Re: What does the club "think"...

27
Given the current status quo I'd say these positions are reasonable, but I do have one minor angst over conceal carry I'll share for what it's worth. My thoughts on this are complex but I'll try to be as concise as possible (which I will fail at since I'm the long-winded sort). The shortest way I could express my thought is: Concealed carry permits may not be all they are cracked up to be, and if you can trust someone to open carry in many situations, you can probably trust them to carry concealed in most situations.

In my view the right to keep and bear arms, especially for personal defense, should be considered a basic civil right, every bit as dear as voting or being able to express your own cultural, ethnic, or religious distinctiveness. There are a number of reasons conceal carry is wiser than open carry, including reduction of general public angst at seeing weapons all the time, and not presenting yourself as a potential target for persons who might want to cause harm. Ironically it is open carry that is more often the default form of carry even though one has to have better discipline and situational awareness to do so safely.

I've never known a prohibited possessor to carry openly, nor to refrain from carrying concealed for lack of a permit. I haven't seen any science to indicate that communities like Arizona, where concealed carry for non-prohibited possessors was largely decriminalized, have experienced any greater rate of issues than they had prior to decriminalization of concealed carry.

I'd encourage collecting statistics on this so there can be an actual evidence based judgement on this, but I suspect we may ultimately find that the real importance is in determining who should be prohibited possessors and enforcing that line vs. the fuss about conceal carry in general, though I certainly could see a reason for special permitting and test for sensitive areas (schools for example). I know that doesn't really help with the assurance of training, but open carry doesn't really tend to have that requirement that either. Honestly since firearms and associated rights are such a major part of our culture I find it odd we have high school classes on health and driving, but don't have a class on weapon safety and basic proficiency. I'd be very interested to see science done on the effectiveness on public safety of proper law and proficiency training for firearms similar to driver's ed at the High school level.

Just my opinion for what it's worth (since thoughts were requested).

Re: What does the club "think"...

28
Not a fan of 4 or 5, as those can easily be perverted into whatever it is that the current administration wants it to be from, completely zero requirements (not going to happen), to costly and impossible to reach requirements that will prevent most folks from the right to own and carry. (most probable.)

Then again, my opinion holds no value in this discussion.
HAHAHAHA
Yee received 287,590 votes.
http://blog.sfgate.com/nov05election/20 ... eland-yee/

Yee/Shrimpboy 2016!
Hip Hop To that.

Re: What does the club "think"...

31
gendoikari wrote:I like the idea of licensing and registration, i do not trust that it would be used for anything other than denying the rights of a majority of citizens. So therefore I support NO new gun laws until the likes of the Diane Feinsteins learn to STFU.
I don't support new laws even after that happy event. ;) Honestly, most of the 'laws' have just been amendments to the GCA '68 or FOPA '86. I'd be happy if GCA '68 were to be repealed but then again that will probably not happen.
In a bacon, egg and cheese sandwich the chicken and cow are involved while the pig is committed.

Re: What does the club "think"...

32
I say support all, knowing that we will have a long discussion on revising them later this year.

I would actually support the idea of a task force to bring recommendations to the board and then bring those ideas to the larger group to be hashed-out.

Folks who have opinions could send them to the task force and they could be added to the pot "stone soup" style.

I had very good results with this process when updating my central committtee bylaws.

Nothing we decide, today or next year, will ever be chisled in stone. When better ideas come along (with the emperical proof they work), we adopt them. That's what liberals do.
Image


"Person, woman, man, camera, TV."

Re: What does the club "think"...

33
gendoikari wrote:I like the idea of licensing and registration, i do not trust that it would be used for anything other than denying the rights of a majority of citizens. So therefore I support NO new gun laws until the likes of the Diane Feinsteins learn to STFU.
when those crooks learn that, we'll be double plus screwed.

because they won't change what they're doing, they'll just know to stfu about it.
HAHAHAHA
Yee received 287,590 votes.
http://blog.sfgate.com/nov05election/20 ... eland-yee/

Yee/Shrimpboy 2016!
Hip Hop To that.

Re: What does the club "think"...

34
I think all guns should be registered, that way, the government knows who has them, and if a crime is committed, they can track the culprit down. I also think that the waiting period should be a federally mandated 30 days, plus you should have to pass a safety test each time.

There is no hunting use for anything with more than 10 rounds, so people shouldn't be able to buy assault clips, and also, they should close the gun show loophole. There are far too many felons who buy their guns illegally on the internet, or at gun shows. If you want a gun, do what I did, and register it, get the background checks, and obey the laws. That is the only safe way to own guns
“Change will not come if we wait for some other person, or if we wait for some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek.” — Barack Obama
Proud Chevy Volt owner!

I Support LGBTQ rights!

Re: What does the club "think"...

36
Fukshot wrote:
ObamaLover4Life wrote: the government knows who has them, and if a crime is committed, they can track the culprit down
I'm pretty much not too stupid, but I can't for the life of me figure out how that's supposed to work.
It's simple, they use the bullets to tell what kind of gun it came from, then they check the registry. During registration and licensing, they would save a bullet they shot from each gun, so when a crime like murder is committed, they can check it and send the police to check the owners out
“Change will not come if we wait for some other person, or if we wait for some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek.” — Barack Obama
Proud Chevy Volt owner!

I Support LGBTQ rights!

Re: What does the club "think"...

37
I like these positions. It feels to me like the middle ground so many in the general population claim to be seeking.

That said, I'd suggest removing the "states' rights" language entirely. I share others' distaste for the reference, but I dislike it because of the implication that States have both rights AND powers (10th Amendment reserves "powers," not sure where states get "rights," perhaps someone can illuminate?) and that the rights of States, assuming they have them, must be respected alongside (or in favor of) the rights of individuals. The rights of the People ought to trump any rights the States may have (let's not un-win the Civil War), and the States' powers crucially do not include the power to deny enumerated rights to US citizens who happen to be within their borders at the moment.

I would replace "preserves states rights and doesn’t impose" with "avoids [or 'prevents'] the imposition of" in the explanatory text of position number 5.
Image

Re: What does the club "think"...

38
Etervigila wrote:I like these positions. It feels to me like the middle ground so many in the general population claim to be seeking.

That said, I'd suggest removing the "states' rights" language entirely. I share others' distaste for the reference, but I dislike it because of the implication that States have both rights AND powers (10th Amendment reserves "powers," not sure where states get "rights," perhaps someone can illuminate?) and that the rights of States, assuming they have them, must be respected alongside (or in favor of) the rights of individuals. The rights of the People ought to trump any rights the States may have (let's not un-win the Civil War), and the States' powers crucially do not include the power to deny enumerated rights to US citizens who happen to be within their borders at the moment.

I would replace "preserves states rights and doesn’t impose" with "avoids [or 'prevents'] the imposition of" in the explanatory text of position number 5.
Agreed all the way around. Definitely better than my suggestion.

Re: What does the club "think"...

40
ObamaLover4Life wrote:It's simple, they use the bullets to tell what kind of gun it came from, then they check the registry. During registration and licensing, they would save a bullet they shot from each gun, so when a crime like murder is committed, they can check it and send the police to check the owners out
Now that we know for certain it's even that much more funny. Funny trolls are the best trolls.

Re: What does the club "think"...

41
don1960lp wrote:
ObamaLover4Life wrote:It's simple, they use the bullets to tell what kind of gun it came from, then they check the registry. During registration and licensing, they would save a bullet they shot from each gun, so when a crime like murder is committed, they can check it and send the police to check the owners out
Now that we know for certain it's even that much more funny. Funny trolls are the best trolls.

Thing is I have seen posts almost identical to that on Gawker. They would go back and forth about RFID and fingerprint scanners for guns that they saw on TV... It's kinda scary. It's like they don't even realize all 300+ million firearms already out there aren't going to get retrofitted, added to the fact that firearms are chemically driven machinery, not Lasers.
some days, I just don't English

Re: What does the club "think"...

42
I like all the statements, and agree it is a good idea to leave politics to locals, at least for the time being, but I would suggest adding some version of some or all of the following:
- We support replacement of all "may issue" state CCW laws with "shall issue"
- We support the repeal of un-necessary, ineffective and cumbersome restrictions (ex: bans on sawed-off shotguns, requirements for repetitive safety testing or NICS checks on existing gun-owners, magazine capacity limits, "assault" weapons, etc)

Re: What does the club "think"...

43
I'm down, too. But, I do wish we could get behind CMP a little more with this project. CMP has nice, 'wholesome', non-alienating mission, are totally non-political, and are probably the best shooting sports advocate out there that nobody's ever heard of.
Hell is where:
The British are the chefs
The Swiss are the lovers
The French are the mechanics
The Italians make everything run on time
And the Germans are the police

Re: What does the club "think"...

44
jubjub wrote:Not a fan of 4 or 5, as those can easily be perverted into whatever it is that the current administration wants it to be from, completely zero requirements (not going to happen), to costly and impossible to reach requirements that will prevent most folks from the right to own and carry. (most probable.)

Then again, my opinion holds no value in this discussion.
4 is about demonstrating proficiency rather than mandating training, but I am with you. Both 4 and 5 would be abused. The problem with making allowances for government to impose additional regulations on legal carry is they will undoubtedly use those regulations to prevent legal carry whenever the political climate allows them to mete out punishment to legal gun owners.
sbɐɯ ʎʇıɔɐdɐɔ pɹɐpuɐʇs ɟo ןןnɟ ǝɟɐs
ɯɯ6 bdd ɹǝɥʇןɐʍ
13ʞ
"ǝuıqɹɐɔ 1ɐ4ɯ" dɯɐʇsןןoɹ --- ɯoɔos0269ǝן ʇןoɔ
"ǝuıqɹɐɔ ʇuǝɯǝɔɹoɟuǝ ʍɐן sʇןoɔ" dɯɐʇsןןoɹ --- 0269ǝן ʇןoɔ
(béɟ) 59-pɯɐ

Re: What does the club "think"...

45
Skeetcoach wrote:I like all the statements, and agree it is a good idea to leave politics to locals, at least for the time being, but I would suggest adding some version of some or all of the following:
- We support replacement of all "may issue" state CCW laws with "shall issue"
- We support the repeal of un-necessary, ineffective and cumbersome restrictions (ex: bans on sawed-off shotguns, requirements for repetitive safety testing or NICS checks on existing gun-owners, magazine capacity limits, "assault" weapons, etc)
We don't all agree on all of that. Going for what we can agree on.

Re: What does the club "think"...

46
DispositionMatrix wrote:
jubjub wrote:Not a fan of 4 or 5, as those can easily be perverted into whatever it is that the current administration wants it to be from, completely zero requirements (not going to happen), to costly and impossible to reach requirements that will prevent most folks from the right to own and carry. (most probable.)

Then again, my opinion holds no value in this discussion.
4 is about demonstrating proficiency rather than mandating training, but I am with you. Both 4 and 5 would be abused. The problem with making allowances for government to impose additional regulations on legal carry is they will undoubtedly use those regulations to prevent legal carry whenever the political climate allows them to mete out punishment to legal gun owners.
Agree with the idea that 4 and 5 as they're written currently are subject to abuse. The rest looks good.

Re: What does the club "think"...

49
Fukshot wrote:One of the great things about these statements not being laws is that they aren't subject to abuse. If someone claims that our positions support their bullshit, we just say they're bullshitting and that we don't support their game playing.

If we were writing laws, it would be a very different story.
Good call. Excuse my learning curve, I'm sure you understand that I'm not yet acquainted to open-endedness and these things being malleable coming from "agree or die" gun communities.

Re: What does the club "think"...

50
States rights mean different things to different people, there are those who would like to return state power back to pre civil war, inother words, drastic cuts to Federal power.

The problem is state and local governments didnt have a great track recordnon civil rights, there was the matter of Slavery which is a huge sore point with

We are never going back to 1859, but perhaps can bring the balance of power back tobstate and local governments in a way where we retain the power of the federal government to secure civil rights from state and local abuse.

Conversely maybe we can find a way to use our stae and local governments tonprotect the people from the federal government.

Nicki

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 3 guests