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

[Old Dog]

So I just checked back in on this thread and have to comment that I find it appalling that so many here so totally misconstrued both the OP's purpose in posting the article and his comments.

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

And I'm sorry, too, for the folks that post blather such as this, as it's a perfect example of the lack of reading comprehension and understanding context so prevalent on the gun forums these days.

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

Speaking of context, if you're gonna throw around terms such as natural rights, perhaps you should actually read some Locke, Hobbes and Rousseau ... gaining an understanding of the social contract model would be helpful.

 

[Red Wind]

Speaking of context, if you're gonna throw around terms such as natural rights, perhaps you should actually read some Locke, Hobbes and Rousseau ... gaining an understanding of the social contract model would be helpful.

Good observations.

I'd throw in a little Descartes,Hume,Kant and Schopenhauer too!

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

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.

Please don't be hornswoggled into thinking that that column was pro-gun. It calls for what will undoubtedly be another layer of bureaucracy to bury our Right to Keep and Bear Arms deeper that it already is. We're trying to dig ourselves out from under the several state and Feral Government infringements, not accept a placation that will only lead to more infringement.

If we fall for this, the first thing that will be passed is that if you don't have a permit, you won't be able to carry in any of the states that will currently allow an unlicensed out-of-stater to carry. Next will come minimum requirements. Next will come a select list of arms you may carry across state lines.

These "good vibes" are nothing more than an attempt to make this into the populist platform the Feral Government needs to set itself up as the 'all powerful arbiter' of We the People's Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

This can only end up with universal requirements which will, for all intents and purposes, end up to be functionally a federal permit if not an outright federal permit. You know how big government works.

Once the Feral Government gets it's nose into the tent, it'll be just a onerous as the Commerce Commission, the EPA, the DHS, the FDA, and any of the other unconstitutional usurpations of power the Feral Government has stolen from the several states and We the People.

No, this article is devious. It's a Delphi ruse. I expect something like this from the Boston Globe's Editorial Staff. It's more in keeping with their modus operandi.

Woody

 

[orionengnr]

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.

Not sure I would use him/her as a Shining Beacon of Wisdom as regards "rights"....
Just sayin'...

 

[Sam1911]

It calls for what will undoubtedly be another layer of bureaucracy to bury our Right to Keep and Bear Arms deeper that it already is.

It DOESN'T call for ANYTHING, except that states should recognize the right to carry of citizens of other states. STATES should. Nothing about the federal government. Nothing about forcing anything on anyone. Simply pointing out the idea that one state recognizing the rights recognized by another isn't novel or unique or dangerous. In fact, it is done all the time by every state in a way that will probably seem analogous to the average reader.

These "good vibes" are nothing more than an attempt to make this into the populist platform the Feral Government needs...

Oh, do go on and tell me ALL about how the universal RIGHT TO CARRY ARMS is going to become a HUGE part of the "Populist" platform. A little basis in reality would make your idea much more credible. Look, when the big time populist (might as well say "left wing") politicians are all up on their campaign stumps calling for universal carry rights under a federal program, THEN we'll all come tell you how right you were. I'll personally beg your forgiveness -- promise!

But between you and me, I wouldn't hold my breath.

No, this article is devious. It's a Delphi ruse. I expect something like this from the Boston Globe's Editorial Staff. It's more in keeping with their modus operandi.

That might be believable if this was published in Guns&Ammo or American Rifleman, or even Field&Stream or Outdoor Life. You know, periodicals aimed at gun owners and READ by gun owners. Then, sure, maybe it's somebody trying to convince GUN GUYS that they should accept some federal licensing scheme ... that the AUTHOR SPECIFICALLY DIDN'T EVEN SUGGEST. As it is, this is NOT a gun rag. This is a newspaper read by the urbanite and suburban denizens of a major northeastern "liberal" bastion metro area. Kind of like shooting the guy next to you in hopes of killing the enemy -- yer targeting is all wrong, there Bud.


Woody, are you the sort of guy that opens up every "Happy Birthday" card and instantly thinks to himself, 'This guy's trying to KILL me!'?" Reading what you're writing it kind of seems like you might be. This wasn't a call to arms, or a plan of action for America's gun community. It was just a thought-provoking piece directed at a bunch of city folks in Boston, probably intended to generate more hate mail than anything.

You've raised it to an unprecedented level of paranoia. I betcha George Soros himself slipped this Jacoby fellow a briefcase full of Benjamins to plant this insidious piece of misinformation where we'd LEAST expect it, eh? Could be, could be!

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

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.)

Sam, if this:...

Legislation introduced in Congress would fix the problem by mandating interstate “right-to-carry reciprocity” — effectively requiring any state that issues gun-carry licenses to recognize those issued in other states.

... and the rest of the article isn't an endorsement of Feral Government mandated reciprocity, then nothing is. "Legislation introduced in Congress would fix the problem by mandating interstate “right-to-carry reciprocity”"...

Know who these people are. Beware of Trojan Horses. I reiterate:

"These "good vibes" are nothing more than an attempt to make this into the populist platform the Feral Government needs... "

"... [T]his article is devious. It's a Delphi ruse. I expect something like this from the Boston Globe's Editorial Staff. It's more in keeping with their modus operandi."​

This article isn't cool. It's insidious.

Woody

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

(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.)

I've done no such thing. I've said no such thing. You'll have to find another reason to lock the thread.

Woody

 

[Sam1911]

Ok, I'll retract to the point that I agree he mentioned it. I still don't read that as the point of his article, or anything more than a fleshing out of the idea. Still, if you want to read in some nefarious plot in this, I'm clearly not going to sway your opinion.

I guess it's good then that this article is nothing more than an opinion piece to spur a bunch of New England city folks to think about something. It doesn't have any weight and won't even be read by more than a few gun guys. It will have precisely zero practical effect, for good or ill, on anything. So rest easy.

You can think of him as the enemy incarnate and the rest of us can think of him as a breath of moderately fresh air out of a normally fetid swamp. But in the end, it's just a little hot air either way.

You reiterate:

"These "good vibes" are nothing more than an attempt to make this into the populist platform the Feral Government needs... "

And I reiterate: You come and tell me when the Populist candidates have all lined up to holler from their campaign stumps and flooding the talk show circuit to exhort their constituents about how we MUST enact federal right-to-carry legislation. This one claim of yours makes it hard to take anything else you say seriously! No insult intended, it's just completely disconnected from the world that exists. You might as well claim that Obama's secretly a Pentecostal who's working to make domestic oil drilling and a stronger military as planks of the Democrat platform. Boy....they're subtle about it ain't they!??

Heck, if they EVER do ... like EVER, in whatever wild new reality arises ... we can fight about their plans for control then. But like the old joke about paying for companionship: If they agree that it's something they COULD accept, at that point we'll just be haggling about price.

 

[LemmyCaution]

Well, technically, we don't know what the cost of that reciprocity would really be, as nothing's on the table for discussion.

Sam-

Given that VT is the only state in the country that has determined that issuing a permit at all is entirely unconstitutional, that 'permission' from the state is entirely anathema to the RKBA (please see State v. Rosenthal, 1905), it's hard to imagine any scheme where any other state is going to concur with Vermont's assertion of 'Permits? We don't need no steenking permits!'

The state of Vermont will not grant any of its citizens a permit to carry a firearm, nor does Vermont recognize any other state's permit. Permits are a bane here.

As such, any federal demand for reciprocity would be a step down for VT, as we would be required to accept the legitimacy of permitting, in the first place.

I am against that notion, as is every other gun owner I know in VT.

 

[Sam1911]

Not arguing with you there Lemmy. Not at all. I completely agree that a forced leveling of standards would be bad.

As I pointed out, though, some states that do issue permits to carry such as Kentucky (at least, maybe other states, too) recognize Vermonters' right to carry a gun in Kentucky even though they can't possibly have a state issued permit. The recognize the same standard that the visitor's home state applies. And of course, "Constitutional Carry" states seem to apply the "if you can own it, you can carry it" standard to out-of-staters. (I think they all do, anyway. Somebody tell me if any of them restrict that to residents.)

I'm not naieve enough to think that this will be where most politicians (certainly not all the Progressives Woodie feels will soon be beating us over the head with national carry reciprocity legislation!) will start as they try to find a solution palatable enough to the voters to actually be allowed to happen, but it's a great goal.

 

[Mitlov]

Reciprocity doesn't mean forced leveling of standards. I got my motorcycle license in Colorado, and the driving part of the test literally consisted of being told "if you can get it around the block without dropping it, you pass." Yet that motorcycle license is good in all fifty states, including states like California with extremely rigorous motorcycle tests.

 

[Red Wind]

. And of course, "Constitutional Carry" states seem to apply the "if you can own it, you can carry it" standard to out-of-staters. (I think they all do, anyway. Somebody tell me if any of them restrict that to residents.)

Wyoming restricts concealed carry to WY residents. Non-residents have to have a reciprocal license. OC is open to all in Wyoming

Alaska, Arizona, and Vermont , "if you can own it, you can carry it" is the standard to out-of-staters.

There still seems to be some debate about whether Arkansas has true Constitutional Carry. Perhaps some Razorback or other knowledgeable person can clear that issue up for us.

 

[LemmyCaution]

Sam-

Here is the dilemma for VT, as far as I am concerned-

I don't think there's any realistic chance that a federal reciprocity law will have any good effect for VT.

Your characterization of VT's 'constitutional carry' rationale is flawed. It's not that Vermont says 'Anyone who can legally possess a firearm has our blessing to carry it.' It's 'We have no authority to regulate who can carry a firearm in this state, beyond the federal restriction on who can possess a firearm at all." It's a subtle distinction, but an important one.

Let's consider the Gun Free School Zone Act. It has certain exemptions for permit holders that explicitly requires the permission of the state, in the form of a carry permit. Since the constitution of Vermont has been ruled by the Supreme Court of Vermont (in State v. Rosenthal) to prohibit the issuance of permits, the citizens of Vermont are not eligible for these exemptions. Ironically, permit holders from any other state in the country are eligible for this protection in VT, even though the citizens of VT are not.

So let's consider a federal reciprocity scheme that, like the GFSZA, requires at baseline that a permit exist for the act to have any effect. Does VT gain anything from this? No. Can we realistically believe that a reciprocity act will allow VT, with no permit whatsoever, to have reciprocity with, say, NJ? IL? NYC? I don't think so.

So all VT would get out of such a thing is federal involvement in the regulation of concealed carry. Which, in my mind, only opens up the risk that federal involvement now has the door open a crack to becoming more restrictive, in a manner that negatively impacts the citizens of VT.

In short, there's no upside for us.

Now, leaving aside a federal reciprocity bill, the people of VT will be delighted to have any other states, on their own, allow us to carry concealed, and we thank Alaska, Arizona, and possibly Arkansas for extending us the courtesy, and look forward to other states doing the same.

 

[Sam1911]

I agree (again) with you Lemmy, and I think VT does stand some possibility of getting the short end of the stick if there ever is a real national reciprocity law. (Where are those Progressives, anyway, with their call for universal carry rights? )

I rather believe, however, that VT would be more likely to end up exactly where they are now -- no worse, just not on board with the national licensing/reciprocity scheme. And I think it is likely that VT wouldn't be the only state (probably not by a lot) which didn't "measure up" to the standard required for the Progressives (lol) to force other states to recognize their permits/licenses/rights.

 

[tark]

Hi guys. The People's Republic of Illinois was the last state to adopt CCW and they didn't do so willingly; they were ordered to by a Federal Judge. They were also told that it had to be "shall issue" and that cook county was not to be exempted.

So they made it as difficult as possible. They dragged their feet, claiming it took time to set up something like this. (Iowa had no such problems, they enacted it a few years back and were up and running smoothly) Then the dragged their feet again on processing.

Then, there is the cost: $800 all totaled. Yes, you read that right.

Be happy you like where you do.

 

[tark]

Did I mention Illinois is in the worst financial mess of any state?

NEED I mention which politicial has had control of everything for many years. Maybe out new Republican Governor can help.

 

[Spats McGee]

Not to derail the thread, but I want to address something raised earlier.

There still seems to be some debate about whether Arkansas has true Constitutional Carry. Perhaps some Razorback or other knowledgeable person can clear that issue up for us.

It's still up in the air. An open-carry organization called (unsurprisingly) Arkansas Carry claims that we now have permitless carry, open or concealed. Our last AG, who has now left office, disagreed. From what I understand, the Arkansas State Police disagree. Some county sheriffs agree, some disagree. There's a test case going on right now out of Cabot, AR. The case was transferred from municipal court to the Lonoke County Circuit Court. It has yet to go to trial and I don't have a clue as to whether it will go up on appeal.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

And I reiterate: You come and tell me when the Populist candidates have all lined up to holler from their campaign stumps and flooding the talk show circuit to exhort their constituents about how we MUST enact federal right-to-carry legislation.

It all starts somewhere, doesn't it. Never big, always small; always cloaked in emotion, class envy, "for the children", "if it saves just one life"; and what ever else will lend itself to demagoguery. They extrude it through a bovine sphincter and they are off and running. I'm simply trying to nip it in the bud.

This one claim of yours makes it hard to take anything else you say seriously! No insult intended, it's just completely disconnected from the world that exists. ...

Since you didn't PM this comment to me, I'll answer publically as well. That's been said about every other time I post something opposed to you and others - but then a couple times you've essentially stood up for something I wrote, so I guess you've taken a few things I've said seriously. Maybe I shouldn't take you seriously, but I know better because most of the time you are spot on.

As to the veracity of that article, I am sure it is a ruse. I'll not recognize this carrot as anything but the mystical clean end of a turd.

Woody

 

[Sam1911]

It all starts somewhere, doesn't it. Never big, always small;

Ok...but look, maybe I'm misunderstanding you but are you really saying that national concealed carry legislation is going to become a party plank of the Progressives?

I understand the NEXT part of your claim: that IF they did that, they'd use it to increase fed.gov control. And I'm sure they would.

But it's hard to imagine which thing they're more opposed to: limits on federal control or citizens carrying guns. And while I don't necessarily see that concealed carry MUST be anathema to socialist/collectivist thinking, it generally IS.



And as I said before, if we find ourselves discussing this with them -- meaning they're saying, "National concealed carry legislation needs to happen and needs this federal control..." -- well, now we're just haggling over PRICE. They'll have already given up the idea that citizens carrying guns is a VERY BAD THING.

How many turns of the political screw is it going to take to get us there, for that conversation to even start?

As to the veracity of that article, I am sure it is a ruse. I'll not recognize this carrot as anything but the mystical clean end of a turd.

I hate to try to argue intent -vs.- effect, but believing this dude is a plant of the progressive left trying to subvert our cause seems to give an astonishing amount of credit to him that I can't believe he deserves. He may be a pawn...I guess...maybe. But some planter of seeds of progressive goals in "our" movement? C'mon.

 

[ngnrd]

...if we find ourselves discussing this with them -- meaning they're saying, "National concealed carry legislation needs to happen and needs this federal control..." -- well, now we're just haggling over PRICE. They'll have already given up the idea that citizens carrying guns is a VERY BAD THING.

Conversely, if we end up simply "haggling over price", would we not have already given up the idea that government issued permits to exercise Constitutionally protected rights are a VERY BAD THING? Why promote ideas that lead us headlong into that conversation? Such a noxious weed won't have to be killed if the seed is never granted purchase in fertile soil to begin with.

 

[Sam1911]

Conversely, if we end up simply "haggling over price", would we not have already given up the idea that government issued permits to exercise Constitutionally protected rights are a VERY BAD THING? Why promote ideas that lead us headlong into that conversation? Such a noxious weed won't have to be killed if the seed is never granted purchase in fertile soil to begin with.

On the face of it I don't disagree. But if this conversation ever happens, we'll have to decide (well, those making legislation and trying to gain votes in the Congress to pass it) which side will accept the noxious weed the other side is trying to plant.

In all likelihood, the anti- side will NEVER accept any national carry legislation even to be discussed, so we'll NEVER have to face a question of "accepting" permits to exercise our rights.


(Except that the citizens of 90% of the states already have to live with exactly that reality, but ignoring that for the sake of discussion...)

 

[poco loco]

not a "Progressive" Sam but I am a happy and proud Liberal

gun owner and daily carrier who completely agrees with you on this article.

Sad to see the amount of ridiculousness about a plain no frills editorial asking for reciprocity. Not Federal carry standards, not a Federal carry License, simple reciprocity.

And for those saying it's my right and I don't care, I assume you either live in one of the few Constitutional Carry states like I do or you open carry or don't carry right? Because obviously you would never get a permit. Never buy new guns either I guess because that 4473 is an infringement on the Right.:banghead:

Progress is good, and seeing this from the Globe is great. I'll take what I can get and keep fighting for the rest instead of holding off until I get exactly what I want.

 

[we are not amused]

Not sure I would use him/her as a Shining Beacon of Wisdom as regards "rights"....
Just sayin'...

Won't disagree, I was just pointing out how out of control some of our Federal Judges are.

 

[we are not amused]

Agreed!
And I am glad San1911 brought it up.

While the editorial in no way reflects the position of the Editorial Board, it is rather surprising (to me at least) it was allowed.

 

[Gun Master]

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

Well, THAT was refreshing!

Amen, bro. !