Reading some of the posts this morning got me wondering; what is it that we really want?

There are many people (I am one of them too, so don't take offense to any of this) who complain about the government and how they like to invite themselves into our lives. On this board, the right to carry is normally the biggest subject for obvious reasons. So what is it we really want? Do we want there to be no carry laws? This has its pros and cons. Everyone would be allowed to carry with no restrictions, but then EVERYONE would be allowed to carry with NO restrictions. I think you can see where this could potentially cause issues given everyone isn't a law abiding citizen. If that won't work, what about a federal carry permit that would make carrying legal in all 50 states? This would be nice as the second amendment is in the national constitution, however this removes the rights of states to self govern. There is no simple answer, I understand that. I guess what I am getting at is, as a new permit holder, what am I really asking for?

I am ok with one carry law...

Dear Rand: First of all, I’m glad you are beginning your career as a gun man. I got my first carry permit from the Madison county, AL sheriff in 1963. I have always gotten a permit if there was one. In the present case I have several.

In answer to your question though I think if you think about it, the criminal element, to the extent they feel the need to go armed already do so. I really don’t see any reason why the law abiding members of the public don’t do the same thing, for parity, if for no other reason.

We’ve let our politicians get completely out of hand on this. It’s political sleight of hand to cause CARRYING a firearm to be the crime. Well proven not to be effective and lots of good information to show the opposite. Even though the reality is that in the places where there are permits readily available, only 5% of the population avail themselves of one after about five years availability. Minnesota is well behind that pace. We’re up to about 1%. Of the percentage of folks that have a permit, most of the people (opinion alert) don’t carry ALL the time and a significant percentage don’t carry at all.

Yet the benefits derive anyway. The PERCEPTION that someone might have a gun causes the benefit to accrue to all.

So I doubt there would be a down side to going ‘Vermont’ throughout the country. On airplanes or anywhere else. I seriously doubt that any American plane will ever be highjacked again. No matter what is decided about gun laws.

Regards, Porkie

Why is it that people who don't even have carry permits commit 99% of the violent gun crime? I mean, don't these folks respect the gun control law restrictions on who can have guns, or what?

Remember that laws only restrict the law abiding. How does restricting me help crime. If you make a law, that makes my perfectly decent behavior criminal, all you have done is make me a criminal. How does that help America?

Point taken.

I am in favor of the Vermont/Alaska program. If you can legally own a gun you should be legally able to carry a gun. As soon as you open the door to government regulation you open the door to a ban. It may not be an outright ban but the rules to carry may be so stringent that nobody can pass. I don’t feel like leaving that decision in the hands of the likes of NObama and his cronies.

Dear have: Past that, the way we’re doing it puts a serious restriction on those members of the community who REALLY might need a gun. The $100 to the sheriff and the charge to the MADFI/AACFI guy are not ignorable to these folks like it is to me.

The first time I voted they made me pay a $3.00 poll tax and demonstrate that I could read. The material (for the test) was an excerpt from the US Constitution. 1787 language, not the local newspaper. It was obvious that some of the population was about to be screwed over. It wasn’t me of course.

Anyway, we do what we do about guns because of ‘safety.’ Yeah, right.

Vermont got it right, the rest of us are just doing the best we can. But the original question was, “What do you want?”

Regards, Porkie

I beg to differ. There are some strikingly simple answers. The Bill of Rights, incoroprated into the United States Constitution, reaffirms Rights given to each person by his creator. The Bill reaffirms existing rights. The Bill then goes ahead and enumerates them to assist those who have problems understanding it all. States do not have the right to repeal any of those Rights.

States may apply age limits to carry, and they may also put limits on convicted felons. The Heller decision has opened the door to the constitutionality of many state and local laws/statutes/ordinances. I suspect, as do many others, that if the Heller views were applied to nearly all of those laws/statutes/ordinances that they would, indeed, be found unconstitutional.

There are reasonable restrictions regarding free speech: Perjury is not protected speech, lying on certain documents is not protected speech, etc. In the case of firearms, the regulation should be light and very, very selective. If a person is not a felon they should be free to own and carry firearms anywhere.

While I admit that the following makes me uneasy, restrictions on types of allowable firearms should be purged from all laws and regulations. It appears to me that the logic behind such laws and regulations has most often been: "What possible reason could a person have to own a (put in your firearm type here)?"

I'd like to see the 2nd ammendment held out as one of two federal gun laws.

The second gun law I'd like to see would restrict carry of weapons in court rooms, obligate courthouses to alow all citizens not just officers access to lock boxes in the court house buildings without prejudice. Would include a bans guns provision like MN 624.714 (however would make any "bans guns" premises obligated to keep and maintain insured lock boxes) or if no lock boxes are available or all boxes are full the "bans guns" signs carry no weight. (Imagine large sporting venues) And finally the second gun law would be federal and carry a clause similar to MN 624.714 Subd. 23. Reworded slightly as follows:

Exclusivity.This section sets forth the complete and exclusive criteria and procedures for gun laws and establishes their nature and scope. No sheriff, police chief, governmental unit, government official, government employee, or other person or body acting under color of law or governmental authority may change, modify, or supplement these criteria or procedures, or limit the exercise of rights enumerated in the 2nd ammedment beyond those listed in this law.

My justification is simply this: I am not in the least worried about law abiding citizens committing gun crime if they are de-restricted. Criminals and the insane who would be restricted don't by their nature care about the restrictions and will invariably aquire weapons in some fashion. I would far rather have more citizens more easily able to take up arms to defend themselves where ever and when ever that unpleasant neccessity might arise. In Summary: 2nd Ammendment, a courthouse clause, a lock box clause, a bans guns clause, and an exclusivity clasue.

What do I want?
I want to be left the hell alone.
It is a sad day when the law abiding has to perform like some circus animal and pay a friggin' fee in order to obtain permission to defend themselves against the criminals.

Macx, your right to carry does not trump my private property rights. It is immoral and unAmerican to force a private entity to allow guns on their property.

Why? If you were allowed to carry a gun in a courtroom, would you shoot someone?

Yep.
+1


Nope. No cons. See Sultan's quote above. 2A is enough.



It's called freedom. If others don't have it, then YOU don't have it. And the idea of being "allowed" by government to excersize a right that GOD gave me, is, well, absurd, if not insulting. So, in answer to your original question, what we (at least speaking for myself) want, is our rights. Unadulterated and uninfringed. My personal opinion, is that your view boils down to the fundamental position of "how much gun control is good, because some gun control is necessary and required. We just need to know what to ask for as a big gun owning group."

I think Sultan and I are coming from an entirely different philosophical sphere. It is difficult to argue semantics in such a situation. I do pity the difficulties you are dealing with in settling your thoughts on the issue of universal carry, with or without "permit"ion from government or anyone else. I don't think the Founders intended it to be so hard.

I see the court room ban as at least tolerable to me, as its one place where (at least at times) truly violent criminals are in their most convenient place to attempt escape before incarceration.

This is not meant to start an arguement, but with the courts deciding that at trials, keeping even Jeffry Dahmer in cuffs and belly chains presents a negative influence to the Jury, that an un cuffed, and civilian clothed violent person within just a few feet of someone who might be willing to smuggle him a weapon is one restricted area I can understand. It can be countered by saying, yes but, every one else will be armed, and if that were true, I could accept it. But lets face it, the proportion of people who are going to carry guns even in a free state, is never going to exceed a small percentage. What are we now, somewhere about 1.1% of the population? What percentage in Vt carries? 5%? 10 % ? I would be shocked if it were much over 5%.

What I really want, if for the Gov't to get its nose out of the gun business.

Disestablish the BATFE, they only do work that other federal departments already do. I have nothing wrong with the current Mn Permit to Purchase system except that its only a year, it should be longer, it should be renewable online, and it should be a numbered system. I say your permit should have a ID number on it, and there should be a web page of ONLY those who have violated the conditions and their permit is now invalid. you walk into a gun shop, show your card, and as long as you do not show up on the Voided list, you are good to go. NO nics check, no list of Who is permitted to buy, only those who are voided. Very simple,

I think if you are legal, SBR's, AOW's and suppressors should be freely available. I think Full Auto should be almost like a Hunter safety course, you take the course, get tested on use and function, safety etc, and you get a card to go buy a rock and roll switch. I think use of a full auto in a major crime, IE bank robbery, public assault, etc should be death penalty. Why? I think the risk to public well being with some gang banger holding down the trigger and spraying a mag full into a crowded corner or a bank robber deciding to slow up pursuit by hosing down main street, puts the element above any discussion.