# Concealed Carry across state lines ??



## ybnorml (Nov 26, 2014)

I have a Maine Concealed Carry Permit, and will soon be taking the Utah course to be permitted in other states also.
What is the proper procedure to carry across any state that doesn't acknowledge these permits ?? (like my next door neighbor N.H.) 
Trying to plan ahead and not stumble on any difficult times while traveling....

Thanks for any helpful info thats available......

Terry


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

ybnorml said:


> I have a Maine Concealed Carry Permit, and will soon be taking the Utah course to be permitted in other states also.
> What is the proper procedure to carry across any state that doesn't acknowledge these permits ?? (like my next door neighbor N.H.)
> Trying to plan ahead and not stumble on any difficult times while traveling....
> 
> ...


RI doesn't recognise any other state's CCW permits. None. Even a loaded mag is counted as a "loaded gun" here, and having a weapon in the car unless you are going from home to work (if you're allowed to carry there) or from home to the range or back then you may not have a weapon in the car.

Kinda restrictive, but there it is. Since I only shoot at a range, it's not a problem unless the wife says "Can you pick me up something on the way home?" Legally, no. Weapon in the car even if locked is a big No-no.


----------



## Philco (Apr 17, 2012)

Sounds like RI is one of the places I'll never visit. How in the world can they enact such laws and not infringe on the right to keep and bear arms ? It's beyond the comprehension of this old country boy.


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

You get used to it, and having grown up in the even-more-restrictive UK it feels quite permissive here. 

In other words, it works for me, but it isn't for everyone.


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

According to the "Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1986":


> One of the law's provisions was that persons traveling from one place to another cannot be incarcerated for a firearms offense in a state that has strict gun control laws if the traveler is just passing through (short stops for food and gas), provided that the firearms and ammunition are not immediately accessible, that the firearms are unloaded and, in the case of a vehicle without a compartment separate from the driver's compartment, the firearms are located in a locked container.[11]
> 
> Under this provision, someone driving from Virginia to a competition in Vermont with a locked hard case containing an unloaded handgun and a box of ammunition in the trunk could not be prosecuted in New Jersey or New York City for illegal possession of a handgun provided that the individual did not stop in New Jersey or New York for an extended period of time.
> 
> See 18 USC § 926A http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/926A


You must also meet your home state's legal requirement for the possession of the firearm and also in your final destination.


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

desertman said:


> According to the "Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1986":
> 
> You must also meet your home state's legal requirement for the possession of the firearm and also in your final destination.


Thanks, d'man - that's good to know.


----------



## shaolin (Dec 31, 2012)

Did you know you can get a NH Non-Resident Permit for $100 good for 4 years. I got one just in case I travel north.


----------



## denner (Jun 3, 2011)

Handgunlaw.us

Disclaimer; It is up to you to verify any state law but this is a good starting point.


----------



## ybnorml (Nov 26, 2014)

Thanks everyone....This gives me a starting point to build from


----------



## Kynochco (Jan 9, 2015)

With all this talk about constitutional carry going on, I think a lot of new CCW people might be waiting out the decisions of their states. Personally in the current climate, I am still awaiting the decision in my state, though I don't hold out much hope, it's not like this is Vermont. I wish the entire country would just be done with the debate already. Having to take a test, and submit all your information and pay a damn fee is just a money grab as well as having your name on file should it be necessary when the crazy anti-gun Nazi's come knocking.


----------



## RK3369 (Aug 12, 2013)

Philco said:


> Sounds like RI is one of the places I'll never visit. How in the world can they enact such laws and not infringe on the right to keep and bear arms ? It's beyond the comprehension of this old country boy.


what a shame. I've heard RI is a beautiful place, with all the multimillion dollar seacoast homes, huge boats and mega mansions. I wonder if Obama has his second home there, just planning for the future.


----------



## cnewcomer (Nov 11, 2011)

https://www.nraila.org/articles/20150116/interstate-transportation-of-firearms-and-ammunition-bill-introduced


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

RK3369 said:


> what a shame. I've heard RI is a beautiful place, with all the multimillion dollar seacoast homes, huge boats and mega mansions. I wonder if Obama has his second home there, just planning for the future.


It is gorgeous. And if you enjoy shooting you can shoot pretty much anything here somewhere. But you are hard-pressed if you want to carry.


----------



## RK3369 (Aug 12, 2013)

so, I guess if I ever get a boat large enough to cruise to Newport or somewhere else there, I won't be able to bring my guns? That's it. scratch that trip off my bucket list.


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

RK3369 said:


> so, I guess if I ever get a boat large enough to cruise to Newport or somewhere else there, I won't be able to bring my guns? That's it. scratch that trip off my bucket list.


Bill Ruger's boat Titania was reportedly VERY well armed when she was here in the early 90's - just not with anything in plain sight. 

Edit: unless all your guns are stainless, I'd leave then the hell off the boat anyway...


----------



## Spike12 (Dec 10, 2008)

I live in SE NH. When I visit the Kittery Trading Post just across the boarder in ME I show the guy at the door that I'm carrying. The two states 'legally' don't recognize each other but the guy at the door doesn't give a **** about that. 

When I visit relatives in PA I carry. I'm a strong believer that it's better to be judged by 7 than carried by 6. So I carry on me or in my car where ever I go and just don't put a big sign on my car that says "GUN INSIDE" and I keep my mouth shut. Since I don't do drugs or smoke wacky tabacky or drive in a a manner to get stopped I don't worry too much. I've never seen a cop road block for weapons check either. Should I get stopped, there is no reason to suggest the LEO should search the car. Even so, I have permit from my home state and I don't look like I came from IRAQ. There's the laws and there's what gets enforced.

As far as universal recognition goes: If you were a state that required a week of training before being qualified to carry how would you feel about accepting some guy from NH who just has to fill out a simple one page form and pay $10?


----------



## BackyardCowboy (Aug 27, 2014)

If you're interested, the SigSauer academy in Epping has classes at several different levels for gun owners, including tactical classes.


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

Philco said:


> Sounds like RI is one of the places I'll never visit. How in the world can they enact such laws and not infringe on the right to keep and bear arms ? It's beyond the comprehension of this old country boy.


They can't enact such laws without infringing the right to keep and bear arms, and they don't care. I submit it is one of the least safe states in the union as the result. Interesting statistics from 2013:

Alabama population: 4,833,722 
Murder rate: .0000719 (347 murders)
Violent crime rate: .00418 (20,210 violent crimes)

Rhode Island population: 1,530,000
Murder rate: .0000215 (33 murders)
Violent crime rate: .0113 (17,438 violent crimes)

As you can see, not a staggering difference in murder rate, and RI actually has a higher violent crime rate than AL. When you consider the areas where the majority of violent crimes occur, the numbers are even more alarming. Alarming to the fact that where the populace is armed, crime rates are much lower than where the populace has been effectively disarmed. Why anyone thinks "gun control" works is beyond me. You'd think RIs crime rates would be drastically lower than say the *******, gun-loving state of Alabama. Something to think about as you travel.


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

GCBHM said:


> They can't enact such laws without infringing the right to keep and bear arms, and they don't care. I submit it is one of the least safe states in the union as the result. Interesting statistics from 2013:
> 
> Alabama population: 4,833,722
> Murder rate: .0000719 (347 murders)
> ...


When you compare the percentage of each state that is "urban" as opposed to "rural", you see immediately where the issue is. Violent crime is far higher in urban areas, at least in this part of the country.


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

SailDesign said:


> When you compare the percentage of each state that is "urban" as opposed to "rural", you see immediately where the issue is. Violent crime is far higher in urban areas, at least in this part of the country.


You're exactly right, my friend. And in the urban areas, where the majority of the "poor" people live (b/c they are more dependent on the government, they can't afford to buy/own (ownership cost = practice, etc.) they are inherently more unsafe and discriminated against. I'm not talking only about blacks, either. There are people from all races and culture who fall into this category.


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

From the tables I found:

Link: FBI ? Table 5

Alabama
Population: 4,833,722
Murders:347 (0.0000718)
Violent crime:20,826 (0.00431)

Rhode Island
Population: 1,051,511
Murders:31 (0.0000295)
Violent crime:2,705 (0.00257)

That puts RI's violent crime rate at only 60% of Alabama's (it helps if you take RI's violent crime figures, not Arizona's...) and its murder rate at only 40%.

Want to re-word that "... where the populace is armed, crime rates are much lower than where the populace has been effectively disarmed" statement?

Edit: Do *NOT* tell me you don't believe the government's figures this time....


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

SailDesign said:


> From the tables I found:
> 
> Link: FBI ? Table 5
> 
> ...


I did take RIs crime figures. You may have found a different table, and there are always some error in any statistics, but there is a difference in stats on crime, etc., verses what some political intity does with them. For example, when Bloomberg and his minions cites stats on gun related deaths, they conveniently do not tell you that a small percentage of gun related deaths stem from violent acts. They include all numbers like accidental shootings and suicide figures as well to intentionally mislead the public into thinking guns are bad. Guns aren't bad. It's what people do with them that can be bad.


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

GCBHM said:


> I did take RIs crime figures. You may have found a different table, ... <snip>


I would hazard a guess you found "RI" by searching for "RI", and aRIzona came up without you noticing. Care to provide a link to the figures you used?


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

SailDesign said:


> I would hazard a guess you found "RI" by searching for "RI", and aRIzona came up without you noticing. Care to provide a link to the figures you used?


I searched "Rhode Island crime rate" on google. Link below:

https://www.google.com/search?q=rho...tartIndex=&startPage=1&safe=active&gws_rd=ssl

Then I clicked on the second link. Link below:

State of Rhode Island: State Police: Crime Statistics


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

Then I went through the actual stat sheet for the state, and added up all the numbers for violent crime. Not all crime, just crimes of a violent nature. It came up to over 17K.


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

GCBHM said:


> Then I went through the actual stat sheet for the state, and added up all the numbers for violent crime. Not all crime, just crimes of a violent nature. It came up to over 17K.


Interesting that it came out to exactly the same number a Arizona's violent crimes on the FBI sheet. 

Either way, the FBI numbers certainly show RI as less dangerous than Alabama.


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

SailDesign said:


> Interesting that it came out to exactly the same number a Arizona's violent crimes on the FBI sheet.
> 
> Either way, the FBI numbers certainly show RI as less dangerous than Alabama.


How? RI has a violent crime rate that is nearly 40% higher than that of AL! The violent crime rate in Alabama is .0043 while in RI it is .0113. One would think with those restrictive gun laws taking guns off the streets and out of the hands of criminals, it would be reversed by a much higher percentage.


----------



## RK3369 (Aug 12, 2013)

Spike12 said:


> I live in SE NH. When I visit relatives in PA I carry.


Live in NH, visit PA, if I remember mapquest, ya gotta cross at least VT (ok), NY (big no no) to get to PA, or MA (also no no from what I hear), CT (no no), NY again (big no no again) possibly NJ (another no no) to get to PA.

While I agree with your sentiments I hope you do not get stopped in NY. Since passage of the SAFE Act, if LE finds a gun in your car, permitted in another state or not, you're on a one way ride to jail. NO discussion, no reciprocity, that's just apparently the way they are. I don't even think they honor Federal transport regulations if they find a gun on you. I've seen stories on other forums about truckers getting stopped with weapons in their rigs and thus off to jail and rig impounded. I still have relatives in NY and as much as I'd like to see them, I won't go up there anymore because I can't carry there. I tell them to come to SC to visit me. Glad to have them and maybe can talk some sense into their heads about leaving NY.


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

GCBHM said:


> How? RI has a violent crime rate that is nearly 40% higher than that of AL! The violent crime rate in Alabama is .0043 while in RI it is .0113. One would think with those restrictive gun laws taking guns off the streets and out of the hands of criminals, it would be reversed by a much higher percentage.


If you take all of your numbers from a common source, then they are valid comparisons. The FBI and you might disagree on what is a violent crime. The RI State Police UCR tables you used are *reported* crimes, not prosecuted and proven.... Big difference, usually.

Try this site: Neighborhood Search for Home Buyers and Real Estate Investment - NeighborhoodScout

The only axe they have to grind is selling you a house...


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

SailDesign said:


> If you take all of your numbers from a common source, then they are valid comparisons. The FBI and you might disagree on what is a violent crime. The RI State Police UCR tables you used are *reported* crimes, not prosecuted and proven.... Big difference, usually.
> 
> Try this site: Neighborhood Search for Home Buyers and Real Estate Investment - NeighborhoodScout
> 
> The only axe they have to grind is selling you a house...


I understand. A lot of crimes are not reported, but just b/c there was no conviction does not mean there was no crime. The facts could be much worse for both states, but I think these are fairly reliable numbers. I would trust a real estate database even less given the obvious. Most of these so called "unbiased" sites are not unbias. At the end of the day, the point is that restrictive gun laws do not make you safer.


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

GCBHM said:


> <snip>
> At the end of the day, the point is that restrictive gun laws do not make you safer.


There are as many studies that show they do (sadly - I like my guns) it just depends on who you wish to believe. The NRA obviously would to agree with you, some others would like to disagree with you.

AS they say, you pays your money and you takes your choice - we both agree that restrictive gun laws are not a great idea, since we both enjoy having guns for one reason or another. If it could be proven to you (not hypothetically, but PROVEN to your satisfaction) that restrictive gun laws saved lives, I'll bet you'd still want to keep yours, right? In which case it is pointless to argue over whether it is safer or not - we would both ignore that and carry on.


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

SailDesign said:


> There are as many studies that show they do (sadly - I like my guns) it just depends on who you wish to believe. The NRA obviously would to agree with you, some others would like to disagree with you.
> 
> AS they say, you pays your money and you takes your choice - we both agree that restrictive gun laws are not a great idea, since we both enjoy having guns for one reason or another. If it could be proven to you (not hypothetically, but PROVEN to your satisfaction) that restrictive gun laws saved lives, I'll bet you'd still want to keep yours, right? In which case it is pointless to argue over whether it is safer or not - we would both ignore that and carry on.


Actually, no. There are no valid studies that prove gun control makes societies safe. Not one. If gun control kept anyone safe, there would be no gun related crimes committed at all where guns are prohibited. But the truth is that most gun related crimes are commited exactly where guns are prohibited. That is b/c gun control was never designed to keep you safe, it is designed to control you.


----------



## RK3369 (Aug 12, 2013)

if you view a gun as a tool, as I do, it is only a tool to be used in your own defense. Statistics mean nothing until it impacts you personally. For me, if I'm in a life or death situation, I want all the tools I can bring to the argument to give me the most advantage and most likelihood of survival. I don't care about statistics, they are only used by people who want to make a point. I prefer to carry where I can carry legally, and I won't bother anyone else with my gun, but I will use it if necessary to protect myself or family from deadly force. 

restrictive guns laws only give the criminals the advantage. If you try to be a law abiding citizen, you already know you are at a disadvantage if that situation ever arises where you are confronted by someone with a gun. The law restricting handgun ownership and carry doesn't help me at all in that situation so, imo, those laws are worthless and pointless. Unfortunately, because I am law abiding, I will act in compliance with those laws, just won't necessarily think they are correct or the best option. Just what I have to do to avoid penalty from the system.


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

GCBHM said:


> Actually, no. There are no valid studies that prove gun control makes societies safe. Not one.
> <snip>


You just had to use the "valid" thing. Which translates to "I don't like their numbers, so they aren't worth my consideration."

End of discussion.

BTW, here a couple of studies you don't find valid because you don't like their conclusions...

http://www.livescience.com/39813-gun-ownership-increases-firearms-deaths.html
Study: States with more gun laws have less gun violence


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

> Fleegler and researchers from Boston Children's Hospital, Harvard Medical School and Harvard School of Public Health studied information from all 50 states between 2007 to 2010, analyzing all firearm-related deaths reported to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and data on firearm laws *compiled by the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence*.


Now there's an un-biased study if I ever saw one. And from an article by Gannett Suburban Newspapers. No bias there either. This is from the same newspaper company that saw fit to publish along with an interactive map the names and addresses of Westchester County, New York's pistol permit holders under the headline "*THE GUN OWNER NEXT DOOR. WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW*" in a big bold headline reminiscent of a "Der Volkischer Beobachter" headline "*THE ETERNAL JEW*".



> "The United States is not a Democracy it is a Republic. In a Democracy two wolves and a sheep vote on what's for dinner. In a Republic a well armed sheep has a right to contest the vote."
> 
> Ben Franklin


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

SailDesign said:


> You just had to use the "valid" thing. Which translates to "I don't like their numbers, so they aren't worth my consideration."
> 
> End of discussion.
> 
> ...


Well, when you consider truth and facts vs manipulation and propaganda, it's an easy decision. When entities like USA Today (a very liberally slanted media outlet) report articles which state that "States with more gun laws have fewer gun-related deaths, according to a new study released Wednesday by Boston Children's Hospital", one has to question the legitimacy of it.

When I read things like "The leader investigator behind the research hopes the findings will drive legislators to pass gun reform across the country and increase federal funding to research on gun laws and violence (at least he hasn't tried to hide his very specific and pointed agenda). However, at least one critic argues that *the study fails to take into account several important factors such as the types of laws, enforcement of laws, and gun ownership rates in states*", I immediately smell "gun control advocates is trying to push his agenda". "Our research gives clear evidence that laws have a role in preventing firearms deaths," said Eric Fleegler, the study's lead investigator and a pediatric emergency doctor at Boston Children's Hospital. To that I say BULL! Why? Read the bolded text! That is why I do not take these "studies" serious. They are slanted, as are ALL gun control backed "studies" and "reports". They NEVER take the actual whole truth into account b/c they have an agenda. In this case, the lead investigator wants to convince the law makers to pass more gun laws so that he can get more funding to do senseless research, and why? He wants job security and to publish his works. It's just what doctors do.

It really all boils down to common sense. If gun control worked, then we would nave absolutely zero death/injuries as the result of crimes committed with a gun. If gun free zones were effective at stopping criminals from shooting up schools, then we would never see a school shooting. If restrictive gun laws actually worked to reduce gun related crime, then cities like Chicago would be one of the safest cities in the world, but it's not. It is one of the deadliest, most violent cities in the world. There were more people killed as the result of gun related crime in one year in Chicago than the entire Iraq War. Clearly gun control does not work, and the fact that there is even ONE death as the result of a gun related crime proves that no matter how many studies some Boston doctor does to convince legislators to pass more laws.

Consequently, in areas where gun ownership is high, like Kennesaw, GA, the violent crime rates are much lower. These statistics are proven over and over in states where gun laws are less restrictive. States with more gun laws simply do not have less violence, Sail. If they did then RIs violent crime rate would be drastically lower than ALs, and we have seen that is clearly not the case. It's actually higher. Now, to quote the great Foghorn Leghorn, "you can argue with me, but you can't argue with the figures". That's why the liberal gun haters just make them up as the go! They have to b/c there are no real figures to support their baseless claims that gun control laws work. They don't!


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

My point is the we all (self included) tend to believe studies that agree with our ideas. Without necessarily reading the other studies to see what merit they bear.

Anyone that says "Look who published it - it MUST be false" is full of it. 

Read around the subject,


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

SailDesign said:


> My point is the we all (self included) tend to believe studies that agree with our ideas. Without necessarily reading the other studies to see what merit they bear.
> 
> Anyone that says "Look who published it - it MUST be false" is full of it.
> 
> Read around the subject,


I agree that we all tend to gravitate to the areas we believe in, and sometimes, maybe even most of the time we dismiss anything that comes against that. But I have read the studies on this issue. Not all of them, but enough to know that what I have seen from the gun control crowd is largely false information. I've read the reports and studies done by those who support gun ownership, and some of those are clearly extreme as well, but when it comes to statements of support of gun laws working, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see who is right/wrong.

People can say whatever they want to support gun laws, but the fact is they do not work. Banning guns has never stopped violent crime. Banning hicap mags hasn't stopped it. Creating gun free zones sure has not stopped school/workplace shootings, and background checks simply do nothing to stop criminals from getting guns. Laws are passed by lawmakers so that lawmakers look like they are doing their jobs, but the truth is we don't enforce more than half the laws on the books. Laws are meant for the law abiding elements b/c they are the only ones who follow the law. Criminals are called criminals for a reason, and laws do not stop them from committing crime. That is why "gun control" doesn't work. It only makes the good guys impotent to defend. Anyone who doesn't see that is either really, really daft, or they have their head in the sand.


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

GCBHM said:


> I agree that we all tend to gravitate to the areas we believe in, and sometimes, maybe even most of the time we dismiss anything that comes against that. But I have read the studies on this issue. Not all of them, but enough to know that what I have seen from the gun control crowd is largely false information. I've read the reports and studies done by those who support gun ownership, and some of those are clearly extreme as well, but when it comes to statements of support of gun laws working, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see who is right/wrong.
> 
> People can say whatever they want to support gun laws, but the fact is they do not work. Banning guns has never stopped violent crime. Banning hicap mags hasn't stopped it. Creating gun free zones sure has not stopped school/workplace shootings, and background checks simply do nothing to stop criminals from getting guns. Laws are passed by lawmakers so that lawmakers look like they are doing their jobs, but the truth is we don't enforce more than half the laws on the books. Laws are meant for the law abiding elements b/c they are the only ones who follow the law. Criminals are called criminals for a reason, and laws do not stop them from committing crime. That is why "gun control" doesn't work. It only makes the good guys impotent to defend. Anyone who doesn't see that is either really, really daft, or they have their head in the sand.


Mostly agree - as long as you've READ the studies, you are free to criticise.


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

SailDesign said:


> Mostly agree - as long as you've READ the studies, you are free to criticise.


Well I have. I just don't think it is fair to say they are wrong if you have not at least read what they've said. Now, I'm not as adament on every issue btwn Liberal v Conservative, especially on political/social issues, but this really isn't either of those as much as the Liberals try to make it. This is one of the very few areas where Liberals (and not all - you prove that), let me say gun hating liberals, are just flat wrong. They hate guns, and they want a world without guns. But when they actually take the time to use guns, and check actual facts, they tend to back off.


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

GCBHM said:


> Well I have. I just don't think it is fair to say they are wrong if you have not at least read what they've said. Now, I'm not as adament on every issue btwn Liberal v Conservative, especially on political/social issues, but this really isn't either of those as much as the Liberals try to make it. This is one of the very few areas where Liberals (and not all - you prove that), let me say gun hating liberals, are just flat wrong. They hate guns, and they want a world without guns. But when they actually take the time to use guns, and check actual facts, they tend to back off.


I had someone bitch about Obama last year - seriously bitch about him. Now - I know that's not uncommom, especially in here, but he admitted he hadn't voted..... If you don't vote, you don't get to bitch. Same thing with reading studies.

On the liberal front, well, most of us who DO shoot enjoy the [email protected] out of it, so no worry. I do think there are just too many guns "out there" but honestly, once you start buying, you want to try out that next one...  There needs to be some sort of control, I think we can all agree about that unless we WANT Western-style shoot-outs all over the place, but the current attempts just don't hack it.

Yes, I know I'm in a minority in here with that sentiment.


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

GCBHM:


> In this case, the lead investigator wants to convince the law makers to pass more gun laws *so that he can get more funding to do senseless research*, and why? He wants job security and to publish his works. It's just what doctors do.


Global warming anyone? Er, should I say "Climate Change". It has made Al Gore a very wealthy man.


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

SailDesign said:


> I had someone bitch about Obama last year - seriously bitch about him. Now - I know that's not uncommom, especially in here, but he admitted he hadn't voted..... If you don't vote, you don't get to bitch. Same thing with reading studies.
> 
> On the liberal front, well, most of us who DO shoot enjoy the [email protected] out of it, so no worry. I do think there are just too many guns "out there" but honestly, once you start buying, you want to try out that next one...  There needs to be some sort of control, I think we can all agree about that unless we WANT Western-style shoot-outs all over the place, but the current attempts just don't hack it.
> 
> Yes, I know I'm in a minority in here with that sentiment.


I disagree about the voting thing. We have an inherent right to complain about our government regardless, but choosing not to vote for the stooges the political party puts up for auction is a vote for good, in my opinion. Why should I have to vote for some fool I don't want in office just b/c that's who the party put up? Chances are that if either party endorses the candidate, they are bought and paid for.


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

SailDesign:


> There needs to be some sort of control


We already have it. There are over 20,000 Federal, State and local gun control laws or ordinances now on the books. We do not need any more. Just one more will never solve anything. Of course that's the goal to abolish the 2nd Amendment incrementally. There is too much opposition to do it in one fell swoop. Another law here, another law there, here a law, there a law, everywhere a law, law. Most are designed to entrap unsuspecting legitimate gun owners where they can be perfectly legal in one jurisdiction and a felon in another. Useless illegitimate unconstitutional laws are designed to benefit lawyers who profit from them. Who coincidentally make up the majority of legislators.


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

desertman said:


> SailDesign:
> 
> We already have it. There are over 20,000 Federal, State and local gun control laws or ordinances now on the books. We do not need any more. Just one more will never solve anything. Of course that's the goal to abolish the 2nd Amendment incrementally. There is too much opposition to do it in one fell swoop. Another law here, another law there, here a law, there a law, everywhere a law, law. Most are designed to entrap unsuspecting legitimate gun owners where they can be perfectly legal in one jurisdiction and a felon in another. Useless illegitimate unconstitutional laws are designed to benefit lawyers who profit from them. Who coincidentally make up the majority of legislators.


Respectfully - most of what is in place is rubbish, as we all know. There need to be SOME controls, but they are not on the horizon in a usable or viable form yet. I sincerely hope once we get the NRA fear-mongering out of the way, and the Mother's Against Everything out of the way, and trash most of the existing laws, we can get reasonable folks to put in place something that works. 
But I don't know what it would look like. Any ideas? Or would you just like guns to be like writing implements - anything goes?


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

SailDesign said:


> Respectfully - most of what is in place is rubbish, as we all know. There need to be SOME controls, but they are not on the horizon in a usable or viable form yet. I sincerely hope once we get the NRA fear-mongering out of the way, and the Mother's Against Everything out of the way, and trash most of the existing laws, we can get reasonable folks to put in place something that works.
> But I don't know what it would look like. Any ideas? Or would you just like guns to be like writing implements - anything goes?


I believe the only thing that needs to be controlled is the gun itself. Listen, again, it has been proven that measures to "control" do not work. The only laws that need to be in effect are laws to punish acts, not to restrict law abiding citizens. I don't care who is "allowed" to carry a gun (or any weapon for that matter) b/c criminals are going to arm themselves regardless of what the laws are. Criminals simply ignore laws, so passing more is literally a work of futility. It is like pouring water into a bathtub with no drain. No matter how much water you pour into the tub, it simply will never fill up.

If you punish those who actually commit violent acts, instead of coddling them, then you will see a sharp decline in violent acts. For example. When that idiot shot Gabby Giffords, a beautiful, vibrant woman who was serving her community, in the face, he should have been shot on sight. As it is, he is being coddled by a corrupt legal system influenced by bleeding hearts who say we need to figure out why he did it. NO WE DON'T!!! We need to stop those who think about doing it, and you don't do that by giving them their 15 mins. You kill them on the spot.

The fool who shot up that movie theater...don't arrest him! SHOOT HIM!!! THAT is how you deal with acts of violence. Once someone chooses to take another life in cold blood, it does not matter why. They have then chosen to give up their rights and should be dealt with accordingly. Outside that, no law restricting the sale of any type of gun to the public is going to stop violent crime.

You look at every urban area where gun laws are restrictive and compare it to areas where gun laws are not restrictive. You will see a stark contrast. Nothing will ever eliminate violence altogether b/c life is inherently dangerous, but you can minimize the propensity for it by allowing the people to adequately defend themselves. The population in the state of Alabama is roughly 4.5 million. There are about 300 state police officers. The Birmingham metro area is the largest metro area in the state, and we have approximately 900 officers on force with BPD. According to the US Bureau of Justice Statistics' 2008 Census of State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies, the state had 417 law enforcement agencies employing 11,631 sworn police officers, about 251 for each 100,000 residents. There is no way the police can protect everyone. In the areas where conceal permits are high, crime is lower. Sure, there are other factors that affect the outcome of violent crime, such as education, affluency, etc., but in the more affuent areas the gun laws are usually less restrictive. There is a direct correlation.


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

GCBHM said:


> <snip>
> The fool who shot up that movie theater...don't arrest him! SHOOT HIM!!! THAT is how you deal with acts of violence.
> <snip>


How very Old Testament of you.

Jesus had other ideas....


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

SailDesign said:


> How very Old Testament of you.
> 
> Jesus had other ideas....


No he didn't.


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

SailDesign:


> Any ideas?


There are plenty of controls they are called laws. Of course there aren't any on the horizon. There is a law that is designed to regulate just about any type of behavior. We already have laws on the books that address murder or the commission of any type of crime whether a weapon has been used or not. Maybe the answer is to leave the law abiding alone and enforce the laws that address outright criminal behavior period. Instead of focusing on inanimate objects that could be used in a crime. Bring back a meaningful form of capital punishment that eliminates decades of appeals especially in cases where the evidence is overwhelming against the defendant. Reform our corrupt and broken criminal justice system. Eliminate turnstile justice where violent offenders are repeatedly sent back out on our streets to continue their crimes. The same goes for anyone who continues to rape, rob and plunder innocent people. People who get caught stealing or burglarizing should also never be let out. Put them to work in some sort of labor camp, picking fruits and vegetables or chain gang instead of languishing in prison. They can rebuild our roads and bridges. After all we pay to feed, clothe, house and take care of their medical needs. Make 'em earn it. Of course this will never happen as the civil rights of criminals supersedes those of the innocent. Along with the bottom line of the greedy trial lawyers. Some who make a fortune out of criminal cases. As I've said lawyers for the most part are legislators who write laws to benefit lawyers. It stands to reason the more criminals that are out on the streets more crimes will be committed therefore there will be more cases to be tried. This of course provides the trial lawyers with a steady revenue stream. Just thinking about all this crap sickens me.


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

GCBHM:


> It is like pouring water into a bathtub with no drain. No matter how much water you pour into the tub, it simply will never fill up.


Got to hand it to you, you've been posting some great stuff!


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

desertman said:


> GCBHM:
> 
> Got to hand it to you, you've been posting some great stuff!


I say the same for you!


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

GCBHM said:


> No he didn't.


Then you haven't read the same New Testament I did.


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

SailDesign said:


> Then you haven't read the same New Testament I did.


I've read and studied it for 30 years now, but just out of curiosity, what are the other ideas you think Jesus had?


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

GCBHM said:


> I've read and studied it for 30 years now, but just out of curiosity, what are the other ideas you think Jesus had?


I believe "Turn the other cheek" was one of them.

And No, I am not going to get into a religious argument. My beliefs are my own.


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

SailDesign said:


> I believe "Turn the other cheek" was one of them.
> 
> And No, I am not going to get into a religious argument. My beliefs are my own.


Well, I agree. Your beliefs are indeed your own. But turning the other cheek has nothing to do with this. That teaching, in context, relates to being slow to anger and not letting others push you into a fight. Once someone takes to shooting innocent people with rifles, including precious six year old little girls, the love of Christ covers to protect the innocent, not the aggressor. One thing the Lord hates is hands that shed innocent blood.

Now also keep in mind that I'm not advocating killing those suspected of murder. That's another matter entirely! But in the case where it is cut and dry, as provided in those examples, you do what is necessary to stop the threat, and put them down. However, let's say that we have a situation where a thug approaches someone on the street to rob them, and the intended victim pulls his gun and shoots the thug dead. The police just happen to roll past as it happens. What then? Shoot the guy who just killed someone? No. In cases like that, where it isn't so cut and dry, restraint must be exercised to determine what happened and why. There is a difference.


----------

