Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/...state-lines/PUSIXRJ004J17qbYVH7kAN/story.html
Well, THAT was refreshing!
So the Boston Globe's Editorial Staff has this to say about carrying guns...
- Thread starter Sam1911
- Start date
- Status
http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/...state-lines/PUSIXRJ004J17qbYVH7kAN/story.html
Well, THAT was refreshing!
Tony50ae
Member
As it should be! I think there is hope. Just about every state you can get a permit now. Years ago, this was not the case. I think it might happen just because it seems to slowly be heading that way.
leadcounsel
member
Until they make the license impossible to get or afford, much like some states and DC have done.
John Stossel did a piece about trying to get a pistol permit in NY. Cost him significant time, money, and effort and even as a public person with real death threats, he was denied!
What REALLY should happen is a policy like a couple states have adopted, and that is a no-license carry... and all states should be uniform. Afterall, it's 1/2 of the equation in the "Right to KEEP and BEAR arms."
John Stossel did a piece about trying to get a pistol permit in NY. Cost him significant time, money, and effort and even as a public person with real death threats, he was denied!
What REALLY should happen is a policy like a couple states have adopted, and that is a no-license carry... and all states should be uniform. Afterall, it's 1/2 of the equation in the "Right to KEEP and BEAR arms."
Tony50ae
Member
Actually five states have a no permit needed. Up from several years ago. Its a start. Just like how CCW started.
Last edited:
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Well, yes, we can discuss Constitutional Carry if you like, but the point I was going for here is the pleasantness of finding an editorial column in a major newspaper from a large (-ish 
... hey, I lived there, I can tease!) northeastern city coming out so clearly on "our" side of this issue and presenting the case in terms the residents of such a place have some hope of "getting."
... hey, I lived there, I can tease!) northeastern city coming out so clearly on "our" side of this issue and presenting the case in terms the residents of such a place have some hope of "getting."
Fast Frank
Member
Here's the deal.
All the states have gotten together and standardized their driving requirements.
They already know that possessing a license from "Sate A" satisfies the requirements in their state.
With handgun licensing that standardization does not exist, and possessing a CHL from "State A" very well may not meet the requirements of another state.
We need to push for standardization.
HOWEVER...
There are states that do not want their citizens carrying guns and their requirements are nearly impossible.
Before we start pushing for standardization, we need to ask ourselves how we feel about adopting some of the laws from places like California.
So maybe standardizing carry laws isn't such a good idea after all.
All the states have gotten together and standardized their driving requirements.
They already know that possessing a license from "Sate A" satisfies the requirements in their state.
With handgun licensing that standardization does not exist, and possessing a CHL from "State A" very well may not meet the requirements of another state.
We need to push for standardization.
HOWEVER...
There are states that do not want their citizens carrying guns and their requirements are nearly impossible.
Before we start pushing for standardization, we need to ask ourselves how we feel about adopting some of the laws from places like California.
So maybe standardizing carry laws isn't such a good idea after all.
Tony50ae
Member
LOL! I knew what you meant Sam. And your right it was pleasant considering the anti stuff they normally print. Now if we could get a newspaper from a large city to say that, say from Chicago ( I grew up there but escaped ) that would be something!
And your right it was pleasant considering the anti stuff they normally print. Now if we could get a newspaper from a large city to say that, say from Chicago ( I grew up there but escaped ) that would be something!
wally
Member
Well if Texas has to accept their gay marriages, they should have to accept our CHL as well!
Its not only about meeting requirements.
Its not only about meeting requirements.
herrwalther
Member
- Joined
- May 1, 2013
- Messages
- 8,127
Even the Boston Globe has to get off the Kool-Aid sometimes.
LemmyCaution
Member
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2008
- Messages
- 897
Which is why few people in Vermont are in favor of universal reciprocity. We'd be losing out.
Personally, I'd rather wait for more states to adopt permitless carry. The cost of having reciprocity with MA and NY just isn't worth it.
ACP
Member
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2002
- Messages
- 1,334
I wish, Sam.
That's Jeff Jacoby's column -- the Globe's resident "voice from the right." Jacoby is just doing what he always does -- tweaking the left.
That is NOT a Boston Globe editorial board editorial. Would be nice if iy was.
Still, it gives readers something to chew on.
That's Jeff Jacoby's column -- the Globe's resident "voice from the right." Jacoby is just doing what he always does -- tweaking the left.
That is NOT a Boston Globe editorial board editorial. Would be nice if iy was.
Still, it gives readers something to chew on.
HankR
Member
Enough with the car analogies
Errhhh, nope. Care to try again?
When my son was 15 (actually 14 and change) he was permitted to drive, by himself, in our home state (no "adult" required) between the hours of 6 am to 10 pm (or something) or to/from a school function outside of those hours. Many states accepted his license, and granted him the same privilege when in the their state. North Carolina did not, explicitly stating that they only honor driver's licenses issued by other states when the permittee is 16 years of age or older. My niece in Maryland is almost 18 and still has restrictions on who can ride in the car with her. When she comes to my state we don't try to enforce that, but it's a requirement of her state for her permit.
None of this is relevant, as bearing arms is a God granted civil right, not a privilege to be traded by bureaucrats.
Errhhh, nope. Care to try again?
When my son was 15 (actually 14 and change) he was permitted to drive, by himself, in our home state (no "adult" required) between the hours of 6 am to 10 pm (or something) or to/from a school function outside of those hours. Many states accepted his license, and granted him the same privilege when in the their state. North Carolina did not, explicitly stating that they only honor driver's licenses issued by other states when the permittee is 16 years of age or older. My niece in Maryland is almost 18 and still has restrictions on who can ride in the car with her. When she comes to my state we don't try to enforce that, but it's a requirement of her state for her permit.
None of this is relevant, as bearing arms is a God granted civil right, not a privilege to be traded by bureaucrats.
ConstitutionCowboy
member
I loath the Feral Government getting involved in the RKBA, forcing the several states to honor each other state's permits. All it does is legitimize the unconstitutional need for a permit to exercise a right that all government is forbidden to infringe upon in the first place!
Look where the article is coming from - Massachusetts - a place that will imprison you for a year if you are caught in possession of a gun you don't have a permit for, or even if you have a permit, if the gun isn't on the "approved" list, it's a crime.
That said, it is a semi-positive article, and I'm aghast it was published in the Globe. Maybe they are trying to get some readership numbers up for their advertisers. I remain skeptical.
Woody
Look where the article is coming from - Massachusetts - a place that will imprison you for a year if you are caught in possession of a gun you don't have a permit for, or even if you have a permit, if the gun isn't on the "approved" list, it's a crime.
That said, it is a semi-positive article, and I'm aghast it was published in the Globe. Maybe they are trying to get some readership numbers up for their advertisers. I remain skeptical.
Woody
I presume Jeff Jacoby has been locked up in the Globe basement, and will be treated for an obvious mental defect. Or maybe just shot by the Boston police for non-conformity. Heaven only knows what the modern MA government would have done to those awful Minutemen!
Jim
Jim
Ignition Override
Member
The mass murders of helpless citizens in Paris who were unable to carry concealed handguns might have grabbed Lots of peoples' attention-even the normally irrational mainstream media.
That could be The recent, major watershed event in a civilian setting which is not normally a war or skirmish zone. And it wasn't the Third World, for a change. Neither was Ottawa Canada. There are no front lines.
Couple this with the popularity and nominations for "American Sniper"-killing insurgents.
That could be The recent, major watershed event in a civilian setting which is not normally a war or skirmish zone. And it wasn't the Third World, for a change. Neither was Ottawa Canada. There are no front lines.
Couple this with the popularity and nominations for "American Sniper"-killing insurgents.
leadcounsel
member
Agreed.
The costs of complying with NY and Illinois and DC could be dangerous, maybe now, maybe some later date.
Is that the same Boston that's in Mass.??? The Globe - the same one owned by the same people who own the NY Times? You sure it isn't the "New Boston Globe" or something? There's a New Boston in Ohio. I've been through there many times usually as fast as possible. I don't think they have a Globe there but they could have started one in somebody's basement or something. There is a gun shop there. It used to be way cool but it's sorta lame now. Still are you "sure" it isn't the "NEW Boston Globe"???
That really is a shocker. I didn't think I'd live long enough to see it. I always knew the leftists would cave and demand extreme measures at some point. I guess all it took was an attack on that captial of all leftists, Paris. Home of the Louvre and The French Revolution (inc. the Reign Of Terror). Leftists have a long history of going overboard once they get going. Not many of us would want to make the guillotine a household word like the French did when they got rid of their monarchy. And yes some of the Frogs caved in to Hitler's boys but a bunch of them stood up in a big way too. That was a big departure from their pre-WWII art culture ways. And clearly it was people on the left that did the bulk of that work. I never really bought that National Socialism was a right wing thing but to an extent I guess it was with their insistence that things run on time etc.. That's not the Paris we see today where work weeks are more like work weekends and vacations are longer than waiting in line at the post office.
That really is a shocker. I didn't think I'd live long enough to see it. I always knew the leftists would cave and demand extreme measures at some point. I guess all it took was an attack on that captial of all leftists, Paris. Home of the Louvre and The French Revolution (inc. the Reign Of Terror). Leftists have a long history of going overboard once they get going. Not many of us would want to make the guillotine a household word like the French did when they got rid of their monarchy. And yes some of the Frogs caved in to Hitler's boys but a bunch of them stood up in a big way too. That was a big departure from their pre-WWII art culture ways. And clearly it was people on the left that did the bulk of that work. I never really bought that National Socialism was a right wing thing but to an extent I guess it was with their insistence that things run on time etc.. That's not the Paris we see today where work weeks are more like work weekends and vacations are longer than waiting in line at the post office.
cluttonfred
Member
Attitudes on CCW have been changing nationwide in the last 20 years or so even in fairly gun-unfriendly places like MA. I say "fairly" because I grew up in New England and my grandfather was a gun collector and dealer in MA for about 70 years and, despite all the legal and political craziness, carried on just fine. The big question on July 4th was always, "How many clips do we have for the Thompson?" ;-)
Reciprocity isn't all that, as pointed out. And the comparison to a driver's license doesn't look so good, although the author may have meant well.
CCW may be considered a 2A right, but auto licenses are very much considered privileges. We lost our battle from day one when motorists were required to walk in front of their vehicles swinging a lantern to warn others they were on the road.
In other words, the Fudds were in control and had no idea how much of their own rights they were giving away - as usual. We now have a requirement in every state that you must pass their test and possess a Driver's License on you anytime you are behind the wheel - along with insurance and a motor vehicle that has passes a state safety inspection. Including in many cases testing to determine it still has operating emissions controls.
Translated in a worst case scenario, you'd have to possess your carry license - which is ALREADY more expensive in many cases than a driver's license, have gunfighter insurance, have your weapon inspected to make sure it conformed to safety standards and was routinely maintained. About the only positive glitch would be the requirement it have a suppressor to prevent damaging the hearing of bystanders and the perp you had to shoot.
Which greatly restricts its concealability, eh?
The author was possibly trying to tweak the anti gunners, sure, but their response if forced to accept things is to always insist on a poison pill, and it the process of legislation, well, it's like sausage, you sometimes don't know what gets included. And that IS very much a part of our somewhat progressive journey to expanded gun use.
So, the concept comes across as just another opportunity for some otherwise gun friendly legislators to prove once again how subtly they could stab us in the back to get whatever concessions they needed down the road. If we elected statemen instead of lawyers and used car salesmen it wouldn't be so bad - but like the Fudds who insisted that those newfangled horseless carriage operators needed to prevent their animals from going wild, we'd be dirtbagged by the public who trades away their rights for a little security.
CCW may be considered a 2A right, but auto licenses are very much considered privileges. We lost our battle from day one when motorists were required to walk in front of their vehicles swinging a lantern to warn others they were on the road.
In other words, the Fudds were in control and had no idea how much of their own rights they were giving away - as usual. We now have a requirement in every state that you must pass their test and possess a Driver's License on you anytime you are behind the wheel - along with insurance and a motor vehicle that has passes a state safety inspection. Including in many cases testing to determine it still has operating emissions controls.
Translated in a worst case scenario, you'd have to possess your carry license - which is ALREADY more expensive in many cases than a driver's license, have gunfighter insurance, have your weapon inspected to make sure it conformed to safety standards and was routinely maintained. About the only positive glitch would be the requirement it have a suppressor to prevent damaging the hearing of bystanders and the perp you had to shoot.
Which greatly restricts its concealability, eh?
The author was possibly trying to tweak the anti gunners, sure, but their response if forced to accept things is to always insist on a poison pill, and it the process of legislation, well, it's like sausage, you sometimes don't know what gets included. And that IS very much a part of our somewhat progressive journey to expanded gun use.
So, the concept comes across as just another opportunity for some otherwise gun friendly legislators to prove once again how subtly they could stab us in the back to get whatever concessions they needed down the road. If we elected statemen instead of lawyers and used car salesmen it wouldn't be so bad - but like the Fudds who insisted that those newfangled horseless carriage operators needed to prevent their animals from going wild, we'd be dirtbagged by the public who trades away their rights for a little security.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
There's nothing here to say that reciprocity MUST be forced by the federal government.
Saying reciprocity should be a courtesy extended to citizens who are able to carry in their home states, as a matter of course, doesn't directly require federal intervention.
The car analogy isn't perfect, but it is something everyone does understand without getting into detailed explanations of federal vs. state powers, etc.
...
Another, semi-analogous point would be that of vehicle inspections. State safety inspection procedures are not uniform, and some states don't even require one. But if you drive from KY, IL, SC, WI, or any number of other states that don't require them into MD, PA, NY or any number of other states that DO, that state's police don't pull your vehicle off the road and impound it, or fine you, or even make you get it inspected, in order to drive in their state.
Saying reciprocity should be a courtesy extended to citizens who are able to carry in their home states, as a matter of course, doesn't directly require federal intervention.
The car analogy isn't perfect, but it is something everyone does understand without getting into detailed explanations of federal vs. state powers, etc.
...
Another, semi-analogous point would be that of vehicle inspections. State safety inspection procedures are not uniform, and some states don't even require one. But if you drive from KY, IL, SC, WI, or any number of other states that don't require them into MD, PA, NY or any number of other states that DO, that state's police don't pull your vehicle off the road and impound it, or fine you, or even make you get it inspected, in order to drive in their state.
Salmoneye
Member
I agree...
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Well, technically, we don't know what the cost of that reciprocity would really be, as nothing's on the table for discussion.
IF everyone had to rise to meet the strictest standards of the strictest states, that would be bad. But even that wouldn't force the strictest states reciprocate carry agreements with any other states.
And the point of the vehicle analogies is merely that: Just because a Marylander has to jump through X,Y,Z hoops to get his/her licence and subject their vehicle to official safety testing and emissions testing doesn't mean that the many thousands of out-of-state folks driving their vehicles in MD every single day have been forced to do the same. They are granted full faith and credit of being licensed/privileged by their own state.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
