egads.....a potential BsB nightmare

[BT]

CCW's are a term.  The fact states issues them doesn't make it a states-only possession.  Otherwise, that's what youd see...person A is a CA CCW...person B is a RI CCW.  Both persons are simply CCW holders.  And the legislation posed isn't limiting what the individual is allowed to do, its limiting what the government can do.  That's how it's supposed to work vs legislation in expanding what the Government can do. 

Nice use of the word "scheme" though.  Let's make support of this nefarious now   

So does your CCW Permit say California or does it say US Government.

[sirs]

It says CCW, issued by the state of CA, since it was thru the state in which I received it.  It still isn't called a CA CCW.  It's simply called a CCW.  IIRC, the legisiation being proposed would NOT affect existing state laws.  State laws governing where concealed firearms may be carried would still apply within each state’s borders.  This law merely allows CCW holders greater freedom in exercising their rights, in traveling from state to state.

Nor does it expand Government, it actually limits it.  I bet if I checked the NRA, one of the staunchest Constitution defenders there is, I'm guessing they'd be good with it.  Not to mention most Conservatives who are also pro-limiting government.  I bet I can also guess which folks would be against it.  I bet it would be the same folks that salivate at the idea of an ever expanding government

[BT]

So it is a state permit and you are seeking a national permit. That is kind of like Romney Care morphing into ObamaCare.

I'm not sure that i agree with your logic that this does not increase the reach of the federal government.

[sirs]

This is like nothing of the sort.  There is no added layer of Government bureacracy.  You're not applying for a new Federal CCW.  There is no new agency.  You're simply legally allowed to cross state lines with your current CCW. 

The logic you're following is the one that is put off by the idea of increased freedoms and limited government

Or is the NRA and Conservatives now the new socialists?   

[BT]

How is the Permit certified to be valid without a national database?

[sirs]

The CCW is valid, based on the state it was issued in.  That's all that's needed.  The law merely allows reciprocity to other states.  No database, no expansion of Government, no nefiarious scheme

But please, by all means, check out Senate Bill 2213, and educate us on this new supposed Agency & Bureacracy, complete with new a Federal Database, you claim is in it

[BT]

Can you think of any reason the International Association of Police Chiefs would be against this?

Is it because the various states have different levels of requirements for the permit to be issued, and in  effect what this federal law does is strip the sovereignty of the individual states to set their own thresholds by being forced to recognize the lowest common denominator of requirements.

[sirs]

Why a UNION would be against it?  I could think of quite a few, but that'd be a tangential thread, best suited for another topic, considering those who support it include the NRA and conservatives (the folks who support limited government) across the country.  You pick a Union to argue against it.  I'm shocked I tells yas, shocked     

So....no demonstration of this nefarious egregious federal grab with new Agencies, Bureacracies, and Database, you clearly imply must be is in it??

One last time......the legisiation being proposed would NOT affect existing state laws.  State laws governing where concealed firearms may be carried would still apply within each state’s borders.  This law merely allows CCW holders greater freedom in exercising their rights, in traveling from state to state.  No more, no less.....no expansion of government, no new federal CCW to have to aquire, no new database

Unless of course, you can demonstrate otherwise

[BT]

The International Association of Police Chiefs is not a union, it is the world's oldest and largest nonprofit membership organization of police executives. They are a union like the Lion's Club is a union.  Perhaps you could check with your police buddies and see how they feel about interfacing with less qualified CCW permit holders.

[sirs]

So, no examples.  Gotcha

Look, I understand the point you're trying to use.  Let's say some state says you only have to be 18 to get a CCW.  A state like CA would have to recognize that.  Yea, I get that.  So focus on that legitimate point, vs the irrational accusations of "scheme" and the supposed supporting Federal expansion, when you can't seem to demonstrate any such examples within said legisation 

The problem is again, you're fighting statistics.  CCW holders, EVEN in states with fairly permissive CCW requirements, demonstrates folks who are largely FAR more responsible than the typical gun owner.  They generally demonstrate for more desire in not just safely handing a firearm, but with the goal of educating others in gun safety.  NOT everyone, but close to.  Outside of Zimmerman, what other CCW holder was found to be wrecklessly or irresponsibly using their firearm??  In the last year??  The last decade??  I'm sure the MSM is got to be keeping a record of all of those folks

So, in general, a CCW holder is someone I'd FAR more trust in handing a gun, than joe smith across the street, or even an angry, bitter fomer military soldier.  And since its generally the bad guy who doesn't want to be shot, if there are more CCW holders, those bad guys are going to think twice.  That's just common sense.  But the statistics demonstrate that corelation, where you find far more violent crime in regions where the bad guys have a better notion that their prey is less likely to be armed

[BT]

And where did you get that the International Association of Chiefs of Police was a union.

This is what will happen. The Senate will pass the Democrat compromise National Right to Carry Bill the house will accept the conditions and before you know a tight gun control state will sue the feds for meddling with their sovereignty. And because now there is a problem, the fed will step in and create a national database or data sharing system so that the folks in SC can check the status of a permit issued in Oregon.

I mean that is what happens with Drivers Licenses.

So in the end the fed gains power and the states lose sovereignty.

You notice nothing in the bill explicitly forbids federal regulations in the enforcement of the bill.

[Plane]

  Will this be more difficult to reconcile than diffrent state requirements for Drivers Lisence?

[BT]

It could. The drivers License question doesn't have a constitutional amendment to deal with.

[Plane]

  How much availibility is mandated by the second admendment?

   Do the special federal requirements on sound supressors , automatic wepons and explosives infringe my right to bear arms a little?

[BT]

I have no idea concerning current gun law, don't own one. Just know , that when given the opportunity the fed always enhances its power.