Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 21
  1. #11
    Grandmaster Bennettjh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Columbus
    Posts
    5,899
    Quote Originally Posted by lonehoosier View Post


    Hopefully not for reciprocity.
    It's ok! I'm an INGO member!

    Todd Young (R-IN)
    https://www.young.senate.gov/content/contact-senator

    Joe Donnelly (D-IN)
    http://www.donnelly.senate.gov/contact/email-joe

    Find your U.S. Rep
    http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/

    /l ,[____],
    l---L -OlllllllO-
    ()_)-()_)-o-)_)

  2. #12
    Grandmaster KLB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Porter County
    Posts
    8,091
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill of Rights View Post
    California used to be Shall Issue? I know they're May Issue now, and were never Constitutional carry.
    (obviously, "May Issue" means fewer in some counties than others, to them, given that it's the sheriff's decision what you get, if anything.)
    I'm guessing you are referring to more recent history.
    They shouldn't just drop a hellfire missile on your café experience...Rand Paul

  3. #13
    Grandmaster Kirk Freeman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Lafayette-Hedgewood
    Posts
    37,601
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill of Rights View Post
    California used to be Shall Issue? I know they're May Issue now, and were never Constitutional carry.
    (obviously, "May Issue" means fewer in some counties than others, to them, given that it's the sheriff's decision what you get, if anything.)
    No, you are confused. Do you know about the Mulford Act?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulford_Act

    California was Constitutional Carry. It was a gun paradise. And then, in the name of "reasonableness" they flushed it all away in order to codify racism.
    "No, I am not calling you Johnny Dangerous."

  4. #14
    Marksman HubertGummer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    McCordsville
    Posts
    670
    Quote Originally Posted by SSGSAD View Post
    AFAIAC, the LTCH, would NOT be effected .....

    Still needed for reciprocity ......

    Guy Relford has talked about this at length

    on his radio show ..... The Gun Guy .....
    My thinking wasn't so much that the LTCH would become invalid upon CC starting, but more that if CC was repealed, the state would "need" everyone to get re-licensed since the Rules have changed.

    As BOR has stated its not common for states to go backwards, but what if Liberalism continus to spread and they get a majority voice...

    Also I understand that my LTCH could be repealed anytime the government wants to, but IMO the government would look bad if they ended it for no reason, and I could see them using the end of CC as a reason.


    And I do enjoy listening the The Gun Guy. Unfortunately, being on Saturday night makes it a little difficult to hear it every time. Really wish it was on during the week when I am driving l am driving all day.

  5. #15
    Cogito, ergo porto.
    Bill of Rights's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Wherever my wife and the bacon are. Anywhere else is not living, just existing.
    Posts
    16,552
    I stand corrected, with thanks. Rep inbound.

    It was not confusion, but ignorance; I didn't know about the Mulford Act. (Not surprising, considering the time frame of that law) The synopsis at the wiki link makes it sound very similar to the passage of the so-called "Patriot Act". To wit: bad stuff happens, people call on politicians to make it stop, when they need to be knocking heads to make it stop instead. Politicians respond with laws that do nothing to constrain the guilty and do everything to empower the criminals. Crime increases; lather, rinse, repeat.

    California was actually Constitutional carry, as Vermont still is? No permit required at all, anywhere? Or more "permits issued very freely, with minimal requirements"?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kirk Freeman View Post
    No, you are confused. Do you know about the Mulford Act?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulford_Act

    California was Constitutional Carry. It was a gun paradise. And then, in the name of "reasonableness" they flushed it all away in order to codify racism.
    Thanks for your help in keeping this a great forum!
    Forum Rules#######Classifieds Rules##############?!?! wait...what?

  6. #16
    Chicago Typewriter JTScribe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Bartholomew County
    Posts
    2,100
    Quote Originally Posted by Kirk Freeman View Post
    Ummm,

    I understand that reference!

    Everyone needs to check out "Days of Rage" by Brian Burrough. You can get a cheap hardcover on Amazon for <10 bucks. All the stuff that went down in the 70's that's never talked about is amazing.

  7. #17
    will argue for sammiches. ATM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Crawfordsville
    Posts
    19,318
    Quote Originally Posted by HubertGummer View Post
    Got to thinking today, if Constitutional Carry got passed and then in say 10 years we end up with a Left Wing governor/house and they repeal CC, would our Lifetime LTCH's still be valid?

    In my mind, I would think they would be good for, well, a lifetime but knowing how crooked government can be...

    What says INGO?
    "Constitutional Carry" is not something which is passed into existence, it is the default state of things prior to a prohibition being passed.

    Places with carry prohibitions have only to repeal their way back from such errors. Once there, at the default uninfringed state, there is nothing to "Constitutional Carry" which could be repealed, only new infringing prohibitions enacted.

    Such new infringements, even after a period of liberty, might codify new exceptions, recognize old exceptions, or provide for no exceptions at all.

    There is simply no way of predicting what tomorrow's State may impose upon or deny its subjects when there seem to be no limits to what we will adapt to and endure.


    www.reveresriders.org

    Say no to drugs. Say yes to bacon!

  8. #18
    Marksman HubertGummer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    McCordsville
    Posts
    670
    Quote Originally Posted by ATM View Post
    "Constitutional Carry" is not something which is passed into existence, it is the default state of things prior to a prohibition being passed.

    Places with carry prohibitions have only to repeal their way back from such errors. Once there, at the default uninfringed state, there is nothing to "Constitutional Carry" which could be repealed, only new infringing prohibitions enacted.

    Such new infringements, even after a period of liberty, might codify new exceptions, recognize old exceptions, or provide for no exceptions at all.

    There is simply no way of predicting what tomorrow's State may impose upon or deny its subjects when there seem to be no limits to what we will adapt to and endure.
    I see what you're saying, but either way it would be the same end result, no?


    I guess I could reword it. Less say they abolish all carry laws, and the the liberal nuts take over again and pass the same laws that got abolished.

    Better?


  9. #19
    will argue for sammiches. ATM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Crawfordsville
    Posts
    19,318
    Quote Originally Posted by HubertGummer View Post
    ...Better?

    Yes.


    www.reveresriders.org

    Say no to drugs. Say yes to bacon!

  10. #20
    Cogito, ergo porto.
    Bill of Rights's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Wherever my wife and the bacon are. Anywhere else is not living, just existing.
    Posts
    16,552
    The difference he's citing is one of perspective, and it's an important difference. It goes back to "From whom do you obtain your rights?"

    If you obtain your rights from your government, what they do in the manner of infringements is borderline acceptable, sometimes even welcome, such as Kirk cited in the Mulford Act reference or even my citing of the so-called "Patriot Act". People wanted to feel safer, and granting vast powers to an authority figure or agency seemed like the way to quickly obtain security, if you're willing to forget that little thing about security and liberty from Ben Franklin and suspend your disbelief enough to see gov't as benevolent.

    OTOH, when you recognize gov't as an antonym of freedom, you see the overstepping of boundaries inherent in any government that is not constrained and held to task by a vigilant people.

    We, sadly, are not and have not been a vigilant people, and government, which we created to serve us, is now barely discernible from a master; unlimited and unconstrainable.

    Could our RKBA be abolished with a stroke of a pen? Yes, and that pennstroke might have happened years ago with executive orders or some law, passed but awaiting a specific event to be enforced.

    Some will pooh-pooh this idea (I can already hear Kirk "L. Neil Smith"ing it or dismissing it as a "comic book") but the Founders had their beliefs that shaped this country, and sadly, we as a people seem to have forgotten that. It's not about anarchy and "no government", but rather about limited government, kept as small and inefficient as possible.

    Blessings,
    Bill

    Quote Originally Posted by HubertGummer View Post
    I see what you're saying, but either way it would be the same end result, no?


    I guess I could reword it. Less say they abolish all carry laws, and the the liberal nuts take over again and pass the same laws that got abolished.

    Better?


    Thanks for your help in keeping this a great forum!
    Forum Rules#######Classifieds Rules##############?!?! wait...what?

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •