changing your right, unless your under 18yrs of age or a felon.

But, from what I've seen of Government since I first could understand the TV news, elections, both parties promises, and actions thru- out the years, this is not gonna change, only get worse with time.

But, the idea of moving does have its merits.. lol


And thanks Cosine for the kind words of encouragement..  very nice.


 

LS

  

[The Rabbi]

For those pushing the "The 2A already confers those rights, we don't need anything else" I suggest you go open carry in Chicago or LA and see where your legal theories get you.
I am opposed to Federal licensing, as an intrusion on state's rights.  I am in favor of national reciprocity. In fact there is such a bill now pending in Congress.  Let's support it.

I'm an idealogue; I'm not stupid. I'll fight my battles where I think I can win toward the end I wish to see. I'll still follow laws with which I don't agree, because in many cases trying to follow one's own legal theories is foolhardy. That doesn't mean I can't hold to those theories/opinion/facts though.

You can hold the opinion that the moon is made of green cheese.  Won't make it so.  If you think the 2A gives you an unrestricted right to carry anywhere at any time then go try exercising it like that.  If you can't exercise the right, you don't have it.  Very simple.

No, I don't understand why its my States problem, as the Bill of Rights is Federal (for all States, now and then) as I understand it, and it should be Federally mandated, then I might not have to move.  Can't see that changing your right, unless your under 18yrs of age or a felon.

No, the BoR only applies to the Federal gov't.  Some provisions were ruled to apply to state governments as well, but 2A wasnt one of them.  I'd suggest boning up on the issue of the Constitution and state vs Federal power.

[cosine]

If you can't exercise the right, you don't have it.  Very simple.

One can still have a right and legally be oppressed by not being able to exercise it without the danger of legal trouble. Just because one cannot exercise a right doesn't mean that one does not have it. For it all it takes for one's rights to disappear is to make it illegal to exercise them, that means that there are no human rights which are constant and immutable. The government could create and destroy human rights at will, rather than human rights being a concept which transcends the government and which the government can not repress (even though they do). If taking away the ability to exercise a right is all it takes for such a right to cease to exist (so that you don't have it), then there is no way to prove a government oppressive or not, because if the government takes away a right one once had, one no longer has it, and it would cease to exists. If such a right then ceases to exist, the government is not oppressive because the right no longer exists. The government is no longer tyrannical once a right it once infringed upon ceases to exists. If there are no constant and immutable human rights, by fighting for something you believe in you are no longer fighting for something universal, something that should be, but rather just something you believe in and want to see. 

[The Rabbi]

There is no immutable human right, only man-made ones.  If you get prosecuted for carrying a gun in NYC then you have no right to do so.  You can claim one all you want but it wont make it so.

[cosine]

There is no immutable human right, only man-made ones.  If you get prosecuted for carrying a gun in NYC then you have no right to do so.  You can claim one all you want but it wont make it so.

I was afraid we'd reach this impasse.

[The Rabbi]

There is no immutable human right, only man-made ones.  If you get prosecuted for carrying a gun in NYC then you have no right to do so.  You can claim one all you want but it wont make it so.

I was afraid we'd reach this impasse.

Probably.  There are people who claim the government has no right to levy income taxes.  Guess where they are.  If you want to claim a right not to pay income taxes go right ahead and see how far it gets you.