America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 10 months ago by Brewha. 73 replies replies.
2 Pages12>
Florida now constitutional carry
Jump to Bottom | Previous Topic | Next Topic
MACS Offline
#1 Posted: Sat, Jul 1 2023, 6:34 PM EST
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,837
Along with 25 other states. SCOTUS needs to rule on this... 2nd amendment gives us all the right, and any state having laws that say anything different are violating our right. The End.
Mr. Jones Offline
#2 Posted: Sat, Jul 1 2023, 6:53 PM EST
Joined: 06-12-2005
Posts: 19,451
Tell that to the governor of NY STATE , THE MAYOR OF NYC, THE MAYOR OF PHILADELPHIA & PITTSBURGH ( THE NO GO ZONES OF PENNSYLVANIA...)
DrMaddVibe Offline
#3 Posted: Sat, Jul 1 2023, 8:44 PM EST
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,516
Therein is the simplistic nature the Founding Fathers has with regard to State's Rights.

Bueller...Bueller...

If we can somehow reach nationwide reciprocity there just might be hope for the Republic.
8trackdisco Offline
#4 Posted: Sat, Jul 1 2023, 8:59 PM EST
Joined: 11-06-2004
Posts: 60,097
MACS wrote:
Along with 25 other states. SCOTUS needs to rule on this... 2nd amendment gives us all the right, and any state having laws that say anything different are violating our right. The End.


Would you be for all adults 18 and old have guns? In what if any circumstances would you limit or not allow?
Gene363 Offline
#5 Posted: Sat, Jul 1 2023, 9:02 PM EST
Joined: 01-24-2003
Posts: 30,850
I agree, however, I see interference in State's rights by a power-hungry parliament of whores, Congress. To be clear, I do not trust Congress. Frying pan


Oh, and the wrong forum! horse
8trackdisco Offline
#6 Posted: Sat, Jul 1 2023, 9:20 PM EST
Joined: 11-06-2004
Posts: 60,097
Gene363 wrote:
I agree, however, I see interference in State's rights by a power-hungry parliament of whores, Congress. To be clear, I do not trust Congress. Frying pan


Oh, and the wrong forum! horse


Liked that O’Rourke book.
Wrong forum? Actually, it belongs here.
It is the chitturning of the country drawing a simple 2nd Amendment concept into something political.
Whistlebritches Offline
#7 Posted: Sat, Jul 1 2023, 9:51 PM EST
Joined: 04-23-2006
Posts: 22,128
Bout damn time......what took Desantis so long
Gene363 Offline
#8 Posted: Sat, Jul 1 2023, 10:03 PM EST
Joined: 01-24-2003
Posts: 30,850
8trackdisco wrote:
Liked that O’Rourke book.
Wrong forum? Actually, it belongs here.
It is the chitturning of the country drawing a simple 2nd Amendment concept into something political.


Me too, O’Rourke's was the Man.

Your point is good, it is a Right, not a political thing, however politicians and the feckless dolts that elect them, are the biggest threat to the Second Amendment.
MACS Offline
#9 Posted: Sun, Jul 2 2023, 5:20 AM EST
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,837
8trackdisco wrote:
Would you be for all adults 18 and old have guns? In what if any circumstances would you limit or not allow?


18 for long guns, 21 for handguns. Background checks before sales (quickly, it doesn't take but a day or 2).

Some people believe that allowing law abiding citizens to carry will result in more problems. I disagree. The criminals already do it. Now they'll be thinking twice before victimizing some people. And if excess deaths result, lets hope it's the bad guys dying.
8trackdisco Offline
#10 Posted: Sun, Jul 2 2023, 8:31 AM EST
Joined: 11-06-2004
Posts: 60,097
MACS wrote:
18 for long guns, 21 for handguns. Background checks before sales (quickly, it doesn't take but a day or 2).

Some people believe that allowing law abiding citizens to carry will result in more problems. I disagree. The criminals already do it. Now they'll be thinking twice before victimizing some people. And if excess deaths result, lets hope it's the bad guys dying.


Similar/same page so far.
Who would be disqualified on a background check?
MACS Offline
#11 Posted: Sun, Jul 2 2023, 8:54 AM EST
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,837
8trackdisco wrote:
Similar/same page so far.
Who would be disqualified on a background check?


Felons. Crazies. Non-citizens.

I don't think misdemeanor DV should be a permanent disqualifier, either. Those should be case by case, IMO. Too many variables.
8trackdisco Offline
#12 Posted: Sun, Jul 2 2023, 2:50 PM EST
Joined: 11-06-2004
Posts: 60,097
MACS wrote:
Felons. Crazies. Non-citizens.

I don't think misdemeanor DV should be a permanent disqualifier, either. Those should be case by case, IMO. Too many variables.


Some felonies are bullchit too.
rfenst Offline
#13 Posted: Tue, Jul 4 2023, 4:58 PM EST
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,379
MACS wrote:
Along with 25 other states. SCOTUS needs to rule on this... 2nd amendment gives us all the right, and any state having laws that say anything different are violating our right. The End.

Gives us all the right? The End?

Given how you believe the Constitution should be interpreted and applied, were does the Constitution even mention any version of concealed carry (or age)? (I'm not talking about ownership.) It doesn't.

Shouldn't it, therefore, be up to each state to decide itself about open carry and concealed carry?
Sunoverbeach Offline
#14 Posted: Tue, Jul 4 2023, 5:52 PM EST
Joined: 08-11-2017
Posts: 14,675
Why does CC even matter? Is an armed citizen any more dangerous because he doesn't advertise he's carrying? Is he any less so if he has a card that says he's allowed to? I never really understood why that was a thing.
Brewha Offline
#15 Posted: Tue, Jul 4 2023, 7:00 PM EST
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,201
And what’s all this crap about long rifles only until 21?? You can join the Navy at 17 but can’t carry a revolver?

What about the 16 year old debutant? Why can’t she have a Glock to protect herself?

Is it NOT true that more guns for everyone is that only way to be safe? Why are these beautiful girls not issued pistols? Don’t we want them safe??

You guys are Hippocrates….
Sunoverbeach Offline
#16 Posted: Tue, Jul 4 2023, 7:09 PM EST
Joined: 08-11-2017
Posts: 14,675
I am not now, nor have I ever been, an ancient Greek physician
rfenst Offline
#17 Posted: Tue, Jul 4 2023, 7:33 PM EST
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,379
Brewha wrote:
And what’s all this crap about long rifles only until 21?? You can join the Navy at 17 but can’t carry a revolver?

What about the 16 year old debutant? Why can’t she have a Glock to protect herself?

Is it NOT true that more guns for everyone is that only way to be safe? Why are these beautiful girls not issued pistols? Don’t we want them safe??

You guys are Hippocrates….

More like arbitrary- with respect to age.
rfenst Offline
#18 Posted: Tue, Jul 4 2023, 7:37 PM EST
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,379
Sunoverbeach wrote:
I am not now, nor have I ever been, an ancient Greek physician

Spell check error vs. no spell check vs. totally intentional?
I await his word...
HockeyDad Offline
#19 Posted: Tue, Jul 4 2023, 7:42 PM EST
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,164
Are we debating “shall not be abridged”?

Sounds like some abridging going on here.
8trackdisco Offline
#20 Posted: Tue, Jul 4 2023, 7:51 PM EST
Joined: 11-06-2004
Posts: 60,097
Sunoverbeach wrote:
Why does CC even matter? Is an armed citizen any more dangerous because he doesn't advertise he's carrying?


In my opinion, Yes. Main reason is if someone, or a group of people seeing you open carrying, they are more likely to get the jump on you, and at best, you lose your gun.

Like having the element of surprise.
8trackdisco Offline
#21 Posted: Tue, Jul 4 2023, 7:53 PM EST
Joined: 11-06-2004
Posts: 60,097
Brewha wrote:
And what’s all this crap about long rifles only until 21?? You can join the Navy at 17 but can’t carry a revolver?

What about the 16 year old debutant? Why can’t she have a Glock to protect herself?

Is it NOT true that more guns for everyone is that only way to be safe? Why are these beautiful girls not issued pistols? Don’t we want them safe??

You guys are Hippocrates….


Pistols should be implanted in the fetus the moment it is viable. Gives them a 50/50 chance against the abortionist.
Brewha Offline
#22 Posted: Tue, Jul 4 2023, 8:26 PM EST
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,201
rfenst wrote:
Spell check error vs. no spell check vs. totally intentional?
I await his word...

I’d like to plead incompetence….
Brewha Offline
#23 Posted: Tue, Jul 4 2023, 8:37 PM EST
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,201
8trackdisco wrote:
Pistols should be implanted in the fetus the moment it is viable. Gives them a 50/50 chance against the abortionist.

How could the mother object? The unborn have rights that are not to be abridged….
Sunoverbeach Offline
#24 Posted: Tue, Jul 4 2023, 8:43 PM EST
Joined: 08-11-2017
Posts: 14,675
8trackdisco wrote:
In my opinion, Yes. Main reason is if someone, or a group of people seeing you open carrying, they are more likely to get the jump on you, and at best, you lose your gun.

Like having the element of surprise.

I agree. I consider like playing poker. You don't show your hand until you have to

I meant, and admit I may have misunderstood restrictions prior to this constitutional carry wave, why is it one could open carry in some states, yet need a permit to conceal the weapon?
MACS Offline
#25 Posted: Tue, Jul 4 2023, 9:18 PM EST
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,837
HockeyDad wrote:
Are we debating “shall not be abridged”?

Sounds like some abridging going on here.


Ed Zachary.
MACS Offline
#26 Posted: Tue, Jul 4 2023, 9:19 PM EST
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,837
Brewha wrote:
I’d like to plead incompetence….


No argument here...
MACS Offline
#27 Posted: Tue, Jul 4 2023, 9:22 PM EST
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,837
rfenst wrote:
Gives us all the right? The End?

Given how you believe the Constitution should be interpreted and applied, were does the Constitution even mention any version of concealed carry (or age)? (I'm not talking about ownership.) It doesn't.

Shouldn't it, therefore, be up to each state to decide itself about open carry and concealed carry?


Yessir. "the right of the people, to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed".

Keep = own, bear = carry... and they said SHALL not. They didn't say may not, or should not... they made it crystal clear with the words SHALL not.

SCOTUS has already ruled that NY's laws are unconstitutional. Would you care to refute the SCOTUS, counselor? I'd like to hear that argument.
8trackdisco Offline
#28 Posted: Tue, Jul 4 2023, 9:28 PM EST
Joined: 11-06-2004
Posts: 60,097
Sunoverbeach wrote:

I meant, and admit I may have misunderstood restrictions prior to this constitutional carry wave, why is it one could open carry in some states, yet need a permit to conceal the weapon?


The idea is if your pistol is showing, everyone can see the “threat”. There have been cases where open carriers were stopped, detained, searched, and were fined for distributing the peace, due to the panic the gun caused.

The gun was confiscated. The guy paid his fine, but never got his gun back. In some gun circles, they lament that guns often get “lost” in police storage.
8trackdisco Offline
#29 Posted: Tue, Jul 4 2023, 9:31 PM EST
Joined: 11-06-2004
Posts: 60,097
MACS wrote:
Yessir. "the right of the people, to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed".

Keep = own, bear = carry... and they said SHALL not. They didn't say may not, or should not... they made it crystal clear with the words SHALL not.

SCOTUS has already ruled that NY's laws are unconstitutional. Would you care to refute the SCOTUS, counselor? I'd like to hear that argument.


Am picking up what you are laying down. However (comma) if you don’t let felons and crazy people carry, aren’t their rights being infringed?
MACS Offline
#30 Posted: Tue, Jul 4 2023, 9:32 PM EST
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,837
8trackdisco wrote:
Am picking up what you are laying down. However (comma) if you don’t let felons and crazy people carry, aren’t their rights being infringed?


No sir. By being felonious nut bags, they forfeit those rights.
frankj1 Offline
#31 Posted: Tue, Jul 4 2023, 9:34 PM EST
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,231
but you're leaving it up to the gubment to determine who is OK?
MACS Offline
#32 Posted: Tue, Jul 4 2023, 9:35 PM EST
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,837
8trackdisco wrote:
The idea is if your pistol is showing, everyone can see the “threat”. There have been cases where open carriers were stopped, detained, searched, and were fined for distributing the peace, due to the panic the gun caused.

The gun was confiscated. The guy paid his fine, but never got his gun back. In some gun circles, they lament that guns often get “lost” in police storage.


100% correct, my cheese headed friend. Open carry tells the criminals who to shoot first. No bueno.

Let them cork soakers guess who the threat is. Bonus points if you look like no threat at all until he's got an extra hole in his dome.
MACS Offline
#33 Posted: Tue, Jul 4 2023, 9:35 PM EST
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,837
frankj1 wrote:
but you're leaving it up to the gubment to determine who is OK?


Well... sort of. The felons DQ'd themselves. The crazy is where they get'cha.
8trackdisco Offline
#34 Posted: Tue, Jul 4 2023, 9:38 PM EST
Joined: 11-06-2004
Posts: 60,097
MACS wrote:
No sir. By being felonious nut bags, they forfeit those rights.


Possession of a Cuban cigar is a felony. No gun for that dude?

I’m fuzzy on the Nutbag angle. I don’t know where that line should be drawn either.

If a person is being treated for any mental illness- ptsd, anxiety, depression, they should be precluded from carrying?

Seems it would only stop people from getting help for those issues.
frankj1 Offline
#35 Posted: Tue, Jul 4 2023, 9:39 PM EST
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,231
MACS wrote:
Well... sort of. The felons DQ'd themselves. The crazy is where they get'cha.

then it's either gubment or following the science...something gotta give.
You want I should have Drafter be The Decider?
MACS Offline
#36 Posted: Tue, Jul 4 2023, 9:40 PM EST
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,837
frankj1 wrote:
then it's either gubment or following the science...something gotta give.
You want I should have Drafter be The Decider?


I dunno... that guy leans right. You're more middle of duh road-ish. Despite what Ray says.
MACS Offline
#37 Posted: Tue, Jul 4 2023, 9:45 PM EST
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,837
8trackdisco wrote:
Possession of a Cuban cigar is a felony. No gun for that dude? No it's not. Not even a misdemeanor. I got burned importing them and only received a letter.

I’m fuzzy on the Nutbag angle. I don’t know where that line should be drawn either.

If a person is being treated for any mental illness- ptsd, anxiety, depression, they should be precluded from carrying?

Seems it would only stop people from getting help for those issues.


As to the second part, I don't disagree. I'm almost 100% certain I have PTSD... would never think about telling the VA that. It was fine for me to carry a gun and kill people at their behest, but doing so renders me incapable of defending myself?

Yeah. I'll pour myself a warm cup of STFU and maybe a bourbon or two to deal with it. BigGrin
Gene363 Offline
#38 Posted: Tue, Jul 4 2023, 9:56 PM EST
Joined: 01-24-2003
Posts: 30,850
Freedon, you have it or you do not. Machine guns should be available in vending machines.

If you don't want a gun, don't buy one, and for F'sakes just because they scare you, don't try to make them illegal.

Don't say you believe in Freedom, The Constitution, or The Second Amendment and make a statement that includes, "but.." or "except..", you're wrong.
ZRX1200 Offline
#39 Posted: Wed, Jul 5 2023, 12:39 PM EST
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,629
Everyone could use a third hole.
8trackdisco Offline
#40 Posted: Wed, Jul 5 2023, 12:39 PM EST
Joined: 11-06-2004
Posts: 60,097
MACS wrote:
As to the second part, I don't disagree. I'm almost 100% certain I have PTSD... would never think about telling the VA that. It was fine for me to carry a gun and kill people at their behest, but doing so renders me incapable of defending myself?

Yeah. I'll pour myself a warm cup of STFU and maybe a bourbon or two to deal with it. BigGrin


As a person who has never felt or shown any level of psychological deviance from the norm, I feel 98.2% qualified to judge everyone else.
8trackdisco Offline
#41 Posted: Wed, Jul 5 2023, 12:44 PM EST
Joined: 11-06-2004
Posts: 60,097
Gene363 wrote:
Freedom, you have it or you do not. Machine guns should be available in vending machines.


You made me laugh on that one. Can imagine all of the scumbags in California who are suffering no consequences for stealing thousands of dollars of goods every day, reinvesting the cash they raise into the AR15 machine every couple days.

Not sure where the Cringe emoji is, but make believe I just posted it.
Gene363 Offline
#42 Posted: Wed, Jul 5 2023, 1:05 PM EST
Joined: 01-24-2003
Posts: 30,850
8trackdisco wrote:
You made me laugh on that one. Can imagine all of the scumbags in California who are suffering no consequences for stealing thousands of dollars of goods every day, reinvesting the cash they raise into the AR15 machine every couple days.

Not sure where the Cringe emoji is, but make believe I just posted it.




I am sure some Korean business owners in Los Angeles would be down.

I just cannot imagine owning a store or rental property in Kalifornia. The small businesses have to be going broke and the woke businesses are spreading the cost$ to all customers in all locations. Shoplifters and renters not paying their rent are thieves and the Kalifornia government is a co-conspirator.

OTOH, A great business opportunity for security doors and locking theft-resistant display cases.
HockeyDad Offline
#43 Posted: Wed, Jul 5 2023, 2:01 PM EST
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,164
You would be amazed at how much stuff is already behind locking theft-resistant display cases. Even baby formula.

Signed: ex-Californian.
Stogie1020 Offline
#44 Posted: Wed, Jul 5 2023, 2:47 PM EST
Joined: 12-19-2019
Posts: 5,379
Seems like we should just lock the criminals behind theft-resistant display cases..
ZRX1200 Offline
#45 Posted: Wed, Jul 5 2023, 4:26 PM EST
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,629
I identify as a Roof Top Korean.
rfenst Offline
#46 Posted: Thu, Jul 6 2023, 10:48 AM EST
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,379
MACS wrote:
Yessir. "the right of the people, to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed".

Keep = own, bear = carry... and they said SHALL not. They didn't say may not, or should not... they made it crystal clear with the words SHALL not.

SCOTUS has already ruled that NY's laws are unconstitutional. Would you care to refute the SCOTUS, counselor? I'd like to hear that argument.

It's my ingrained principal to not comment on something I have nor read. So, I went ahead and read the entire 130+/-case. Just to reply to your post

No dispute with the particular outcome given the arbitrariness of the approval process. Glad to see reaffirmance that states can (IMO should) require minimum standards of classes/training to obtain a cc card applied on an equal basis for all (with a few exceptions we all agree on).

But, I do see two legal issues ignored: modern events and the needs of current society/history not being considered and technical legal issues with whether the court should have decided the case on less than full fact-finding/evidence.

You and I will never agree about everything about guns and some of the limitations I believe are necessary you believe
are inherent rights...
Gene363 Offline
#47 Posted: Thu, Jul 6 2023, 11:23 AM EST
Joined: 01-24-2003
Posts: 30,850
rfenst wrote:
So, I went ahead and read the entire 130+/-case. Just to reply to your post

No dispute with the particular outcome given the arbitrariness of the approval process. Glad to see reaffirmance that states can (IMO should) require minimum standards of classes/training to obtain a cc card applied on an equal basis for all (with a few exceptions we all agree on).

But, I do see two legal issues ignored: modern events and current society/history not being considered and technical legal issues with whether the court should have decided the case on less than full fact-finding/evidence.

You and I will never agree about everything about guns and some of the limitations I believe are necessary you believe
are inherent rights...




The training requirement is another feel-good face for firearm restrictions. South Carolina went through a hand-wringing period over this issue that held up CC reciprocity with Georgia permit holders. Georgia requires no training, period, just a background check. The South Carolina Sherrif's Association was the holdup, I was personally involved in a small way. Thank goodness Georgia and South Carolina permit holders can cross our common border while carrying.

Regarding training, most members of law enforcement, special units excepted, are not that well trained, if they even receive any training at all. I've seen some at our local ranges, so I do have some personal experience. I made the point to the Sherriff's association by asking the question, "Do you believe the 8-hour class, required by SC to get a permit, can make anyone a gun expert?" I also pointed out that if Georgia "untrained" CC holders were shooting up the landscape or in any way involved in gun incidents/accidents, the anti-gun media would be all over it screaming the sky was falling.
rfenst Offline
#48 Posted: Thu, Jul 6 2023, 11:27 AM EST
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,379
Gene363 wrote:
The training requirement is another feel-good face for firearm restrictions. South Carolina went through a hand-wringing period over this issue that held up CC reciprocity with Georgia permit holders. Georgia requires no training, period, just a background check. The South Carolina Sherrif's Association was the holdup, I was personally involved in a small way. Thank goodness Georgia and South Carolina permit holders can cross our common border while carrying.

Regarding training, most members of law enforcement, special units excepted, are not that well trained, if they even receive any training at all. I've seen some at our local ranges, so I do have some personal experience. I made the point to the Sherriff's association by asking the question, "Do you believe the 8-hour class, required by SC to get a permit, can make anyone a gun expert?" I also pointed out that if Georgia "untrained" CC holders were shooting up the landscape or in any way involved in gun incidents/accidents, the anti-gun media would be all over it screaming the sky was falling.

I had to take the 8 hour course to get my cc and think it was a good idea for myself and certainly some of the idiots in our class. That requireement is not arbitrary and is applied equally to all. I see nothing wrong with it.
Gene363 Offline
#49 Posted: Thu, Jul 6 2023, 12:25 PM EST
Joined: 01-24-2003
Posts: 30,850
rfenst wrote:
I had to take the 8 hour course to get my cc and think it was a good idea for myself and certainly some of the idiots in our class. That requireement is not arbitrary and is applied equally to all. I see nothing wrong with it.


Training is a very good thing, however, when mandated by the government, the government can and has abused such requirements to essentially eliminate CC or gun ownership, e.g., changing requirement standards, not certifying training personnel, or not approving training curriculums.

Simply put, the training required to CC or even purchase firearms in some states has been and will continue to be used as a tool to restrict firearm ownership and carry. The good news is the Bruen Decision:

Quote:
The Court held, for the first time, that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms for self-defense extends outside the home, and it directed lawmakers and lower courts that gun regulations must “accord” with supposed historical understanding.


https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdf
DrMaddVibe Offline
#50 Posted: Thu, Jul 6 2023, 6:59 PM EST
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,516
Yeah, I can see how the words "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" get twisted in the worst way.
Users browsing this topic
Guest
2 Pages12>
Back to Top