So the Boston Globe's Editorial Staff has this to say about carrying guns...

[cluttonfred]

Sigh, I love Vermont, lived there twice in my life and would love to retire there if only they wouldn't tax pensions like new income. Heck, makes me want to consider New Hampshire! ;-)

 

[Devonai]

As others have mentioned, Jeff Jacoby is the lone conservative voice in the Globe wilderness.

As far as Vermont, according to usacarry.com, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, and Oklahoma honor Vermont residents. If I recall correctly they simply go by the resident's driver's license as prima facie evidence that the individual is legal to carry.

 

[claiborne]

http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/...state-lines/PUSIXRJ004J17qbYVH7kAN/story.html

Well, THAT was refreshing!

NOPE! NOPE! NOPE! and especially NOPE!. Not Even Remotely Refreshing.
THE RIGHT TO CARRY A FIREARM FOR PROTECTION SHOULD NEVER, EVER BE TREATED LIKE THE LICENSING REQUIRMENTS TO DRIVE A CAR. I will never understand the mentality that implores people to think that a right I am born with should be regulated as a resrictable privilege.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

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.

Yeah, then next would come the EPA with regulations on the limits of the emissions a firearm would be allowed to spew. No thanks on the Feral Government getting involved in our RKBA unless it wishes to enforce the Second Amendment.

Woody

 

[Sam1911]

NOPE! NOPE! NOPE! and especially NOPE!. Not Even Remotely Refreshing.
THE RIGHT TO CARRY A FIREARM FOR PROTECTION SHOULD NEVER, EVER BE TREATED LIKE THE LICENSING REQUIRMENTS TO DRIVE A CAR. I will never understand the mentality that implores people to think that a right I am born with should be regulated as a resrictable privilege.

LOL. Oooohkay then.


Still sort of missing the point of why the article is cool to see written in the Boston Globe. We can hold up these two ideas in front of the average Bostonian paper-reader and show that something that is a) potentially a safety risk to the public, and b) not clearly an enumerated civil right is already extended as a courtesy to out-of-state folks operating within any state, then certainly we should extend that same consideration to those exercising their RKBA.

Now, once we've established the similarities between the the two in terms of extending rights and privileges, then we can dig into why they might be fundamentally different.

(And you're possibly starting to tip the conversation into an argument over whether restrictions on your right to operate a motor vehicle are not infringements on your right to freely travel.)

 

[george burns]

We all know someone that we are not comfortable with either driving with them , and, or, shooting with them, Why? Because they are irresponsible and have poor judgment. Or just are uncoordinated and have problems with anything mechanical. How do you get them to get more training, or do you leave them to their own demise?

 

[Officers'Wife]

http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/...state-lines/PUSIXRJ004J17qbYVH7kAN/story.html

Well, THAT was refreshing!

I honestly and truly feel a sense of rage whenever someone starts with the "guns and cars" comparison for pro or con...

Item one: I started driving a truck when I was 12 years old. It was perfectly legal as the only time I left Dad's property was to cross a county road or state highway to get to an adjacent plot of property. Not always belonging to my Dad but one that Dad and the owner had an agreement to allow me to do so.

Item 2: I legally owned a Pontiac Fiero when I was 14, a year and a half before the state of Indiana allowed me a permit to drive on public roads.

Item 3: A person that has had his driver's license expire or revoked can still purchase an automobile.

Item last: Some states, perhaps all, consider driving on a public road a privilege granted and controlled by the state. Owning and carrying a firearm is a right directly noted in the 2nd amendment as such with the very clear prohibition of government infringement and/or control.

 

[Spats McGee]

There's an Interstate Driver's License Compact adopted by the states. That's why every state recognizes every other state's DLs. So why not an Interstate Concealed Handgun Licensing Compact?

We'd really have to get the American Bar Association on our side for this, so I might be dreaming, but . . . *sigh*

 

[Lycidas Janwor]

http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/...state-lines/PUSIXRJ004J17qbYVH7kAN/story.html

Well, THAT was refreshing!

since when do you need finger prints for a driver's license?

 

[Sam1911]

a·nal·o·gy
əˈnaləjē
noun

1) a comparison between two things, typically on the basis of their structure and for the purpose of explanation or clarification.
"an analogy between the workings of nature and those of human societies"

2) a correspondence or partial similarity.

 

[huntsman]

Permits empower bureaucrats, not what one wants in a free society.

 

[we are not amused]

I think most of us have been against the national requirement that states recognize the CCW's of other states automatically.

I disagree strongly that "most of us" believe that National reciprocity is a bad idea!

You and others may like the hodgepodge of conflicting rules and regulations, and out right prohibitions. Perhaps you even like the idea that many States effectively ban a person from even traveling through their State with a firearm, but believe me, not all of us do.

 

[we are not amused]

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.

First, I will point out that at least one Federal Judge has already ruled that a Drivers License is a right, not a privilege, at least for illegal aliens.

And a National reciprocity Law would not have to be a nightmare you imply. For that matter, even if it was, individual States could and would still be able to issue State wide licenses, even if they weren't valid Nationally.

I find the knee jerk objection to National Reciprocity to be irrational and counter productive to the furtherance of gun rights and the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

How can we say it is a universal Constitutional Right, if we claim that States Rights trump Civil Rights?

 

[we are not amused]

since when do you need finger prints for a driver's license?

My thought also!

 

[ngnrd]

Can anybody tell me why I should be pleased that a newspaper printed an article that basically said all of our shackles should be uniform? Agreeing to government's permitting of rights is agreeing to bondage and slavery. Why would I be pleased that they used the same chains and shackles to bind you as they did to bind me?

I understand that - on its face - it appears that this is not the typical 'guns should be banned' pablum we usually see. But - at its core - it actually seeks to increase the amount of control the governments have over the exercise of a Constitutionally protected natural right - in the name of some added convenience through uniformity between the states.

The bottom line is that we should never stop focusing on the repeal of any laws that infringe on the right to keep and bear arms - and not on how we can make these oppressive laws more uniform.

 

[Sam1911]

Gawd. Look, again, the point here wasn't to say that this editorialist is a perfect candidate for mayor of Gunrightsville. The point was simply to show that there are folks in traditionally "anti-gun stronghold" places putting out some pretty pro-gun messages.

But - at its core - it actually seeks to increase the amount of control the governments have over the exercise of a Constitutionally protected natural right - in the name of uniformity between the states.

Did you even read the article? AT NO POINT did the author say anything at all about increasing restrictions to bring state requirements into compliance with a national standard. In fact, he did say this:

Once Oklahoma issues a license to a driver who meets its conditions, every other state defers to its judgment.

The case for reciprocity ought to be just as compelling when it comes to carry permits for guns. Indeed, more compelling: The Bill of Rights makes no reference to driving, but it does command that “the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Constitutional liberties don’t evaporate at state borders. If your driver’s license is valid everywhere, the validity of your gun permit should go without saying.

And that's exactly what some states do, even recognizing the carry rights of citizens of states that DON'T REQUIRE A PERMIT!

My state recognizes all carry systems, even those without requirements for carry.

So before you get yourself all riled up that this guy is perpetuating some increased government chains on us all, maybe read what he wrote and allow yourself to be happy that someone is saying something pretty generally positive in the midst of a pretty anti-gun place.

 

[ngnrd]

I'm sorry you're blind to it Sam. May your chains set lightly upon you.

 

[Mitlov]

In this context, the gun-car comparison is good because it's setting driver's licenses as a floor, not a ceiling. "You can cross state lines with a driver's license, and the Second Amendment is more enshrined than the right to travel, so at minimum you should be able to cross state lines with a CHL too."

The gun-car analogy is only harmful when cars are used as a ceiling for firearms rights, not as a floor. "There is this much due process and licensing for the privilege to drive, so those measures should be extended to firearms" ignores the Constitutional issues. But the argument he made here--we certainly shouldn't have less reciprocity for CHLs than for DLs--doesn't go there.

 

[Sam1911]

I'm sorry you're blind to it Sam. May your chains set lightly upon you.

Blind to it? Blind, says the guy who didn't read, or didn't understand what he read.

You know, if you're just embarrassed that you got called out for shooting off your mouth without comprehending what the author wrote, it's perfectly acceptable to say nothing further. You don't have to throw up a smokescreen of mis-applied historic-ish quotes and ineffectual insult to cover your retreat.

 

[ngnrd]

The idea that government can control the exercise of natural rights through the permitting process is the problem. Advocating that one state's firearm permit should be accepted in another state is acceptance that - in general - government issued permits are right and just in the first place. That is, to accept the conclusion, you first must accept the premise. In this case, the author makes the conclusion as palatable as possible to gun owners so that they are duped into accepting the premise without thinking about it too deeply. But the truth is, the basic premise that the government should be issuing firearm permits at all is WRONG. And reciprocity - while it would certainly be more convenient for SOME gun owners - would serve to keep such permitting processes in place for ALL gun owners.

 

[Sol]

The longest misprint I have ever read.

Considering the source, it's a good article.

 

[Mitlov]

The idea that government can control the exercise of natural rights through the permitting process is the problem. Advocating that one state's firearm permit should be accepted in another state is acceptance that - in general - government issued permits are right and just in the first place. That is, to accept the conclusion, you first must accept the premise. In this case, the author makes the conclusion as palatable as possible to gun owners so that they are duped into accepting the premise without thinking about it too deeply. But the truth is, the basic premise that the government should be issuing firearm permits at all is WRONG. And reciprocity - while it would certainly be more convenient for SOME gun owners - would serve to keep such permitting processes in place for ALL gun owners.

I don't think we should ever throw away a potential ally who wants to significantly improve the situation from the current status quo, just because we want to take things even farther than they do.

 

[X-Rap]

It's good to see even misinformed gun leaning op-ed's in papers coming out of Indian Country.I'd rather see a bunch of anti's read something that allows the camels nose under their tent once in a while.
I might be speaking out of turn but isn't there some sort of "full faith and credit" clause that mandates the other states to honor that which one state may allow. It's a double edged sword to me because I don't favor the current trend in marriage licensing but I'm not aware of a single state that requires you to re-license in their state or you may not exercise your marital rights and privileges.
I am fervently against federal permits to carry BTW.

 

[Sam1911]

The idea that government can control the exercise of natural rights through the permitting process is the problem.

I feel as you do, that this is a fundamental problem that should eventually be eliminated from our nation. But, it is also reality for millions of us, and some don't even have THAT level of freedom. When you want to get from point A to point B, you pretty much have to start where you are. Folks in the major metro areas of the northeast are generally not even at "Point A" (though Boston is slightly better than some other cities) so this guy is a friggin' RADICAL to them.

Advocating that one state's firearm permit should be accepted in another state is acceptance that - in general - government issued permits are right and just in the first place. That is, to accept the conclusion, you first must accept the premise.

What choice does anyone have? You and I can claim we don't "accept" it, but we damned sure had better WORK with it or we're going to land in jail. You will note, I'm sure, the amazing growth of "right to carry" since the 1980s. That didn't happen because the citizens of those states stood up together and said, "THERE SHALL BE NO MORE CONTROLS ON US!!!" It happened incrementally, over time. And now there are not only about 42 states which MUST issue a permit to any law-abiding citizen who applies, about a half-dozen now have gone "Constitutional Carry" as you (and I) most desire.

Politics is the art of the possible. You and I can stand together in a field holding hands and screaming that we don't accept government control on our gun rights, but that won't make a teeensy tiny bit of difference to how the world works.

In this case, the author makes the conclusion as palatable as possible to gun owners so that they are duped into accepting the premise without thinking about it too deeply.

Poppy-poop. He isn't speaking TO gun-owners AT ALL. He's posting an opinion piece to the general readership of the Boston Globe. He's making an appeal through analogy to a collection of folks which probably would vie for the title of including the FEWEST gun owners in the nation. He's not in any way trying to trick gun nuts into accepting restrictions. That's absurd. He's making a logical appeal to the public at large, where very few people care at all about the issue, to show them why they should not oppose the loosening of restrictions we, the nation's RKBA advocates, are all working for.

But the truth is, the basic premise that the government should be issuing firearm permits at all is WRONG.

Great! You and I believe that. That and $5.50 will get us a cup of coffee. So what?
Doesn't make any difference at all to how the world works today, or tomorrow, or next year, or the year after that. If we keep pushing, someday we may find that our baby steps take us all the way to where you and I dearly wish we would be. But calling this dude some agent of oppression is ridiculous and counter-productive.

And reciprocity - while it would certainly be more convenient for SOME gun owners - would serve to keep such permitting processes in place for ALL gun owners.

That's just vacuous. How can you support that theory when I've already pointed out that some states RECIPROCATE the right of citizens to carry, even when their home state DOESN'T issue a permit to do so?

He NEVER said that the states should make their standards uniform (or, for that matter, that the federal government should force any state to do anything at all). In fact, he said the opposite: states should accept ANYTHING another state requires from their citizens. Which would (and already DOES, in some cases) include NOTHING.

 

[Sam1911]

ngnrd, you think this guy's trying to dupe gun owners into falling for more restrictions? You might want to consider how many of your fellow gun nuts, including long-time THR members, are completely aghast at the idea of the government ALLOWING anyone to carry (or even HAVE) a gun without checks and mandatory training and licensing.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=771653

I know what you want and believe -- and I want and believe many of those same things. But you and I don't live in that world yet, and we aren't even in "that world" here at THR. There are A LOT of baby steps in our future, as we walk the road to get there.