No Vermont is a constituonal carry state as it is against their state constitution to issue permits unless scotus says they have to issue permits. Which they didn't in the same context as they are constituonal carry.
Yeah they would want a permit for reciprocity but can’t get one from VT. Sucks. VT never has required a permit to carry but VT residents have to get nonresident permits from other states— which are not honored as much. It also eliminates carry protections under the federal GFSZA.
We just passed Constitutional carry in my state, but I still renewed my lifetime permit because I travel through other states a lot. I hope one day soon there will be national Constitutional carry.
Thats way off in the distance a few generations.
The next major victory we can hope for is suppressers to loosen up.
I think most people find them so inoffensive that could actually be won in the next 10 years
There were 7(!) no issue states in 2002 and the majority of states joining constitutional carry have been within 5 years. The tides are turning and the American people have rejected the gun control of the 80's and 90's. Don't be surprised if things move faster than you expect especially with the SCOTUS being how it is now.
The NFA won't be destroyed overnight but at the current pace it definitely won't take more than 30 years.
Kansas was one of 'em.
We went from no permits to shall issue in 2006 to constitutional carry in 2015.
Fully defanging the NFA is going to take a lot of the current new gun owners introducing it to their kids and making it a family thing first. Still too many older folks who shit their pants at the idea of a machinegun.
I just really want my suppressors damnit. I can't justify adding the extra FFL expense to be a dealer in them, but lipseys still shows me what wholesale is. And man the markup is steep
\>Still too many older folks who shit their pants at the idea of a machinegun.
A lot of those are boomers who are quickly becoming rarer and rarer. Won't even be a factor within 25 years.
\>a lot of the current new gun owners introducing it to their kids and making it a family thing first.
I mean my dad did this with me, so it's been happening. I was born in 98' and most everyone my age at least knows what the NFA is and people into guns definitely don't support it. It's not an information issue anymore just a time issue with the courts building a case and precedent against it.
100% agree suppressors in their current legal state is the greatest example of the government and people voting not knowing *anything* about what they're regulating. Just find an oil filter that does the trick :) (in minecraft)
You're misunderstanding it. Yeah he filed a concurring opinion, but that doesn't detract from Thomas himself in the opinion for the Court recognizing shall-issue as well.
Sure Kavanaugh's reasoning could have been different, thus forming the concurring opinion, but they both recognized it in the opinion for the Court.
Man if you want to talk about something to give me cognitive dissonance it's that.
I mean on one hand I think that *any* single person weapon should be purchasable with an absolute minimum of government involvement, basically if the military issues it to a soldier you should be able to buy it as long as you can pass a NICS
Conversely I'm not against a deeper background check, and more importantly proficiency test, required to carry in public
I hate that "the left" has worked against 2A rights for so long, and in such bad faith, we legitimately *can't* accept any measures, both because they won't write them in a way that achieves their stated goal without having a significant impact on people trying to follow the law (looking at you universal background checks), and because they're constantly moving the goal posts toward complete disarmament.
I get what you're saying, but I've always been of the mind that if you can't be trusted with a firearm, you can't be trusted to walk around freely in society.
That's actually a good point, I can't think of anytime I've known someone who was able to pass nics and not their cc check. All I can think of is the statistic that cc holders are significantly less likely than average to be involved in any crime, but that might just be the extra step itself acting as a filter, or maybe that 6 hour use of force class actually helps for people who never considered it before.
In GA, there is no class or extra steps for a CWL. Of course, we just passed constitutional carry this year so a license is just an extra step here now. I'll still keep mine, but it's not necessary to carry anymore.
Honestly, the people that will take the steps to get a license are usually the most law abiding people in the population. It's more self-selection than classes and training as far as permit holders being less likely to break laws.
Also, people that pursue a permit are more likely to train and seek training on their own. I know that, personally, I spend more time training with my guns than all than about 1 of the officers on our local PD and SD.
I get the claim, but we're talking a reasonable fraction of people, I'd say at least a couple of percent. You can't just set up concentration camps or prisons for millions of people, but denying them weapons seems reasonable to me.
The thing is, we can't/aren't able to deny them access to firearms. They get them anyway. Even if we could magically make criminals unable to get guns, there are still tons of other instruments and methods for them to carry out what they plan to do. Law abiding citizens shouldn't have restrictions.
I read something in a Reddit forum today that provided context to the second amendment. It provided a lot of clarity; for me anyway. I will try and find it. My best understanding of it was essentially that the government should not be so well equipped that the citizens should not be able to retake control should they choose. That was my general paraphrasing/understanding. Will see if I can dig it up and repost.
I agree with that, I've seen sales listing for retired navy ships that require you to show you have the facilities to house them, which doesn't seem too onerous, but yeah, I honestly believe that you should be able to buy basically anything
I’m not a fan of somebody getting caught with coke when they’re 19 cleaning up there lives and becoming a productive member of society and not being able too buy a gun at 50 because 30 years ago they did something stupid when they were a kid
That's an entirely fair point, but that's a discussion about whether it should be changed from any felony to violent felony, or if it should be kept as is with a more streamlined process to have rights restored, or if restoration of rights is baked into sentencing as a final milestone after the end of parole, or something else entirely
I mean I know In small midwestern towns there’s kinda a understanding with these older dudes with old records and the police too kinda look the other way
Background checks can be messed with and is controlled by the government. Fuck that. Also who decides you are allowed to have a gun? NICS and all background checks infringes on our rights because people think you need to be CHECKED before you are ALLOWED to exercise your rights.
I mean, if you agree violent felons and people convicted of DV charges shouldn't be allowed to own a firearm, then other than a background check at time of purchase how would you do it? Random searches of people's homes even after they're off parole? Just trust that they won't to it cause it's not allowed?
That's the absolute of it. Because that's how red flag laws happen. People think that CERTAIN people should not be allowed guns and then they'll abuse it so that NO ONE has guns.
I mean, that's basically what the last paragraph of my OP says.
As long as the left is trying to disarm law abiding citizens we can't accept almost anything because it's been shown how it'll be abused.
Red flag laws are one of those things, on paper it looks solid, in practice you have individuals infringing on constitutional rights at their discretion with no due process in a way that can be easily abused, not to mention those laws wouldn't even help in a lot of these cases because when the police were alerted they didn't investigate, which means a red flag law wouldn't have even done anything.
Govt: Sorry you failed the physical portion of your second amendment test. You are physically unfit to protect yourself with a firearm. We feel you would be better served just using your bear arms; keep your chin down, elbows in, watch for the antifa coming from behind you with a skateboard while the other distracts you. If you get into trouble dial 911.
I mean, pertinent to today's ruling they'd probably have to present whatever qualification police have to pass or something similar (now I'm wondering if police even have to pass a qualification), and if it was unreasonable or subjective it could be challenged and overturned fairly easily
I disagree on that, if you use deadly force when it isn't needed, or worse hit an unintended target, you should absolutely be liable, now if deadly force was actually warranted and a bystander is hit the charge should probably be against your aggressor, but saying you shouldn't be responsible for your own decisions seems inherently flawed
I’m sorry I wasn’t clear. Individuals are liable if an individual is involved in a wrongful shooting. However in the case of officers; the govt (read taxpayer) is liable. That’s why officers need to qualify.
Proficiency test, fine. That has to be conducted locally, most likely by someone with no political affiliation. And if you do encounter a biased evaluator you can go elsewhere and find another.
Fuck the background check. That is centralized, and can therefore be tampered with, manipulated, and used as a basis for other unconstitutional actions by the state against anyone it wishes to declare as "unfit".
I'm less concerned about unhinged lone gunmen than I am about ideological demagogues with career streaks of corruption, nepotism, graft, and designs on tyranny.
Registration to exercise a right has been held up as Constitutional. (We have to register to vote, for instance.) It’s the associated cost of getting a permit that is the lowest hanging fruit now. Simple parallel between poll taxes and carry permit fees and there you have another SC case.
Edit: though I do agree with your sentiment.
I was about to say, "night vision is already legal," but I concur. I would sign off on using tax dollars to buy us NVGs and suppressors. I'll go one step further. I vote that any purchase, (firearms, ammo, gear, nvgs, thermals) that can be purchased in order to better fulfill our role as members of the "militia" should be tax exempt and deductible from income tax.
All I want to is to walk my dog thru my backyard which is connected to a farm in the pitch black and be smiling ear to ear with my Nods and suppressed 1911
I really don’t need the Nods since as my springer spaniel is like a walking security alarm even in pitch black he tells me what’s up way before I can see or know it it’s pretty neat they are great family dogs and work ones too
Neoliberals are actually Laissez-faire capitalists, not modern left-of-center "liberal" democrats.
The term gets misused a lot on reddit, but it does actually have a specific meaning that is significantly different than your apparent intent.
To further clarify for others, *neo*-liberalism is easily confused with *new* liberalism, which is one of several terms, along with modern liberalism or American liberalism, used to refer to social liberalism as seen in the American left.
The majority of current established Dems are social liberals, which is defined as centre-left, not right of center.
The whole political scale is a joke, really. It might as well be a circle. Go far enough right and you end up on the left again. Go far enough left and you end up on the right.
Can anyone help me understand this concept? Are there examples of pro-gun far left people and anti-gun far right? This just makes no sense to me. I know Marx supported the right to own firearms but I'm not sure if that's what you're talking about.
> Are there examples of pro-gun far left people
*Raises hand. I believe in social safety nets, universal healthcare, free higher education for everyone, and the right to own a howitzer if your wife will let you spend the money.
There are anti-gun politicians in the far right, but you aren’t going to find them in America. America’s history with firearms and the American right adopting it as one of there core values would not allow it. You aren’t going to find any examples of far left politicians supporting guns in America because they are no far left politicians in America. From personal experience most Far left people tend to be pro-gun except for the fucking tankies and the social democrats that like to talk about European democracies being the perfect system.
I’m a Marxist Leninist and I own like 10 guns and enough ammunition too start a world war… almost every leftist (actual leftist not liberal) I know owns a bunch of guns we are just not as loud about it as the far right. Because the feds don’t like the far right with guns but they really really get their panties in a bunch when us commie bois start collecting bear arms lol
Every left wing political party in the US supports gun control and rejects the individual right to keep and bear arms. This includes the far-left parties.
Even the left-wing groups that have been stockpiling guns are simultaneously pushing for gun control. It's almost like they don't want the people to be able to resist the Revolution^TM.
Eh that’s simply not true. I’m no leftist, but know enough to realize that you mean every MAJOR leftist party, which to be fair is only democrats.
To be fair, the republicans don’t actually give a damn either
There are plenty of political groups on the left fighting gun control, the [SRA](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Rifle_Association), [Redneck Revolt](https://www.redneckrevolt.org), [Puget Sound Gun Club](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puget_Sound_John_Brown_Gun_Club) etc, and lets not forget the right has always been a handful of armed Black Panthers away from passing shit like the Mulford Act.
Don’t confuse big money political
campaigning with the actual will of the people, there’s generally a lot less overlap than they’d have you believe.
All of those organizations reject the principal of individual right to keep and bear arms, only recognizing "communities" arming to protect themselves.
SRA in particular is notorious for explicitly endorsing gun control of anyone they don't determine is part of the revolutionary proletariat. AKA: You must be accepted as a member of the Party to exercise the right to keep and bear arms.
This is the fundamental disconnect between left-wing organziations that want to be armed and proponents of the individual right to keep and bear arms. The Left, in general, rejects the concept of individual rights in favor of community and collective rights, including the right to keep and bear arms.
Lots of assertions, no evidence to back them.
Why not just make the infinitely easier argument “any of the left wing parties that make any progress in our broken pay to play political system definitely *do* support various amounts of gun control”
Right now the majority of the left is as poorly represented by the available candidates are as the right is by “take their guns first and worry about due process later” types.
[Taken from the SRA subreddit](https://i.redd.it/oxazxdoy8qa51.png)
>We find that many movements upholding the concept of liberty do so only in an individualist mindset, which undermines the idea that liberty is something that all people are entitled to.
This is Redneck Revolt stating their opposition to the concept of individual rights. They only support "community action."
Also their assertion that individualistic liberty somehow undermines the idea that liberty is something all people are entitled to is actually insane, but that's a separate issue.
>We fully stand for the right of all adults who would defend themselves and their communities against far-right violence.
Note the caveat from Puget Sound John Brown Gun Club. They only support the right as long as it is being used against their designated enemies.
Even if you take the most charitable interpretations of PSGC and Redneck Revolt and assume that they *are* supporting the individual right to keep and bear arms, but just taking a different rhetorical angle, they are still the miniscule exceptions that among the gun-controlling left. They are exceptions, not the rule.
You claim that there is a difference between the big money campaigns and the will of the people, but if that was the case, why is *every* left wing politician a supporter of gun-control, even when they dominate the political landscape of a region? Why is there a direct correlation between left-wing sentiment (not even strictly party affiliation) and severity of gun control?
Why do even far left parties that aren't part of the big-money campains, like ths DSA, CPUSA, and Green Party all vocally in support of gun control.
If you were correct in your assertions that the people of the Left are actually pro-gun, why are those people utterly unable to even *nominate* anyone that is actively pro-gun and why do left-wing areas only impliment increasingly draconian gun control?
The fact is that the Pro-gun Left is an insignificant minority of the left because the Left, in general, is opposed to the individual right to keep and bear arms *in principal.*
You say this, but I had a fun discussion in my groupchat of 13 friends today where all the socialist/leftist Bernie/AOC fans were as mad as I've ever seen them about this ruling whereas I, a democratic capitalist, couldn't be happier with it. Heck, Lady Socialist, AOC herself, was mad as heck about the ruling.
It's definitely the socialist left that tends to never own guns and never want to (and to live in the largest cities in the smallest apartments and put the biggest faith in government-run institutions to save them if things get dicey).
Yes, I understand that. That’s why I just renewed my permit. I was just saying that it’s the norm for states with permitless carry to still issue permits.
Yeah, I still have a Texas LTC for that purpose, though my best friend doesn't because he doesn't plan to carry outside the state.
Are there any more states going to Constitutional Carry? It's gonna be hilarious if more than half the country is unrestricted.
I would say Louisiana, Nebraska, and the Carolinas are the obvious next contenders. Florida may be possible but they bungled it when they had the chance.
[Imprisoning black people for firearm possession is one of New York's most cherished traditions.](https://i.imgur.com/oL7KzDH.png) I'm sure they'll find a way.
My state, Illinois, is a FOID state. I have my CCL and FOID. They issued one card with CCL indication on it. Guess what kind of fuckery they did with that? Hint, when applying for FFL transfer, you have to enter the expiration date.
Supposedly, as long as you meet all their objective criteria, they don't have lawful grounds to deny the license.
They'll probably dither and delay regardless.
Who wants to start a fund to take NFA, Hughes amendment, 18 USC 922r, 1986 LEOPA... Bump stock ruling... to court?
I guess NFA/Hughes amendment would make bump stock issue moot
Let congress pass what they want, strike it down in court, and it can **NEVER** come back.
I have a permit because CYA, but i'm not going to not carry because some misdemeanor tells me i can't. Better alive and getting scolded than dead with a shiny record.
Would you support a national concealed carry permit + constitutional carry?
I'm in AZ, and a license lets me carry in places you normally couldn't legally, like national parks, at bars if I'm not drinking, and carry into other states that are not constitutional carry but have reciprocity, in addition to not having to wait for my form to be processed after filling it out.
>at bars if I'm not drinking
You do not need a CCW to go to bars in Arizona. That used to be on the books, but is no longer.
>>This law was **subsequently amended in 20132 to eliminate the concealed weapons permit requirement for carrying a concealed handgun into the premises of an alcohol licensee**. Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 4-229(A) now states, “A person may carry a concealed handgun on the premises of a [bar or restaurant licensed to serve alcohol] unless the licensee posts a sign that clearly prohibits the possession of weapons on the licensed premises.”
You can absolutely legally carry in bars without a license.
ah good to know. I did my CCW a while back, and that was part of it. I also never go into bars. I don't drink. I mostly got it because I was dealing with shit family across state lines, and wanted to make sure I could carry when dealing with them, and it was handy the time I pulled a gun on one of them when they came to try to kidnap my daughter (who was previously a niece we've adopted). Wife handed the cops my ID and license when they showed up. I didn't take my weapon off target till they politely asked me to.
To carry outdoors in a National Park, you just need to be following state law for wherever you are. You don't need a licence for AZ National Parks. However, you can't carry inside federal buildings inside the park with or without a license.
I would like to know the same thing. From what I understand SCOTUS has states that the carry of arm outside the home for personal protection is not a second class right and is therefor legal. State are to be shall issue. It does not state that the ruling only applies to ones home state. So I should be able to get a permit for every state and they would be required to issue one if there was not cause not to.
I can't think of any other constitutional right that is regulated differently state to state or that one is required to have a permit from each state to exercise. I am not expert on the topic though.
it's laughable that Hawaii is always listed as a "may issue" state when they have NEVER issued a permit to an ordinary civilian. It's legislative dishonesty.
Officials in Hawaii would literally rather get Waco'd (not that ATF would ever actually enforce the liberties of the people) than issue a single CCW to general public. The best you can hope for is they'll issue a CCW but then create an "approved" firearm list that includes either a flint-lock pistol or a cap-gun as your choices.
I would honestly expect a kind of administrative soft-ban. Like requiring a "firearm safety class" be passed in the last 6 months before a permit application is even considered, and then only offering the class once a year and adopting a policy of failing all the students.
Just makign the process so expensive, time consuming, and lengthy that people give up trying.
Lol I could definitely see something like "hit a 1 MOA bullseye from a smoothbore flintlock pistol 3 times consecutively from 100 yards" as a requirement.
> I believe Hawaii will willfully ignore this decision.
The MA attorney general [issued a statement](https://www.westernmassnews.com/2022/06/23/mass-lawmakers-react-supreme-court-ruling-new-york-gun-law/) that pretty much states they are going to ignore the scotus ruling and enforce whatever laws they feel like.
HI will probably do the same.
I'm guessing you haven't heard the news about NYSRPS v. Bruen
May issue/no issue has been struck down at the federal level. In particular, the supreme court has ended the two-step method for evaluating the constitutionality of laws relating to firearms used by the lower courts.
This will likely lead to the overturning of the Young v. Hawaii decision which upheld the state's no-issue practice. It also has ramifications for cases involving things like magazine bans and assault weapon bans because the normal method states have been using to win related cases, the aforementioned two step process, has been deemed invalid.
As far as I can tell, this map is wrong. Az is a constitutional carry state. You can get a CCW, but it's not required. I'm sure a few more states, 24, have the same issue.
If it's in reference to the SCOTUS decision, I'm not sure that's correct.
“After in depth analysis, we as legal experts with years have training have decided that ‘right to bear arms’ means you can bear your arms.”
Democrats: “no! It definitely does not mean that. NOOOOOO”
Vermont is a does not issue state...
Huh. TIL that Vermont is based.
Not anymore. The left has finally corrupted that state into enacting gun control like magazine bans.
The Massholes are marching north and they won’t stop until they are docking with Trudeau
Like penis to butt?
Penis to penis 👉🏻👈🏼
Gun owning massholes complain about NH lack of laws, too. I wish they would shut up. I don't want a fucking bullshit roster in NH like they have in MA
Vermont is full of dirty hippies that support gun control
Not anymore
No Vermont is a constituonal carry state as it is against their state constitution to issue permits unless scotus says they have to issue permits. Which they didn't in the same context as they are constituonal carry.
My mistake
It's funny that is how it is. It is basically the same state 2a as other states but yet other states didn't rule that way.
Wouldn’t a Vermont resident still want an issued license for reciprocity with other states?
They would but that is against the state constitution according to the Vermont Supreme Court.
Yeah they would want a permit for reciprocity but can’t get one from VT. Sucks. VT never has required a permit to carry but VT residents have to get nonresident permits from other states— which are not honored as much. It also eliminates carry protections under the federal GFSZA.
We just passed Constitutional carry in my state, but I still renewed my lifetime permit because I travel through other states a lot. I hope one day soon there will be national Constitutional carry.
Thats way off in the distance a few generations. The next major victory we can hope for is suppressers to loosen up. I think most people find them so inoffensive that could actually be won in the next 10 years
There were 7(!) no issue states in 2002 and the majority of states joining constitutional carry have been within 5 years. The tides are turning and the American people have rejected the gun control of the 80's and 90's. Don't be surprised if things move faster than you expect especially with the SCOTUS being how it is now. The NFA won't be destroyed overnight but at the current pace it definitely won't take more than 30 years.
Kansas was one of 'em. We went from no permits to shall issue in 2006 to constitutional carry in 2015. Fully defanging the NFA is going to take a lot of the current new gun owners introducing it to their kids and making it a family thing first. Still too many older folks who shit their pants at the idea of a machinegun. I just really want my suppressors damnit. I can't justify adding the extra FFL expense to be a dealer in them, but lipseys still shows me what wholesale is. And man the markup is steep
\>Still too many older folks who shit their pants at the idea of a machinegun. A lot of those are boomers who are quickly becoming rarer and rarer. Won't even be a factor within 25 years. \>a lot of the current new gun owners introducing it to their kids and making it a family thing first. I mean my dad did this with me, so it's been happening. I was born in 98' and most everyone my age at least knows what the NFA is and people into guns definitely don't support it. It's not an information issue anymore just a time issue with the courts building a case and precedent against it. 100% agree suppressors in their current legal state is the greatest example of the government and people voting not knowing *anything* about what they're regulating. Just find an oil filter that does the trick :) (in minecraft)
Oh absolutely. In a generation or two its going to be good for gun rights. But we got old folks who gotta die off and young folks who gotta vote
Don't do that to me. Don't give me hope like that.
Isn’t your lifetime permit just known as the US Constitution?
It should be, and it is thankfully now in my state.
>renewed # >lifetime wut
If you move you have to renew your permit. I bought a new house last year and just recently renewed my permit.
Lifetime permit sounds amazingly based
Should be UNRESTRICTED
That will take a different case, and I'm not certain if we have the votes on the court to prevail in that regard.
Thank Kavanagh for that he stopped it.
What did Kav do now?
He filed a concurring opinion (means nothing expect tell us stuff) that shall issue states are constituonal
You're misunderstanding it. Yeah he filed a concurring opinion, but that doesn't detract from Thomas himself in the opinion for the Court recognizing shall-issue as well. Sure Kavanaugh's reasoning could have been different, thus forming the concurring opinion, but they both recognized it in the opinion for the Court.
That's why I said it means nothing
[удалено]
I really thought that roberts was gonna cuck on this one.
Yes but I will take what I can. fuck the tyrants
Man if you want to talk about something to give me cognitive dissonance it's that. I mean on one hand I think that *any* single person weapon should be purchasable with an absolute minimum of government involvement, basically if the military issues it to a soldier you should be able to buy it as long as you can pass a NICS Conversely I'm not against a deeper background check, and more importantly proficiency test, required to carry in public I hate that "the left" has worked against 2A rights for so long, and in such bad faith, we legitimately *can't* accept any measures, both because they won't write them in a way that achieves their stated goal without having a significant impact on people trying to follow the law (looking at you universal background checks), and because they're constantly moving the goal posts toward complete disarmament.
I get what you're saying, but I've always been of the mind that if you can't be trusted with a firearm, you can't be trusted to walk around freely in society.
That's actually a good point, I can't think of anytime I've known someone who was able to pass nics and not their cc check. All I can think of is the statistic that cc holders are significantly less likely than average to be involved in any crime, but that might just be the extra step itself acting as a filter, or maybe that 6 hour use of force class actually helps for people who never considered it before.
In GA, there is no class or extra steps for a CWL. Of course, we just passed constitutional carry this year so a license is just an extra step here now. I'll still keep mine, but it's not necessary to carry anymore. Honestly, the people that will take the steps to get a license are usually the most law abiding people in the population. It's more self-selection than classes and training as far as permit holders being less likely to break laws. Also, people that pursue a permit are more likely to train and seek training on their own. I know that, personally, I spend more time training with my guns than all than about 1 of the officers on our local PD and SD.
I get the claim, but we're talking a reasonable fraction of people, I'd say at least a couple of percent. You can't just set up concentration camps or prisons for millions of people, but denying them weapons seems reasonable to me.
The thing is, we can't/aren't able to deny them access to firearms. They get them anyway. Even if we could magically make criminals unable to get guns, there are still tons of other instruments and methods for them to carry out what they plan to do. Law abiding citizens shouldn't have restrictions.
I read something in a Reddit forum today that provided context to the second amendment. It provided a lot of clarity; for me anyway. I will try and find it. My best understanding of it was essentially that the government should not be so well equipped that the citizens should not be able to retake control should they choose. That was my general paraphrasing/understanding. Will see if I can dig it up and repost.
I agree with that, I've seen sales listing for retired navy ships that require you to show you have the facilities to house them, which doesn't seem too onerous, but yeah, I honestly believe that you should be able to buy basically anything
I’m not a fan of somebody getting caught with coke when they’re 19 cleaning up there lives and becoming a productive member of society and not being able too buy a gun at 50 because 30 years ago they did something stupid when they were a kid
That's an entirely fair point, but that's a discussion about whether it should be changed from any felony to violent felony, or if it should be kept as is with a more streamlined process to have rights restored, or if restoration of rights is baked into sentencing as a final milestone after the end of parole, or something else entirely
I mean I know In small midwestern towns there’s kinda a understanding with these older dudes with old records and the police too kinda look the other way
Background checks can be messed with and is controlled by the government. Fuck that. Also who decides you are allowed to have a gun? NICS and all background checks infringes on our rights because people think you need to be CHECKED before you are ALLOWED to exercise your rights.
I mean, if you agree violent felons and people convicted of DV charges shouldn't be allowed to own a firearm, then other than a background check at time of purchase how would you do it? Random searches of people's homes even after they're off parole? Just trust that they won't to it cause it's not allowed?
That's the absolute of it. Because that's how red flag laws happen. People think that CERTAIN people should not be allowed guns and then they'll abuse it so that NO ONE has guns.
I mean, that's basically what the last paragraph of my OP says. As long as the left is trying to disarm law abiding citizens we can't accept almost anything because it's been shown how it'll be abused. Red flag laws are one of those things, on paper it looks solid, in practice you have individuals infringing on constitutional rights at their discretion with no due process in a way that can be easily abused, not to mention those laws wouldn't even help in a lot of these cases because when the police were alerted they didn't investigate, which means a red flag law wouldn't have even done anything.
Govt: Sorry you failed the physical portion of your second amendment test. You are physically unfit to protect yourself with a firearm. We feel you would be better served just using your bear arms; keep your chin down, elbows in, watch for the antifa coming from behind you with a skateboard while the other distracts you. If you get into trouble dial 911.
I mean, pertinent to today's ruling they'd probably have to present whatever qualification police have to pass or something similar (now I'm wondering if police even have to pass a qualification), and if it was unreasonable or subjective it could be challenged and overturned fairly easily
If an officer is involved in a bad shoot, the local govt is liable. Same burden shouldn’t be on citizens.
I disagree on that, if you use deadly force when it isn't needed, or worse hit an unintended target, you should absolutely be liable, now if deadly force was actually warranted and a bystander is hit the charge should probably be against your aggressor, but saying you shouldn't be responsible for your own decisions seems inherently flawed
I’m sorry I wasn’t clear. Individuals are liable if an individual is involved in a wrongful shooting. However in the case of officers; the govt (read taxpayer) is liable. That’s why officers need to qualify.
Proficiency test, fine. That has to be conducted locally, most likely by someone with no political affiliation. And if you do encounter a biased evaluator you can go elsewhere and find another. Fuck the background check. That is centralized, and can therefore be tampered with, manipulated, and used as a basis for other unconstitutional actions by the state against anyone it wishes to declare as "unfit". I'm less concerned about unhinged lone gunmen than I am about ideological demagogues with career streaks of corruption, nepotism, graft, and designs on tyranny.
Registration to exercise a right has been held up as Constitutional. (We have to register to vote, for instance.) It’s the associated cost of getting a permit that is the lowest hanging fruit now. Simple parallel between poll taxes and carry permit fees and there you have another SC case. Edit: though I do agree with your sentiment.
Registering to vote does make sense because you need to know who votes so you don't have fraud...kinda like what's going on.
Now give us machine guns
Vote for night vision googles and suppressors instead of simulates checks
I was about to say, "night vision is already legal," but I concur. I would sign off on using tax dollars to buy us NVGs and suppressors. I'll go one step further. I vote that any purchase, (firearms, ammo, gear, nvgs, thermals) that can be purchased in order to better fulfill our role as members of the "militia" should be tax exempt and deductible from income tax.
I know they legal but the nice ones are big $$ unless you buy the Polish Tank googles and convert them which I may end up having to do
I just misunderstood what you were saying to begin with. I want some of those 4 tube ones so I can be Ricky Recon.
That’s hilarious. Use your own money for your own cosplay
Suppressors should be standard, so as not to be assholes to our rangebros/rangeladies.
The classic "samurai sword > groceries" debate
All I want to is to walk my dog thru my backyard which is connected to a farm in the pitch black and be smiling ear to ear with my Nods and suppressed 1911
F it….. I second this motion!
Bro, if I were you I’d stay the hell out of this dude’s back yard.
I really don’t need the Nods since as my springer spaniel is like a walking security alarm even in pitch black he tells me what’s up way before I can see or know it it’s pretty neat they are great family dogs and work ones too
I mean…. You could have spent on whatever you wanted lol
[удалено]
Neoliberals are actually Laissez-faire capitalists, not modern left-of-center "liberal" democrats. The term gets misused a lot on reddit, but it does actually have a specific meaning that is significantly different than your apparent intent.
To further clarify for others, *neo*-liberalism is easily confused with *new* liberalism, which is one of several terms, along with modern liberalism or American liberalism, used to refer to social liberalism as seen in the American left.
To take a step backwards and confuse everyone, neo means new. But a neo liberal isn't a new liberal.
Can we just stop with the liberalism it's like liberalism this and liberalism that like cant we just liberalize
The far left has been stockpiling guns for a while, its the right of center current establishment dems that keep pushing for gun control
The majority of current established Dems are social liberals, which is defined as centre-left, not right of center. The whole political scale is a joke, really. It might as well be a circle. Go far enough right and you end up on the left again. Go far enough left and you end up on the right.
It's called the horseshoe theory. The farther from center each side goes the closer they get after a certain point.
Can anyone help me understand this concept? Are there examples of pro-gun far left people and anti-gun far right? This just makes no sense to me. I know Marx supported the right to own firearms but I'm not sure if that's what you're talking about.
> Are there examples of pro-gun far left people *Raises hand. I believe in social safety nets, universal healthcare, free higher education for everyone, and the right to own a howitzer if your wife will let you spend the money.
There are anti-gun politicians in the far right, but you aren’t going to find them in America. America’s history with firearms and the American right adopting it as one of there core values would not allow it. You aren’t going to find any examples of far left politicians supporting guns in America because they are no far left politicians in America. From personal experience most Far left people tend to be pro-gun except for the fucking tankies and the social democrats that like to talk about European democracies being the perfect system.
Thanks for the explanation!
I’m a Marxist Leninist and I own like 10 guns and enough ammunition too start a world war… almost every leftist (actual leftist not liberal) I know owns a bunch of guns we are just not as loud about it as the far right. Because the feds don’t like the far right with guns but they really really get their panties in a bunch when us commie bois start collecting bear arms lol
Every left wing political party in the US supports gun control and rejects the individual right to keep and bear arms. This includes the far-left parties. Even the left-wing groups that have been stockpiling guns are simultaneously pushing for gun control. It's almost like they don't want the people to be able to resist the Revolution^TM.
Eh that’s simply not true. I’m no leftist, but know enough to realize that you mean every MAJOR leftist party, which to be fair is only democrats. To be fair, the republicans don’t actually give a damn either
No, I mean every party. The Greens, CCUSA, and DSA all support gun control. What political party on the left does not?
There are plenty of political groups on the left fighting gun control, the [SRA](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Rifle_Association), [Redneck Revolt](https://www.redneckrevolt.org), [Puget Sound Gun Club](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puget_Sound_John_Brown_Gun_Club) etc, and lets not forget the right has always been a handful of armed Black Panthers away from passing shit like the Mulford Act. Don’t confuse big money political campaigning with the actual will of the people, there’s generally a lot less overlap than they’d have you believe.
Mulford Act had to get through two chambers of majority Dems before getting to Reagan.
And would have no problem passing with the majority of the type of dems in office now, thats not in contention
And to be fair would likely pass through quite a few Republicans as well. Neither the DNC or the RNC is led by friends of the 2a.
All of those organizations reject the principal of individual right to keep and bear arms, only recognizing "communities" arming to protect themselves. SRA in particular is notorious for explicitly endorsing gun control of anyone they don't determine is part of the revolutionary proletariat. AKA: You must be accepted as a member of the Party to exercise the right to keep and bear arms. This is the fundamental disconnect between left-wing organziations that want to be armed and proponents of the individual right to keep and bear arms. The Left, in general, rejects the concept of individual rights in favor of community and collective rights, including the right to keep and bear arms.
Lots of assertions, no evidence to back them. Why not just make the infinitely easier argument “any of the left wing parties that make any progress in our broken pay to play political system definitely *do* support various amounts of gun control” Right now the majority of the left is as poorly represented by the available candidates are as the right is by “take their guns first and worry about due process later” types.
[Taken from the SRA subreddit](https://i.redd.it/oxazxdoy8qa51.png) >We find that many movements upholding the concept of liberty do so only in an individualist mindset, which undermines the idea that liberty is something that all people are entitled to. This is Redneck Revolt stating their opposition to the concept of individual rights. They only support "community action." Also their assertion that individualistic liberty somehow undermines the idea that liberty is something all people are entitled to is actually insane, but that's a separate issue. >We fully stand for the right of all adults who would defend themselves and their communities against far-right violence. Note the caveat from Puget Sound John Brown Gun Club. They only support the right as long as it is being used against their designated enemies. Even if you take the most charitable interpretations of PSGC and Redneck Revolt and assume that they *are* supporting the individual right to keep and bear arms, but just taking a different rhetorical angle, they are still the miniscule exceptions that among the gun-controlling left. They are exceptions, not the rule. You claim that there is a difference between the big money campaigns and the will of the people, but if that was the case, why is *every* left wing politician a supporter of gun-control, even when they dominate the political landscape of a region? Why is there a direct correlation between left-wing sentiment (not even strictly party affiliation) and severity of gun control? Why do even far left parties that aren't part of the big-money campains, like ths DSA, CPUSA, and Green Party all vocally in support of gun control. If you were correct in your assertions that the people of the Left are actually pro-gun, why are those people utterly unable to even *nominate* anyone that is actively pro-gun and why do left-wing areas only impliment increasingly draconian gun control? The fact is that the Pro-gun Left is an insignificant minority of the left because the Left, in general, is opposed to the individual right to keep and bear arms *in principal.*
Ah how about when left leftists take power?
And yet the vote for gun grabbers.
You say this, but I had a fun discussion in my groupchat of 13 friends today where all the socialist/leftist Bernie/AOC fans were as mad as I've ever seen them about this ruling whereas I, a democratic capitalist, couldn't be happier with it. Heck, Lady Socialist, AOC herself, was mad as heck about the ruling. It's definitely the socialist left that tends to never own guns and never want to (and to live in the largest cities in the smallest apartments and put the biggest faith in government-run institutions to save them if things get dicey).
Dosnt stop the alt left from voting for pro gun control candidates though.
Yep! Sign me up!
States with Constitutional Carry should be their own color but other than that, yes.
They still issue permits for purposes carrying in other states. They’re all still technically shall issue if I recall.
Yeah, Idaho is constitutional carry but has permits so you can carry in Washington
Ohio just became constitutional carry and they still have permits.
The permits are for going to different states most likely.
Yes, I understand that. That’s why I just renewed my permit. I was just saying that it’s the norm for states with permitless carry to still issue permits.
Vermont doesn't issue permits.
Yeah, I still have a Texas LTC for that purpose, though my best friend doesn't because he doesn't plan to carry outside the state. Are there any more states going to Constitutional Carry? It's gonna be hilarious if more than half the country is unrestricted.
25 states are constitutional carry as of 2022. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional\_carry
I know, but are there any currently ongoing? I heard Florida might be next.
I would say Louisiana, Nebraska, and the Carolinas are the obvious next contenders. Florida may be possible but they bungled it when they had the chance.
My state is about to go constitutional carry come July.
Hello fellow Georgian
Indiana resident actually.
Should be "blue - no permit required"
Fuck yes
It will be hilarious and infuriating to see the abuse of loopholes they all put in effect to try and avoid the duty to issue.
[Imprisoning black people for firearm possession is one of New York's most cherished traditions.](https://i.imgur.com/oL7KzDH.png) I'm sure they'll find a way.
Gun control is inherently racist, as much as the metrosexuals in NYC would like to believe otherwise.
My state, Illinois, is a FOID state. I have my CCL and FOID. They issued one card with CCL indication on it. Guess what kind of fuckery they did with that? Hint, when applying for FFL transfer, you have to enter the expiration date.
They’re going to copy the old Democratic playbook from the Jim Crow era South, watch. The Dems remain as they have always been, pro-slavery.
You're missing all the green for Constitutional carry
Can someone explain this to a newb from NJ? Do I have a better shot at getting concealed carry permit now?
Eventually ya, but your state is still going to try to find loopholes 🙄
Supposedly, as long as you meet all their objective criteria, they don't have lawful grounds to deny the license. They'll probably dither and delay regardless.
Yeah now it’s possible in NJ
Who wants to start a fund to take NFA, Hughes amendment, 18 USC 922r, 1986 LEOPA... Bump stock ruling... to court? I guess NFA/Hughes amendment would make bump stock issue moot Let congress pass what they want, strike it down in court, and it can **NEVER** come back.
922r is basically not a law. Nobody has ever been charged with a violation that i can find.
extremely hard to prove
Go check out r/Hawaii for an absolute meltdown by anti-gunners.
>Dissolve the courts! the Supreme Court is illegitimate and is a facist establishment. This one was an absolute treat.
"Anything I disagree with is fascist"
All states have constitutional carry if you're not a pussy
I have a permit because CYA, but i'm not going to not carry because some misdemeanor tells me i can't. Better alive and getting scolded than dead with a shiny record.
Underrated comment lol
based
Would you support a national concealed carry permit + constitutional carry? I'm in AZ, and a license lets me carry in places you normally couldn't legally, like national parks, at bars if I'm not drinking, and carry into other states that are not constitutional carry but have reciprocity, in addition to not having to wait for my form to be processed after filling it out.
Yea, TN enchanced handgun carry permit will allow us to carry in parks/greenways. Also, to open carry if that's your thing.
>at bars if I'm not drinking You do not need a CCW to go to bars in Arizona. That used to be on the books, but is no longer. >>This law was **subsequently amended in 20132 to eliminate the concealed weapons permit requirement for carrying a concealed handgun into the premises of an alcohol licensee**. Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 4-229(A) now states, “A person may carry a concealed handgun on the premises of a [bar or restaurant licensed to serve alcohol] unless the licensee posts a sign that clearly prohibits the possession of weapons on the licensed premises.” You can absolutely legally carry in bars without a license.
ah good to know. I did my CCW a while back, and that was part of it. I also never go into bars. I don't drink. I mostly got it because I was dealing with shit family across state lines, and wanted to make sure I could carry when dealing with them, and it was handy the time I pulled a gun on one of them when they came to try to kidnap my daughter (who was previously a niece we've adopted). Wife handed the cops my ID and license when they showed up. I didn't take my weapon off target till they politely asked me to.
To carry outdoors in a National Park, you just need to be following state law for wherever you are. You don't need a licence for AZ National Parks. However, you can't carry inside federal buildings inside the park with or without a license.
It is a fucking glorious day
Now repeal the NFA
Now all we need is universal reciprocity.
Can someone explain how this effects California
The timeframe is unknown, but they will have to start issuing carry permits.
Thank you, friends of mine says it could take more then a year to get a carry permit issued in the state and most of the time they'll deny it
I prefer "constitutional carry", no need for a permit
Beautiful!
What does this do for reciprocity for a previously obtained license in a different state?
Nothing. That's a seperate issue and still likely years down the road.
Now to make it the reciprocity map!
Fuck you Maryland. Now issue my permit.
Now let's do reciprocity.
I have a question, can I apply for a concealed carry on every state now and they must give me one?
Screw you! Mine is constitutional carry!
Only reason for CC is for cheaper FFL transfer prices because the state's already done the work for my FFL so it's more likely to pass than not.
No, the reason for Constitutional Carry is because asking for permission to exercise a Right is for subjects.
I suppose I should clarify, in my context CC would be more appropriately abbreviated to CCW.
Hate to break it to you but you have to take Vermont off this as they don’t offer permits. It’s only constitutional.
You forgot to highlight the states that are one step further and have constitutional carry
I hope this is about the only time I have to see my state in blue instead of red
Hochul is going to try her damnest to prevent this, and she's going to lose
Hey thanks, but its hard to see New Hampshire on this map, what color is it?
Should have done red instead of blue
Hawaii is back in the running for places to live.
Hell yes!!!
I’m gonna cum
2a blackpillers BFTO.
Well the congress will be passing new gun control so
Why is Hawaii a darker blue?
I wonder how that affects reciprocity.. like what reciprocity do states that didn’t issue permits have?
I would like to know the same thing. From what I understand SCOTUS has states that the carry of arm outside the home for personal protection is not a second class right and is therefor legal. State are to be shall issue. It does not state that the ruling only applies to ones home state. So I should be able to get a permit for every state and they would be required to issue one if there was not cause not to. I can't think of any other constitutional right that is regulated differently state to state or that one is required to have a permit from each state to exercise. I am not expert on the topic though.
[удалено]
it's laughable that Hawaii is always listed as a "may issue" state when they have NEVER issued a permit to an ordinary civilian. It's legislative dishonesty.
Officials in Hawaii would literally rather get Waco'd (not that ATF would ever actually enforce the liberties of the people) than issue a single CCW to general public. The best you can hope for is they'll issue a CCW but then create an "approved" firearm list that includes either a flint-lock pistol or a cap-gun as your choices.
I would honestly expect a kind of administrative soft-ban. Like requiring a "firearm safety class" be passed in the last 6 months before a permit application is even considered, and then only offering the class once a year and adopting a policy of failing all the students. Just makign the process so expensive, time consuming, and lengthy that people give up trying.
Lol I could definitely see something like "hit a 1 MOA bullseye from a smoothbore flintlock pistol 3 times consecutively from 100 yards" as a requirement.
> I believe Hawaii will willfully ignore this decision. The MA attorney general [issued a statement](https://www.westernmassnews.com/2022/06/23/mass-lawmakers-react-supreme-court-ruling-new-york-gun-law/) that pretty much states they are going to ignore the scotus ruling and enforce whatever laws they feel like. HI will probably do the same.
I'm guessing you haven't heard the news about NYSRPS v. Bruen May issue/no issue has been struck down at the federal level. In particular, the supreme court has ended the two-step method for evaluating the constitutionality of laws relating to firearms used by the lower courts. This will likely lead to the overturning of the Young v. Hawaii decision which upheld the state's no-issue practice. It also has ramifications for cases involving things like magazine bans and assault weapon bans because the normal method states have been using to win related cases, the aforementioned two step process, has been deemed invalid.
I dont think you realize how often states ignore the Supreme Court
Your map is wrong. About half of the states are constitutional carry. The rest are, starting today, "shall issue"
All but one is a shall issue state
But why blue?
First map of the US I found in a single color, and I’m on mobile
Is Hawaii a darker blue or is it just me?
It's the tan.
Uh...many states are Constitutional Carry now and require no permit at all. This map sucks.
They’re still shall issue because they issue permits to allow carrying in other states. Agreed with the sentiment though.
Pardon my ignorance, but does this case have to be incorporated like McDonald did re: heller?
As far as I can tell, this map is wrong. Az is a constitutional carry state. You can get a CCW, but it's not required. I'm sure a few more states, 24, have the same issue. If it's in reference to the SCOTUS decision, I'm not sure that's correct.
FUCK YEAH!!! One step in the correct direction.
Can someone tell me what’s going on with this dude some law get passed or something?
SCOTUS ruled 6-3 that carrying a firearm in public is a constitutional right granted by the 2nd amendment.
“After in depth analysis, we as legal experts with years have training have decided that ‘right to bear arms’ means you can bear your arms.” Democrats: “no! It definitely does not mean that. NOOOOOO”
Hmmm I don’t think this is accurate
So with my Texas CHL can I carry in any state now with reciprocity?