# Trump to Support Nationwide Concealed Carry



## RedLion (Sep 23, 2015)

I would really like to see Trump and the Congress to start a push for this during the first 100 days in office.



> Republican presidential frontrunner Donald Trump -- who said he has a concealed carry permit -- called for the expansion of gun rights Friday, including making those permits applicable nationwide. In a position paper published on his website Friday afternoon, Trump called for the elimination of gun and magazine bans, labeling them a "total failure."
> 
> "Law-abiding people should be allowed to own the firearm of their choice. The government has no business dictating what types of firearms good, honest people are allowed to own," Trump wrote.


https://pjmedia.com/trending/2016/11/11/trump-to-support-nationwide-concealed-carry/


----------



## Prepared One (Nov 5, 2014)

I love this idea and agree. The government has no business in gun control laws. He will have a fight on his hands.


----------



## RedLion (Sep 23, 2015)

Prepared One said:


> I love this idea and agree. The government has no business in gun control laws. He will have a fight on his hands.


True, but is you put stock in the numbers, there is more support for conceal carry and much less support for gun control nation wide. Strike while the iron is hot. A nation law permitting carry would eliminate a large portion of avenues for antis to prosecute law-abiding citizens.


----------



## Chipper (Dec 22, 2012)

Should be just like a drivers license. Just cause I crossed a state line doesn't mean I forgot how to use a weapon. Besides my AARRMY training was for world wide use, not 1 stupid state.


----------



## Slippy (Nov 14, 2013)

The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America says, "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

I can argue that having to ask permission (apply) to my state or county official to carry a firearm then Bribe them (payment of fees) is 100% Anti-Constitutional. However I recognize that the 10th Amendment made it possible. Still, I believe the 2nd makes for a great argument of national recognition.

Chipper's drivers license analogy is spot on and so is my marriage license. I've lived and paid taxes in multiple states and all of them recognized both my DL and my Marriage License.


----------



## Targetshooter (Dec 4, 2015)

That would be very good , I would love to be able to carry in every state . If anyone can get it done he can .


----------



## OakOwl (Nov 7, 2016)

This would be amazing. 

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk


----------



## Oddcaliber (Feb 17, 2014)

Definitely would like to see that happen.


----------



## Medic33 (Mar 29, 2015)

well with a rep house an rep congress and 3 new supreme court justices there is a good chance we might roll back to pre 90's laws.
I think he wants to make it like a driver license you know if you have a Texas DL you can drive in new York kind of thing.


----------



## dwight55 (Nov 9, 2012)

Hmmm, . . . the Oak Owl has not chimed in.

Ah well, . . . I'm pretty sure where him and Hillary stand on this.

May God bless,
Dwight


----------



## Camel923 (Aug 13, 2014)

Funny state of affairs if I can carry anywhere on my cc permit and places like NYC and NJ refuse to allow their own citizens to cc.


----------



## Knotacare (Sep 21, 2016)

The laws in states vary so much to get a CC permit will be the big factor. I live close to MD & NJ which are two of the must anti gun states in the country. I carry hollow point all the time & if I got caught in NJ with one bullet I'd go to jail. I sure hope he starts working on this because I avoid both these states & NY because of there laws.


----------



## Medic33 (Mar 29, 2015)

shoot man I carry in down town DC no permit required I just keep it to my self and go on about my business.


----------



## Illini Warrior (Jan 24, 2015)

Targetshooter said:


> That would be very good , I would love to be able to carry in every state . If anyone can get it done he can .


it can be done - maybe Trump and the Republican Congress can do it .... but you're most likely won't like it ...

you have a scale of 0 to 10 .... #0 being no carry regs or permits ... #10 being no carry at all .... you need to meet at #5 to have any chance at all ....

for one thing - Are you ready to have your name in a searchable database that's available across the country? - that's a #5 requirement for sure


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

Not sure this is a good idea. Any bill that could get all 50 States to approve would be so restrictive as to make CC worthless. The only reason we have CC is it was a State issue. What the Feds can give another Fed can take away. Once we establish the Feds right o make a national CC deal we give them to same power to take the right away. We just got rid of Obama but there will be more like him .
Don't get me wrong I would love to remove a few states from my no ride list, but I don't see a good agreement.


----------



## OakOwl (Nov 7, 2016)

dwight55 said:


> Hmmm, . . . the Oak Owl has not chimed in.
> 
> Ah well, . . . I'm pretty sure where him and Hillary stand on this.
> 
> ...


Well I see reading isn't your strong point as I commented above you.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk


----------



## RedLion (Sep 23, 2015)

I think that it could be pretty easy to set basic nationwide standards to carry that all states would accept, but that each state could then still alter to make standards even less restrictive within the state boundaries.


----------



## 7052 (Jul 1, 2014)

*IMO*, From a legal point of view, there is no longer *any* legal reason for one state to refuse to accept another state's CCW license. The Supreme Court rules in Obergefell v. Hodges (576 U.S. ___ (2015)) that all states must, by law, accept a valid marriage certificate issues in any other state. This forces the recognition (and issuance) of marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

Since Marriage is not a right specifically mentioned int he Constitution, then we can ascertain it holds a _lower_ priority on the legal rung then rights specifically recognized in the Constitution. Since the SCOTUS says that such lower-level legal privileges such as driving and marriage must be recognized in all states if validly issued in another, then *how* can a Constitutional right be denied when similarly issued (especially when the requirements to attain such licensing is *much* higher?

Just my $0.02 worth.


----------



## rstanek (Nov 9, 2012)

If I may add, if you have a valid CC license, you shouldn't be required to have a background check done every time you purchase a firearm.


----------



## 6811 (Jan 2, 2013)

I want to see a national CC and the repeal of NFA. The NFA is nothing but pure infringement of 2A.


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

6811 said:


> I want to see a national CC and the repeal of NFA. The NFA is nothing but pure infringement of 2A.


I have been thinking the same thing.


----------



## Maol9 (Mar 20, 2015)

I believe Wyoming got it right. The 2A is my CC. That is it. Period.


----------



## SDF880 (Mar 28, 2013)

I'm all for it! I had to go to Mass last year for a wedding and I was a stranger in a strange land! All I had on me was
a "Crovel" and an attitude! Good Lord how do people live and function there? WTF? I'd love to see 50 state carry! Lets get it done!!!


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

Never forget it was States rights that allowed us to keep our weapons this long. Had it been left up to the Feds we would have none. Once the Feds get the foot in the door we may be happy for a short time but that will be short lived. The next Obama the next Hillary will with the stroke of a pen wipe your right out.
Any fed mandate on CC would require agreement by all 50 states. You may not like it but that is how it works. Do you want a CC law written by CA, NY and IL ?
What I would like to see is a better law allowing transport across state lines. The way it is now States like Ny can still make your life a total wreck. It should made 100% clear I can transport my weapon across into and out of any state any time. And any state official that tries to restrict that right should land in jail.
Be very careful what you ask for you may get it and it may not be what you expected.


----------



## Maine-Marine (Mar 7, 2014)

Smitty901 said:


> Not sure this is a good idea. Any bill that could get all 50 States to approve would be so restrictive as to make CC worthless. The only reason we have CC is it was a State issue. What the Feds can give another Fed can take away. Once we establish the Feds right o make a national CC deal we give them to same power to take the right away. We just got rid of Obama but there will be more like him .
> Don't get me wrong I would love to remove a few states from my no ride list, but I don't see a good agreement.


Just wonder what restriction they could put on it..

lets just be a little crazy... lets say NO semi auto, no hollow points, no lasers, no full metal jackets, no fragmentation type, no shotgun rounds, nothing over 45 caliber

so you end up with revolver with lead only...

I think a lot of folks would be ok (if not happy) with that...


----------



## 7052 (Jul 1, 2014)

Smitty901 said:


> Any fed mandate on CC would require agreement by all 50 states.


Actually,from a legal point of view I do not believe it would. The Feds pass regulations, laws, etc all the time that impact the entire country that do not require approval from the states.

Look at things like Title VIII, Title IX, and Title X legislation, etc.The Feds could easily do the same things w/ CCW. "Either accept people's second amendment rights, or Federal funding goes bye-bye for you.

Now, I'm not saying that's the way it SHOULD go, just saying it could go this way.


----------



## Mad Trapper (Feb 12, 2014)

RedLion said:


> I would really like to see Trump and the Congress to start a push for this during the first 100 days in office.
> 
> https://pjmedia.com/trending/2016/11/11/trump-to-support-nationwide-concealed-carry/


Any and all permits/fees needed for *a constitutional right*, ARE BULLSHIT!!!  If you need a [email protected]#$^&g! permit, or to pay a tithe,it's no longer a right

Do you need a permit for ANY of the other rights enumerated in "the bill of RIGHTS!"

Law should *be just like Vermonts current regulations/laws*: No permits needed At ALL!!!

P.S. there is not a big problem with gun crime in Vermont


----------



## Mad Trapper (Feb 12, 2014)

SDF880 said:


> I'm all for it! I had to go to Mass last year for a wedding and I was a stranger in a strange land! All I had on me was
> a "Crovel" and an attitude! Good Lord how do people live and function there? WTF? I'd love to see 50 state carry! Lets get it done!!!


ALL the legislators in Boston should be tarred, feathered, then put on public display in stocks.


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

What the Feds need to do is back off.

When this country was formed, it was to do what states had trouble doing by themselves. States still maintained control over their individual states. Slowly the federal government began to take over. More and more the feds put items in the interstate commerce category so they could control these issues. The feds should allow states to do what the people of that states want. If CA, NY and IL want to be communist strongholds then so be it. Those who don't like it and can't vote a change can move to a place more to their liking. Any state that wants more freedom, that should be allowed also. People should be allowed to live under the rules they decided on.

I am a firm believer in states rights.


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

Egyas said:


> Actually,from a legal point of view I do not believe it would. The Feds pass regulations, laws, etc all the time that impact the entire country that do not require approval from the states.
> 
> Look at things like Title VIII, Title IX, and Title X legislation, etc.The Feds could easily do the same things w/ CCW. "Either accept people's second amendment rights, or Federal funding goes bye
> 
> ...


----------



## RedLion (Sep 23, 2015)

Mad Trapper said:


> Any and all permits/fees needed for *a constitutional right*, ARE BULLSHIT!!!  If you need a [email protected]#$^&g! permit, or to pay a tithe,it's no longer a right
> 
> Do you need a permit for ANY of the other rights enumerated in "the bill of RIGHTS!"
> 
> ...


I understand all of that and in a perfect USA we would follow the Constitution to the letter of the law. With that said, any step in the right direction is a positive step. A problem with "either or folks" that I have had dealings with miss the forest for the trees. It is about building toward more freedom after decades of lies and crimes.


----------



## Mad Trapper (Feb 12, 2014)

inceptor said:


> What the Feds need to do is back off.
> 
> When this country was formed, it was to do what states had trouble doing by themselves. States still maintained control over their individual states. Slowly the federal government began to take over. More and more the feds put items in the interstate commerce category so they could control these issues. The feds should allow states to do what the people of that states want. If CA, NY and IL want to be communist strongholds then so be it. Those who don't like it and can't vote a change can move to a place more to their liking. Any state that wants more freedom, that should be allowed also. People should be allowed to live under the rules they decided on.
> 
> I am a firm believer in states rights.


Disagree. States can give you more rights but can't infringe on constitutional rights, supposedly neither can the Feds. Since both levels of GOBBERment, have infringed on our rights, we need to have SCOTUS judges that slap these tyrants back into place using the preeminent law, the US Constitution. We also need to start enforcing prosecution of those who infringe on these rights in ALL branches of government. That is politicians, activist judges, DOJ/DAs, LE. If they can't follow the laws, then they are just common criminals, treat them as such.


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

Mad Trapper said:


> Disagree. States can give you more rights but can't infringe on constitutional rights, supposedly neither can the Feds. Since both levels of GOBBERment, have infringed on our rights, we need to have SCOTUS judges that slap these tyrants back into place using the preeminent law, the US Constitution. We also need to start enforcing prosecution of those who infringe on these rights in ALL branches of government. That is politicians, activist judges, DOJ/DAs, LE. If they can't follow the laws, then they are just common criminals, treat them as such.


I think we disagree less than you would think. I agree that states can't infringe on constitutional rights. But the feds have been doing this since Lincoln and more openly with FDR. I am still pro states rights. This country was founded on individual states rights. I also agree on enforcing prosecution of those who infringe on our rights. One of the biggest problems though is the feds forcing states to fall into line with their policies that were against individual rights.


----------



## rstanek (Nov 9, 2012)

Shall not be infringed, doesn't matter if it's state or federal, it says what it says, seems pretty clear to me...


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

rstanek said:


> Shall not be infringed, doesn't matter if it's state or federal, it says what it says, seems pretty clear to me...


Agreed. Apparently when I said states should be allowed to be communist strongholds if they choose I didn't mean a total ban on the constitution. If they choose to support deadbeats with the states own funds they should be allowed. BUT other states who don't support this lifestyle shouldn't be forced to contribute to that lifestyle.

Charity used to be done by the private sector. If memory serves me correctly, it was mostly churches who provided this charity. The private sector did a pretty good job of this and helped people get through tough times. Then the govt stepped in and said we will now control this. LBJ cemented this control. Now we have generations of families that live off of govt assistance. Back in the 90's Illinois tried a welfare program where participants were required to work. Time Magazine followed a Chicago family and what the impact was on them. According to Time Magazine the family was so traumatized they had to seek psychological help. This is what the federal govt has created. It was so long ago I can't find the article.


----------

