Go Back  The Hull Truth - Boating and Fishing Forum > BOATING FORUMS > Dockside Chat
Reload this Page >

60 Minutes Story on National Concealed Carry Reciprocity

Notices

60 Minutes Story on National Concealed Carry Reciprocity

Old 02-10-2018, 01:36 PM
  #1  
Admirals ClubCaptains Club Member Admiral's Club Member
Thread Starter
 
nicecast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,634
Received 1,092 Likes on 648 Posts
Default 60 Minutes Story on National Concealed Carry Reciprocity

This will be interesting...

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/recogni...inkId=47963928
Old 02-10-2018, 02:03 PM
  #2  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 2,799
Likes: 0
Received 271 Likes on 148 Posts
Default

Thousands, if not millions will die if this were to happen.
Old 02-10-2018, 02:42 PM
  #3  
Senior MemberCaptains Club Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: CLeves Ohio
Posts: 1,417
Likes: 0
Received 419 Likes on 236 Posts
Default

I'm all for it. But if you believe in states rights it goes totally against them.
Old 02-10-2018, 02:53 PM
  #4  
Admirals Club Admiral's Club Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 567
Received 1,446 Likes on 698 Posts
Default

Here comes the can of worms.

It isnt necessary. The constitution/bill of rights gives us that right. No permit necessary.
Old 02-10-2018, 02:53 PM
  #5  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Milwaukee - Ish
Posts: 257
Likes: 0
Received 638 Likes on 334 Posts
Default

Driving is a privilege, not a right..... vs Gun ownership (2nd Amendment of the Constitution) is a Right.

Yet - Driving is recognized across all 50 states - Gun ownership is NOT..... Sorry that is nothing but backwards.

Privilege vs Right....

Right to gun ownership
The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution reads: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. ...
Old 02-10-2018, 02:58 PM
  #6  
Admirals Club Admiral's Club Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 2,154
Likes: 0
Received 279 Likes on 162 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by sinjun View Post
I'm all for it. But if you believe in states rights it goes totally against them.
Not really, the 10th amendment addresses things not spelled out in the constitution. I’m all about states rights, but a state has never and should never have the power to deprive someone of a right granted in the first 9.
Old 02-10-2018, 02:58 PM
  #7  
Senior MemberCaptains Club Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: RI
Posts: 7,115
Received 1,149 Likes on 655 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by sinjun View Post
I'm all for it. But if you believe in states rights it goes totally against them.
Federal constitution trumps state.
Old 02-10-2018, 03:07 PM
  #8  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Stuart Fl
Posts: 586
Received 1,319 Likes on 451 Posts
Default

Big difference between owning a gun and concealed carrying a gun , you guy's are confused .
Old 02-10-2018, 03:08 PM
  #9  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Stuart Fl
Posts: 586
Received 1,319 Likes on 451 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by UT_VOLS13 View Post
Thousands, if not millions will die if this were to happen.
How so ?

You mean the bad guys ?
Old 02-10-2018, 03:10 PM
  #10  
Admirals Club Admiral's Club Member
 
Fish'nFool's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Anywhere but here...
Posts: 26,384
Received 3,336 Likes on 1,795 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Smitty 45 View Post
Big difference between owning a gun and concealed carrying a gun , you guy's are confused .
No, not really.

"The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Old 02-10-2018, 03:18 PM
  #11  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Stuart Fl
Posts: 586
Received 1,319 Likes on 451 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Fish'nFool View Post
No, not really.

Shall NOT be infringed!
See , here's the thing , you're still debating how to interpret the constitution .

The laws that are in place have already interpreted the constitution and are strictly adhered to .

I am all for guns , I carry everywhere , but I do it within the confines of the law as described by the SCOTUS , not how I want to interpret them .

Am I wrong here ?
Old 02-10-2018, 03:21 PM
  #12  
Admirals ClubCaptains Club Member Admiral's Club Member
Thread Starter
 
nicecast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,634
Received 1,092 Likes on 648 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by UT_VOLS13 View Post
Thousands, if not millions will die if this were to happen.
Originally Posted by Smitty 45 View Post
How so ?

You mean the bad guys ?
My guess is he was being facetious...
Old 02-10-2018, 03:24 PM
  #13  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Stuart Fl
Posts: 586
Received 1,319 Likes on 451 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by nicecast View Post
My guess is he was being facetious...
OK , I hope you're right , LOL
Old 02-10-2018, 03:27 PM
  #14  
Admirals Club Admiral's Club Member
 
Fish'nFool's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Anywhere but here...
Posts: 26,384
Received 3,336 Likes on 1,795 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Smitty 45 View Post
See , here's the thing , you're still debating how to interpret the constitution .

The laws that are in place have already interpreted the constitution and are strictly adhered to .

I am all for guns , I carry everywhere , but I do it within the confines of the law as described by the SCOTUS , not how I want to interpret them .

Am I wrong here ?
Yes

Just because a bureaucrat puts a law on the books in no way undermines the original intent of the 2nd Amendment. And the Framer's intent was quite clear.

I am not one of those individuals that believes Constitution is ever evolving, because it is politically expedient.
Old 02-10-2018, 03:57 PM
  #15  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Stuart Fl
Posts: 586
Received 1,319 Likes on 451 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Fish'nFool View Post
Yes

Just because a bureaucrat puts a law on the books in no way undermines the original intent of the 2nd Amendment. And the Framer's intent was quite clear.

I am not one of those individuals that believes Constitution is ever evolving, because it is politically expedient.
But , the very founding fathers who drafted the Constitution , also implemented the SCOTUS , to keep the Constitution relevant as the country progressed .

The following is a history of the Supreme Court of the United States, organized by Chief Justice. The Supreme Court of the United States is the only court specifically established by the Constitution of the United States, implemented in 1789; under the Judiciary Act of 1789, the Court was to be composed of six members—though the number of justices has been nine for most of its history, this number is set by Congress, not the Constitution. The court convened for the first time on February 2, 1790.[1]

And again , thats just how you interpret the Framers intent , not how the law states .

The Constitution was designed to be fluid , able to be amended , by the Framers .
Old 02-10-2018, 04:19 PM
  #16  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: SW Florida
Posts: 3,176
Received 625 Likes on 392 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Warpdrv View Post
Driving is a privilege, not a right..... vs Gun ownership (2nd Amendment of the Constitution) is a Right.

Yet - Driving is recognized across all 50 states - Gun ownership is NOT..... Sorry that is nothing but backwards.

Privilege vs Right....

Right to gun ownership
The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution reads: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. ...
I am for the second amendment but this has been beat to death
A well regulated militia does not include any of the want to be militias across the country or any of the ccw holders. That was written so there would be someone to defend us should our primary forces be already engaged.

Well regulated militia = the national guard
Old 02-10-2018, 05:11 PM
  #17  
Admirals Club Admiral's Club Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 2,154
Likes: 0
Received 279 Likes on 162 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by fjmaverick View Post
I am for the second amendment but this has been beat to death
A well regulated militia does not include any of the want to be militias across the country or any of the ccw holders. That was written so there would be someone to defend us should our primary forces be already engaged.

Well regulated militia = the national guard
Several of the men who signed that piece of paper disagree with your definition.
Old 02-10-2018, 05:17 PM
  #18  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: SW Florida
Posts: 3,176
Received 625 Likes on 392 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by JCM 1420 View Post
Several of the men who signed that piece of paper disagree with your definition.
Not trying to argue but they clearly state the right to bear arms is for a regulated militia

Show me where it says its to conceal carry every where you go in public for personal protection?

Ccw didn't even exist everything was open carry
(Yes okay a Derringer is concealed but not practical)
Old 02-10-2018, 05:25 PM
  #19  
Senior MemberCaptains Club Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: East Central Florida
Posts: 7,381
Received 700 Likes on 332 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by fjmaverick View Post
I am for the second amendment but this has been beat to death
A well regulated militia does not include any of the want to be militias across the country or any of the ccw holders. That was written so there would be someone to defend us should our primary forces be already engaged.

Well regulated militia = the national guard
Wrong. The Supreme Court ruled in the Heller Decision:

Held:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html
Old 02-10-2018, 05:27 PM
  #20  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: SW Florida
Posts: 3,176
Received 625 Likes on 392 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Seacat FL View Post
Wrong. The Supreme Court ruled in the Heller Decision:

Held:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html
Within the home
I have a fire arm in my home but no ccw
Thanks

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.