Do You Support Nation Wide Constitutional Carry?

Do you support nation wide permitless carry?

  • Yes

    Votes: 160 79.2%
  • No

    Votes: 42 20.8%

  • Total voters
    202
  • Poll closed .

Treo

Bullet Proof
Three states (Alaska, Arizon and Vermont) do not require a concealed hand gun permit to carry a concealed firearm w/ in their state.

Do you think this should be the norm?

Why or why not?
 

I wish the rest of the states were like that but they are not. I would just be happy with only needing one ccw license to travel through the states to get where I am going. To travel from Washington State to California you would need 3 CCW licenses one for each of the states.
 
We already have that right!

According to the constitution, that is a right that is already guaranteed. The fact that we have somehow let the government severely infringe that right is something that should be remedied sooner rather than later.
 
According to the constitution, that is a right that is already guaranteed. The fact that we have somehow let the government severely infringe that right is something that should be remedied sooner rather than later.

Couldnt have said it better myself. I concur.
 
Please say why you Voted No?

Hello to the people that say no to being able to carry you gun legally in what ever state you go visit or drive through. Can you please post the reason why you said No. It would help me to understand you better. Because I know you are not anti-gun since you are posting on a gun website so please share your reasons for saying no.
 
That would certainly be nice but how to satisfy the anti gun states that dont trust anybody who doesn't go thru a background check? Then again, heck, they don't trust anybody anyway, never mind!

It's amazing (and sad) what happened to the Second over time.
 
From an Az. Resident...

So, it's been about six month since our CC passed. All the anti's said it would be HORRIBLE and rime would go up. Some pro-gun people said it would be bad because the state would not get the revenue from the CCW's.

All those people were wrong.

Crime is DOWN by like 18%. Revenue is UP because before the CC was passed, maybe 20 handguns were purchased in a week at any one gun shop....tax from that + the CCW revenue was (lets say for sake of saying) that was $4,000. I heard from a friend at my LGS that they are selling 3 - 4 times as many handguns per week since the passing of the law, so the state is making WAY more money from the taxes then they were from the permits, PLUS, more people are buying permits because it makes it easier to buy a gun and so they can travel to other states....

I can't wait for the 1 year anniversary of the law being passed to see the numbers.

CC here is AWESOME!. The ONLY downfall is the range is more crowded. :)
 
Personally, I would rather see the 14th amendment repealed and a return to real state's rights.

So I have to say no.
 
Personally, I would rather see the 14th amendment repealed and a return to real state's rights.

So I have to say no.

So you don't feel that the right to self-protection is an inalienable right, equal to freedom of religion, freedom from gender discrimination, freedom of speech, freedom from race discrimination? Or should states have the right to regulate those to? Should a state have the right to legalize slavery? Should a state have the right to prohibit Judaism or Christianity? Or, maybe a state could prohibit males or females within it's borders?

Should the right to self protection using a gun be equal with those other rights, or not?

I am seriously asking these questions to try to figure out the thought process...
 
Why? Why require a permit to exercise a right protected by the US Constitution?

Because even some people, apparently 20% here as of this posting, who are pro 2A aren't really pro 2A.

The key word is "infringed" and ANY infringement is contradictory to the 2A and they just don't understand that licensing and/or required training is an infringement.

Some just can't wrap their minds around the concept LT.
 
Because even some people, apparently 20% here as of this posting, who are pro 2A aren't really pro 2A.

The key word is "infringed" and ANY infringement is contradictory to the 2A and they just don't understand that licensing and/or required training is an infringement.

Some just can't wrap their minds around the concept LT.

Or, how about this one.... is requiring a permit to carry or conceal a gun REALLY going to stop criminals from carrying guns and hiding them?!? :stop:
 
No.

I support a nationwide permit but not unrestricted carry. I believe in reasonable restrictions when it comes to carrying. So does everybody else here unless you're a completely irrational loon or just being spiteful (6-yr olds carring in school?? Nope. How 'bout a criminal defendant being allowed to carry in court?? Uh-uh....not happening. Hand grenades and rocket launchers available to the public?? No way. Nukes to anyone who can afford one?? Etc., etc. Yeah....right. Anyone care to disagree with those restrictions?? There are plenty of others as well that are just plain common sense). I don't think having to attend and pass a 3 hour firearm course is unreasonable at all. That's why I don't support unrestricted carry. I don't think every Tom, Richard, and Harriet should be allowed to pack unless they've proved themselves at least minimally competent.

I'm pretty sure that there were reasonable restrictions 200+ yrs ago as well. I doubt very much if babbling idiots, habitual drunks, senile old folks, etc. were allowed to carry loaded weapons around in 1791. There may not have been a written law against such people carrying firearms but I'd bet that their fellow citizens made sure they were disarmed and not a danger to the public.
 
No.

I support a nationwide permit but not unrestricted carry. I believe in reasonable restrictions when it comes to carrying. So does everybody else here unless you're a completely irrational loon or just being spiteful (6-yr olds carring in school?? Nope. How 'bout a criminal defendant being allowed to carry in court?? Uh-uh....not happening. Hand grenades and rocket launchers available to the public?? No way. Nukes to anyone who can afford one?? Etc., etc. Yeah....right. Anyone care to disagree with those restrictions?? There are plenty of others as well that are just plain common sense). I don't think having to attend and pass a 3 hour firearm course is unreasonable at all. That's why I don't support unrestricted carry. I don't think every Tom, Richard, and Harriet should be allowed to pack unless they've proved themselves at least minimally competent.

I'm pretty sure that there were reasonable restrictions 200+ yrs ago as well. I doubt very much if babbling idiots, habitual drunks, senile old folks, etc. were allowed to carry loaded weapons around in 1791. There may not have been a written law against such people carrying firearms but I'd bet that their fellow citizens made sure they were disarmed and not a danger to the public.

I can hear the Brady Campaign standing, cheering and applauding your efforts.....they appreciate your support. Permits do not stop criminals. Permits only stop law abiding citizens.

The 3 states that have Constitutional Carry and the 24 other states that have unlicensed open carry just don't have any more firearms problems than New York, Illinois, California, Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Florida, or Washington D.C.
 
I can hear the Brady Campaign standing, cheering and applauding your efforts.....they appreciate your support. Permits do not stop criminals. Permits only stop law abiding citizens.

You get the gold medal for overreaction. Yet another constitutional Chicken-little running around in a panic. What next - will the U.S. collapse into anarchy if I don't excercise my constitutional right to have croutons on my salad!

Just like a license to drive, practice medicine, or be an electrician......a permit to carry a deadly weapon just makes sense.
 
No.

I support a nationwide permit but not unrestricted carry. I believe in reasonable restrictions when it comes to carrying. So does everybody else here unless you're a completely irrational loon or just being spiteful (6-yr olds carring in school?? Nope. How 'bout a criminal defendant being allowed to carry in court?? Uh-uh....not happening. Hand grenades and rocket launchers available to the public?? No way. Nukes to anyone who can afford one?? Etc., etc. Yeah....right. Anyone care to disagree with those restrictions?? There are plenty of others as well that are just plain common sense). I don't think having to attend and pass a 3 hour firearm course is unreasonable at all. That's why I don't support unrestricted carry. I don't think every Tom, Richard, and Harriet should be allowed to pack unless they've proved themselves at least minimally competent.

I'm pretty sure that there were reasonable restrictions 200+ yrs ago as well. I doubt very much if babbling idiots, habitual drunks, senile old folks, etc. were allowed to carry loaded weapons around in 1791. There may not have been a written law against such people carrying firearms but I'd bet that their fellow citizens made sure they were disarmed and not a danger to the public.

That is where you are wrong. 200 years ago subjects had the same weapons as the King that ruled over them. Also back then we where under the rule of a king who decided he wanted to tax us for things but would not allow us representation for what the tax money would be used on. That is why when our government was formed the 2nd amendment was placed behind the first so that we the people could have a way to protect the first amendment.

Unfortunately most Americans are ignorant when it comes to this and are willing to give up their liberties for what safety they think it will give them but as it has been shown gun free zones are the best place to go if you want to murder lots of people without having to worry about being shot until the police officers show up.

Due to us giving up our liberty to protect ourself lots of people died without a way of fighting for their life. Just as most Americans think the TSA by molesting us before we board an airplane will keep us safe. The pilot that showed the American public that they were not safe due to the TSA not securing the airplane and staff that work the airplane. But since the ignorant Americans feel safe they will keep taking away our liberties till we lose them.

Laws are made for the law abiding citizens to follow for criminals do not follow the laws that is why in the old west they were called law breakers. Their is not a law on the books that has ever stopped a crime from happening.

As for the legal law abiding citizens the laws keep them from breaking the law due to wanting to remain a law abiding citizen.
 
What next - will the U.S. collapse into anarchy if I don't excercise my constitutional right to have croutons on my salad!

Isn't that the exact same claim that you are making if citizens DO exercise their Constitutional rights to carry firearms?
 

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
49,520
Messages
610,643
Members
74,980
Latest member
Brad_R
Back
Top