Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > National 2nd Amend. Political & Legal Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

National 2nd Amend. Political & Legal Discussion Discuss national gun rights and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 04-03-2019, 3:17 PM
-hanko's Avatar
-hanko -hanko is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Bay Area & SW Idaho
Posts: 11,140
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Thumbs up Think you've got freedom with normal capacity mags...

...how about Idaho Gov. Little OKs 18-year-olds carrying concealed guns in cities without permits.

Changes in Idaho's CWL laws

Legislation lowering from 21 to 18 the age limit for carrying a concealed handgun within city limits in Idaho without a permit or training has been signed into law by Republican Gov. Brad Little.
__________________
Tactical is like boobs...you can sell anything with it....arf

If I could live my life all over,
It wouldn't matter anyway,
'Cause I never could stay sober
On the Corpus Christi Bay. Robert Earl Keene

Heaven goes by favor.
If it went by merit, you would stay out and your dog would go in. Mark Twain
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 04-04-2019, 5:04 PM
LongLiveTheRepublic's Avatar
LongLiveTheRepublic LongLiveTheRepublic is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Posts: 248
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

*drools..
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 04-04-2019, 5:16 PM
Hairball's Avatar
Hairball Hairball is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: SoCal or Wyoming
Posts: 1,103
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Sorry, don't agree with that one. We have a hard time finding people under 25 that can even show up to work on time and have a shred of common sense. Give a CCW to what is basically a high school kid with no training is not a very bright decision. Before the "well you can be in the military and carry a weapon" crowd chimes in. There is a big difference between training an 18 year old how to handle a weapon and provide constant supervised instruction and oversight while that teenager has access to that weapon versus the average 18 year old that is carrying around town. JMHO
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 04-04-2019, 7:04 PM
jeremiah12 jeremiah12 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,654
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hairball View Post
Sorry, don't agree with that one. We have a hard time finding people under 25 that can even show up to work on time and have a shred of common sense. Give a CCW to what is basically a high school kid with no training is not a very bright decision. Before the "well you can be in the military and carry a weapon" crowd chimes in. There is a big difference between training an 18 year old how to handle a weapon and provide constant supervised instruction and oversight while that teenager has access to that weapon versus the average 18 year old that is carrying around town. JMHO
As a country we need to decide at what age is consider adulthood. That is the age that all rights, privileges, and responsibilities of adulthood start. The age of joining the military, the age of voting, drinking, gun rights, and all other rights.

One of the reasons the average 18 does not have common sense is because we as a society have made excuses and protected our teens for such a long time they have learned they do not need to grow up and take responsibilities for their actions. Let them suffer the natural consequences of their actions and behaviors.

If they screw up with their gun rights, they go to prison and lose the rights for life.

You sound like the typical anti. Some cannot handle the responsibility of gun ownership so we have to put in as many restrictions as possible to discourage people from owning guns, it is for their own protection. After all they will shoot their eye out.

Judge Benitez said it in his ruling, you do not restrict the rights of the many because a few abuse their rights. You restrict the rights of the few after they abuse the use of their rights, that is basis of our legal system. We do not infringe on individual rights just because someone might use that right for harm or evil. Individuals have their rights up to the point they use their rights to do evil. That is why liberty is dangerous.
__________________
Anyone can look around and see the damage to the state and country inflicted by bad politicians.

A vote is clearly much more dangerous than a gun.

Why advocate restrictions on one right (voting) without comparable restrictions on another (self defense) (or, why not say 'Be a U.S. citizen' as the requirement for CCW)?

--Librarian
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 04-04-2019, 7:26 PM
JeffC's Avatar
JeffC JeffC is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 322
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hairball View Post
Sorry, don't agree with that one. We have a hard time finding people under 25 that can even show up to work on time and have a shred of common sense. Give a CCW to what is basically a high school kid with no training is not a very bright decision. Before the "well you can be in the military and carry a weapon" crowd chimes in. There is a big difference between training an 18 year old how to handle a weapon and provide constant supervised instruction and oversight while that teenager has access to that weapon versus the average 18 year old that is carrying around town. JMHO
Some how they are able to secure and defend you inalienable rights on a daily basis.
Let me be clear, you are entitle to zero rights you are willing to deny others.
__________________
I want gay married couples to be able to protect their marijuana plants with guns
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 04-04-2019, 8:18 PM
Hairball's Avatar
Hairball Hairball is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: SoCal or Wyoming
Posts: 1,103
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

I did not say anything about denying anyone their rights, I said I don't agree with lowering the age of carrying a concealed handgun from 21 down to 18 with no training to go along with that decision. They can't even go into an FFL and purchase their own handgun until they are 21 so why let them carry concealed at 18 with no training?
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 04-05-2019, 4:24 AM
jeremiah12 jeremiah12 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,654
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hairball View Post
I did not say anything about denying anyone their rights, I said I don't agree with lowering the age of carrying a concealed handgun from 21 down to 18 with no training to go along with that decision. They can't even go into an FFL and purchase their own handgun until they are 21 so why let them carry concealed at 18 with no training?
That is a federal restriction. In most free states, they can still buy a handgun from a private party without a background check, legally. In the other states, parents and grandparents can legally gift them their handguns. That is how my son got his.
__________________
Anyone can look around and see the damage to the state and country inflicted by bad politicians.

A vote is clearly much more dangerous than a gun.

Why advocate restrictions on one right (voting) without comparable restrictions on another (self defense) (or, why not say 'Be a U.S. citizen' as the requirement for CCW)?

--Librarian
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 04-05-2019, 7:19 AM
Hairball's Avatar
Hairball Hairball is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: SoCal or Wyoming
Posts: 1,103
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Thats why I specifically said “they can’t go into an FFL and purchase their own handgun” as I know they can get one through PPT and family. 18 y/o can’t legally drink, smoke, or even rent a car until they are 21 in Idaho either but I’m sure the age limit does nothing to stop it from occurring. That still does not negate the issue of reducing the age limit with no type of training just because they were gifted a handgun or purchased one off some guy in the Piggly Wiggley parking lot. I don’t have an issue with the age limit alone, I just feel that age should be required to at least receive basic instruction on firearms handling and be made aware of the responsibility and liability that goes along with CCW.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 04-05-2019, 11:36 AM
rplaw rplaw is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 558
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

You're argument is that an 18 y/o adult isn't responsible without some kind of training which allows him to exercise his Rights but a 21 y/o is?

Since when is 'training" required for any of the other Constitutional Rights? You're either an adult, or you're not. Once an adult, you're conferred ALL your Rights, not just some of them, or some which come with "restrictions" before you can use them fully yourself.

As for the responsibility argument, I've seen 50 y/o's who aren't responsible enough to trust with anything yet they are adults will the full panopoly of Rights. Age as a requirement to exercise your Rights is irrelevant. Once one reaches adulthood, one is an adult.

You don't have to like it, but that's a fact of life.
__________________
Some random thoughts:

Evil doesn't only come in black.

Life is like a discount bakery. Usually everything is just what you ordered. But, occasionally you come face to face with an unexpected fruitcake. Surprise!

There is no "I" in Team; no "Me" in sports; no "You" in life. However, there's a ton of "Wheeeeee!" on roller coasters.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 04-05-2019, 2:40 PM
-hanko's Avatar
-hanko -hanko is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Bay Area & SW Idaho
Posts: 11,140
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default rplaw, thanks for a massive does of sanity, not to mention logic...

Quote:
Originally Posted by rplaw View Post
You're argument is that an 18 y/o adult isn't responsible without some kind of training which allows him to exercise his Rights but a 21 y/o is?

Since when is 'training" required for any of the other Constitutional Rights? You're either an adult, or you're not. Once an adult, you're conferred ALL your Rights, not just some of them, or some which come with "restrictions" before you can use them fully yourself.

As for the responsibility argument, I've seen 50 y/o's who aren't responsible enough to trust with anything yet they are adults will the full panopoly of Rights. Age as a requirement to exercise your Rights is irrelevant. Once one reaches adulthood, one is an adult.

You don't have to like it, but that's a fact of life.
As a state, Idaho has never required training for Constitutional Carry nor a basic CWL. It does required training for the enhanced CWL.

That said, the "training" involves 6-8 hours of book learning from the NRA's family home defense book, and a few hours learning about when you can shoot or not shoot, and most important, what you do and do not do after a shoot.

There is a shooting requirement of ~100 rounds at steel plates. Gun handling and Cooper's 4 rules are explained at that time, but there's no testing involved.

Again, the enhanced CWL is optional in a constitutional carry state.
__________________
Tactical is like boobs...you can sell anything with it....arf

If I could live my life all over,
It wouldn't matter anyway,
'Cause I never could stay sober
On the Corpus Christi Bay. Robert Earl Keene

Heaven goes by favor.
If it went by merit, you would stay out and your dog would go in. Mark Twain
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 04-05-2019, 3:01 PM
Hairball's Avatar
Hairball Hairball is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: SoCal or Wyoming
Posts: 1,103
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

No, my argument is that it has always been 21 and that is the national accepted standard as the age of majority when it comes to making conscious decisions and being fully responsible for your own actions in matters that may directly affect you or someone else's life. That's why you are required to be 21 before you can purchase a handgun from an FFL. It's no coincidence that you must be 21 to be employed as an LEO at the time of graduation/swearing in for the sole purpose of carrying a handgun, even in Idaho, as that is the accepted federal standard for all states. The law was changed to give those living in rural areas that already carry the ability to carry within the city limits without being in violation of the law. It was not done under the argument of 2A rights or to justify some "you're 18 and an adult so now you have rights". It was done to keep some from having legal issues while within city limits.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 04-05-2019, 6:55 PM
jeremiah12 jeremiah12 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,654
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

It has not always been the national accepted standard that the age of majority has been 21. That standard came from British Common Law when in Britain, the child's father owned all the labor their children produced and their children, up to the age of 21 had to get their father's permission to do anything of significance with their lives.

That is how it was imported to the Colonies and the voting age was established at 21. The states were free to set their own age of majority. It became murky after that. Many states set the age of majority for males at 21 and females at 18. But males were eligible for military service at 16 and sometimes at 14.

States had different minimum ages for marriage that ranged from as low as 13 for males and as low as 9 for females. Most states did not set a minimum age for minors to enter into contracts so minors could sign legally binding contracts at any age and taken to court if they did not follow through on the contract.

The criminal court system did not recognize minors so if a minor committed a crime, they were tried the same as an adult and given adult sentences.

Through our history, there has been a push to lower the age of majority to 18 and states have passed laws since 1900 to do just that. The argument has been as more people graduate high school, the average 18 year old is better able to handle adult life and does not need to be protect from the adult world.

This is why most states set the drinking age at 18 originally. When I turned 18 I had my first legal beer that I bought in ID. I could not have it in CA because they had raised the drinking age. I was visiting relatives in ID and bought a 6-pack because I could. I shared a cold one with my step-father to celebrate.

In Idaho the legal age to smoke is still 18. It recently was raised to 21 in CA because the far left liberals that want to control our lives got the age change passed. Yes, smoking is bad for our health. It still should be an individual choice and not something dictated by government. Use an education campaign to teach why smoking is bad and let people make up their own minds. 18 yo that want to smoke will still get their cigarettes. In reality, in CA the legal age to buy is 21, 18 year olds can still smoke. Why do you think there are so many Indian smoke shops on the border of NV and CA? Those parking lots are packed with cars and trucks from CA being loaded with boxes and crates of cigarettes to come back to CA without having to pay the high CA cigarette tax. 18 to 20 year olds are also making the trip to buy their legal smokes. They can buy so much they can sell to their friends back home to cover their gas for the trip and make a little extra money on the side.

Before 1968, there was no minimum legal age to buy any gun. Even teenagers could walk into a store and buy a gun. There was no such thing as a FFL.

That accepted Federal standard is not really an accepted standard but a law forced on all of us whether or not we agree with it and it definitely is an infringement on a right that no other enumerated has. We allow all 18 year olds to fully utilize every enumerate Constitutional Right except the 2A. They are adults under the law for every purpose and at the age of majority in ever state of the Union (except Alabama which has a legal age of majority of 19) but we restrict their privilege to legally drink because of their low maturity level and infringe on their 2A rights when it comes to handguns for the same reasons unless they join the military are commit to die for their country. In that case they become part of the elite and are trusted with handguns and all sorts of other dangerous and cool toys.

Even worse, if a minor commits a terrible crime, we take away their status as a minor so they can be tried as an adult and given adult consequences even though their brains are not capable of self-regulation and self-control like that of an adult.

If we were to follow real medical and psychological studies, humans do not reach full adulthood until the age of 30, so why do we not just make the age of majority 30 and require parents to be responsible for their children until they are 30.

Better yet, if 21 is the accepted standard, then raise the voting age to 21, the legal age for signing a contract to 21, make parents completely responsible for their children until they turn 21 and the age for criminal liability 21.

We as a society need to pick one age and stick to it, not have different ages for different things.

Your reasoning also prevents the same adults from exercising their right to self-defense which can be argued causes a much greater harm.

Again, Liberty is dangerous. People can use it for good or for bad. 20 year olds are not that much different that 21 year olds. 21 year olds are not all that much safer with a gun to make that the magic age and not 20 or 22.

Personally, I believe we have the best solution to teach gun safety in our country. It is called the public school system. Public schools were originally intended to teach all students how to be US citizens, what being an American means, provide a basic education, and provide important life skills. Gun safety is an important life skill. We teach driver's Ed. and health. The feds can mandate basic gun safety by also providing money for the classes. In order to receive federal funding the schools would have to provide the classes. It would also promote marksmanship for military readiness.

We keep losing gun rights because people say we need a law to restrict certain people from owning certain laws. The one you are talking about was the GCA for 1968 that prohibited those under the age of 21, for the first time in the history of this country, from buying handguns. It also established the system of FFLs and prohibited the sales of guns outside the state of residents without first going through a FFL in the buyers home state. This set the stage for the anti-gun states to pass and enforce a host of anti-gun laws because their residents could not legally go out of state to buy their guns and bring them back.

For the first time guns were treated differently than any other item that can be bought or sold. There are many items that are illegal to buy in CA but I can go out of state, buy them, and return to CA with them. Many I can even use in the state as possession and use are not prohibited, just buying is prohibited.
__________________
Anyone can look around and see the damage to the state and country inflicted by bad politicians.

A vote is clearly much more dangerous than a gun.

Why advocate restrictions on one right (voting) without comparable restrictions on another (self defense) (or, why not say 'Be a U.S. citizen' as the requirement for CCW)?

--Librarian
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 04-05-2019, 7:20 PM
-hanko's Avatar
-hanko -hanko is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Bay Area & SW Idaho
Posts: 11,140
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Very nice response.

A cousin from Oregon drove down for the day to pick up a wood stove at Home Depot in Nampa, ID. Why? The stove could not be sold in Oregon.

We visit friends and family in CA 4-5 times a year. I've brought in many gallons of paint, hardwood floor finishes, and solvents that are no longer available in CA.
__________________
Tactical is like boobs...you can sell anything with it....arf

If I could live my life all over,
It wouldn't matter anyway,
'Cause I never could stay sober
On the Corpus Christi Bay. Robert Earl Keene

Heaven goes by favor.
If it went by merit, you would stay out and your dog would go in. Mark Twain
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 04-10-2019, 8:35 PM
MrFancyPants's Avatar
MrFancyPants MrFancyPants is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Salt Lake City
Posts: 438
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by -hanko View Post
That said, the "training" involves 6-8 hours of book learning from the NRA's family home defense book, and a few hours learning about when you can shoot or not shoot, and most important, what you do and do not do after a shoot.



There is a shooting requirement of ~100 rounds at steel plates. Gun handling and Cooper's 4 rules are explained at that time, but there's no testing involved.
Good grief, seems like a lot for a permit. Here in Utah you take a single 4 hour class for life (no shooting required), send your app to BCI and a few weeks later you have your permit (as long as no criminal history), no restrictions except federal, no multiple levels of CFP. What does the "enhanced" permit get you?

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 04-11-2019, 7:00 AM
-hanko's Avatar
-hanko -hanko is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Bay Area & SW Idaho
Posts: 11,140
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrFancyPants View Post
Good grief, seems like a lot for a permit. Here in Utah you take a single 4 hour class for life (no shooting required), send your app to BCI and a few weeks later you have your permit (as long as no criminal history), no restrictions except federal, no multiple levels of CFP. What does the "enhanced" permit get you?
Remember that Idaho is basically Constitutional Carry...so, why get the enhanced CWL?...

You get reciprocity with ~ 40 states. OR is not one of the 40 states...I need to get my butt to John Day, OR and get a non-resident CWL.

You can carry in areas not covered by CC...e.g., U of I

If you're receiving a weapon from an FFL, no NICS check. Dealer simply notes your CWL info and you walk out in about 5 minutes.

If pulled over by LE, a CWL lets LE know you've been background checked to get the CWL.

No downside I can see so far.
__________________
Tactical is like boobs...you can sell anything with it....arf

If I could live my life all over,
It wouldn't matter anyway,
'Cause I never could stay sober
On the Corpus Christi Bay. Robert Earl Keene

Heaven goes by favor.
If it went by merit, you would stay out and your dog would go in. Mark Twain
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 04-11-2019, 7:26 AM
MrFancyPants's Avatar
MrFancyPants MrFancyPants is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Salt Lake City
Posts: 438
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by -hanko View Post
Remember that Idaho is basically Constitutional Carry...so, why get the enhanced CWL?...



You get reciprocity with ~ 40 states. OR is not one of the 40 states...I need to get my butt to John Day, OR and get a non-resident CWL.



You can carry in areas not covered by CC...e.g., U of I



If you're receiving a weapon from an FFL, no NICS check. Dealer simply notes your CWL info and you walk out in about 5 minutes.



If pulled over by LE, a CWL lets LE know you've been background checked to get the CWL.



No downside I can see so far.
OK, so it's pretty much the same as getting a permit here, it's just not called an enhanced permit. We get all the same perks with our permit. I was confused and thought there were 2 levels of permit you could apply for in ID, "standard" as it were and "enhanced". So it's just constitutional carry or an enhanced permit.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 04-11-2019, 8:41 AM
Whites of Their Eyes's Avatar
Whites of Their Eyes Whites of Their Eyes is offline
Vendor/Retailer
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: Salida, CA
Posts: 291
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hairball View Post
Sorry, don't agree with that one. We have a hard time finding people under 25 that can even show up to work on time and have a shred of common sense. Give a CCW to what is basically a high school kid with no training is not a very bright decision. Before the "well you can be in the military and carry a weapon" crowd chimes in. There is a big difference between training an 18 year old how to handle a weapon and provide constant supervised instruction and oversight while that teenager has access to that weapon versus the average 18 year old that is carrying around town. JMHO
And this, my friends, is why people in other states hate Californians...
__________________


Utah CCW
Handgun 101
NRA Basic Pistol
Private Instruction

Classes are held statewide

www.whitesofeyes.com
(209) 330-3900
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 04-11-2019, 9:20 AM
mshill's Avatar
mshill mshill is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 3,152
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whites of Their Eyes View Post
And this, my friends, is why people in other states hate Californians...
Dilly, dilly
__________________
Quote:
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 04-11-2019, 11:43 AM
I take shots I take shots is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 121
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hairball View Post
No, my argument is that it has always been 21 and that is the national accepted standard as the age of majority when it comes to making conscious decisions and being fully responsible for your own actions in matters that may directly affect you or someone else's life. That's why you are required to be 21 before you can purchase a handgun from an FFL. It's no coincidence that you must be 21 to be employed as an LEO at the time of graduation/swearing in for the sole purpose of carrying a handgun, even in Idaho, as that is the accepted federal standard for all states. The law was changed to give those living in rural areas that already carry the ability to carry within the city limits without being in violation of the law. It was not done under the argument of 2A rights or to justify some "you're 18 and an adult so now you have rights". It was done to keep some from having legal issues while within city limits.
At 18 you can get married, buy a house, a car, vote, basically do just about anything besides drink and buy a handgun. My parents were married and living on their own at 18. They didn't have any parents involved in any part of their life at that time. I moved out at 18 and made my own decisions.

As was mentioned earlier, the longer we treat people like children, the longer it will take for them to act like adults. Keep this up and kids won't be considered (or acting like) adults till 30. Of course mine will be fully functioning adults at 18 or sooner because that's how they will be expected to act. We've got people in their 30s that can't file their own taxes and still get bills payed by their parents. Unless you have an actual disability, that's pathetic.

I've known many people who lived with their parents going to school till 30 and are far less capable and mature than those that maybe finished high school and moved out in their late teens.

Edit: Moral of the story - Yeah we should let them carry guns.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 04-11-2019, 11:48 AM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 14,344
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hairball View Post
They can't even go into an FFL and purchase their own handgun until they are 21 so why let them carry concealed at 18 with no training?
Because those who run up murder statistics already get their guns illegally, already carry without a permit and have no training.

The "blood in the streets" argument fails if there is no blood in the streets. Are you suggesting there will be blood in the streets?
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 04-11-2019, 11:51 AM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 14,344
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by -hanko View Post
No downside I can see so far.
The downside is that a journalist with FOIA request can get the database and then publish it. They have done it in NY.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 04-11-2019, 2:07 PM
-hanko's Avatar
-hanko -hanko is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Bay Area & SW Idaho
Posts: 11,140
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrFancyPants View Post
OK, so it's pretty much the same as getting a permit here, it's just not called an enhanced permit. We get all the same perks with our permit. I was confused and thought there were 2 levels of permit you could apply for in ID, "standard" as it were and "enhanced". So it's just constitutional carry or an enhanced permit.
Non-enhanced CWL's continue to be available...
__________________
Tactical is like boobs...you can sell anything with it....arf

If I could live my life all over,
It wouldn't matter anyway,
'Cause I never could stay sober
On the Corpus Christi Bay. Robert Earl Keene

Heaven goes by favor.
If it went by merit, you would stay out and your dog would go in. Mark Twain
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 04-13-2019, 1:51 PM
17+1's Avatar
17+1 17+1 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,394
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hairball View Post
Sorry, don't agree with that one. We have a hard time finding people under 25 that can even show up to work on time and have a shred of common sense. Give a CCW to what is basically a high school kid with no training is not a very bright decision. Before the "well you can be in the military and carry a weapon" crowd chimes in. There is a big difference between training an 18 year old how to handle a weapon and provide constant supervised instruction and oversight while that teenager has access to that weapon versus the average 18 year old that is carrying around town. JMHO
I worked and paid my way through college, this was back when CSUís were affordable and studio apartments in San Jose were $650 a month. I had to wait until I was 21 to buy my first handgun despite living in an apartment on the crappy side of downtown SJ where I witnessed multiple what I can only assume weíre gang related shootings.

I was going to join the military and let them pay for it college, but I have asthma and had a couple prior injuries in my teenage years that they deemed as severe enough to disqualify me from service.

I donít see how your blanket statement about people not being adult enough to carry a pistol applies to me. If it doesnít apply to me I can see it not applying to many other people as well. Just because you have experience with crappy young people doesnít mean they are all like that. Rights are not supposed to be removed for the silly actions of a few. The government has to prove you did something severe enough to warrant removal of your rights.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 04-13-2019, 3:07 PM
LongLiveTheRepublic's Avatar
LongLiveTheRepublic LongLiveTheRepublic is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Posts: 248
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 17+1 View Post
I worked and paid my way through college, this was back when CSUís were affordable and studio apartments in San Jose were $650 a month. I had to wait until I was 21 to buy my first handgun despite living in an apartment on the crappy side of downtown SJ where I witnessed multiple what I can only assume weíre gang related shootings.



I was going to join the military and let them pay for it college, but I have asthma and had a couple prior injuries in my teenage years that they deemed as severe enough to disqualify me from service.



I donít see how your blanket statement about people not being adult enough to carry a pistol applies to me. If it doesnít apply to me I can see it not applying to many other people as well. Just because you have experience with crappy young people doesnít mean they are all like that. Rights are not supposed to be removed for the silly actions of a few. The government has to prove you did something severe enough to warrant removal of your rights.
See red flag laws. All they gotta do is have someone say you're a bad man and bye-bye rights. No due process.

Last edited by LongLiveTheRepublic; 04-13-2019 at 7:44 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 04-13-2019, 3:42 PM
17+1's Avatar
17+1 17+1 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,394
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LongLiveTheRepublic View Post
See red flag laws. All they gotta do is have someone say you're a bad man and bye-bye rights. No due to process.
Yes, I saw the Chris Cox from the NRA-ILA advocating these laws. Thatís why I refuse to give the jokers at the NRA a cent.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 04-15-2019, 7:54 PM
elk hunter's Avatar
elk hunter elk hunter is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Idaho
Posts: 1,371
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hairball View Post
Sorry, don't agree with that one. We have a hard time finding people under 25 that can even show up to work on time and have a shred of common sense. Give a CCW to what is basically a high school kid with no training is not a very bright decision. Before the "well you can be in the military and carry a weapon" crowd chimes in. There is a big difference between training an 18 year old how to handle a weapon and provide constant supervised instruction and oversight while that teenager has access to that weapon versus the average 18 year old that is carrying around town. JMHO
Your not under constant supervision in the military while armed.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 04-16-2019, 12:42 PM
divert_fuse's Avatar
divert_fuse divert_fuse is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: SF, CA
Posts: 190
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elk hunter View Post
Your not under constant supervision in the military while armed.
I've never been in the military, but I assumed that you were supervised during training. Like, during boot camp they don't send you off somewhere on your own with a rifle, at least until fairly late in the process. I wasn't sure you even got issued a rifle, as opposed to just using one at various places, for most of it.

In any case, regarding Hairball's objection, I understand emotionally. I feel like it would be good if, in order to carry a gun, you have to be able to define all the words in "Immediate, otherwise-unavoidable risk of death or grave bodily harm to the innocent." It would be good if all carriers knew this. But having admitted the principle that we can require this knowledge at all, what stops us from requiring an understanding so deep that you need a law degree to carry a gun?

Similarly, I live in SF, and given how densely-populated the town is, I feel like it would be good if anybody who wanted to carry a gun had to be a reasonably good shot. In SF, more than anywhere else, I'm the backstop if you miss the bad guy. But knowing SF legislators, they'd immediately set it up so only Rob Leatham could carry here. You could try to set up some kind of meta-restriction; my favorite is "You may not mandate a minimum standard of accuracy higher than that of the poorest marksman on the police force." But this would immediately become the subject of additional chicanery.

It would be cool if we could trust our government to implement only sensible requirements on our freedom to denounce their running of the government or carry guns or not let soldiers sleep on our couch. Unfortunately, we live in California, so we know we personally can't. Thus the Founding Fathers, with characteristic prescience, foresaw California and banned it in the Bill of Rights. "The enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table." SCOTUS has been slow to recognize this fully, but they're not really supposed to be fast in the first place.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 04-16-2019, 1:05 PM
bombadillo bombadillo is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Free 'Murica!!!!!!!
Posts: 14,361
iTrader: 80 / 100%
Default

All I can say is man I freaking love it up here. I wouldn't trade Idaho for the world!!!
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 04-16-2019, 1:22 PM
DrjonesUSA's Avatar
DrjonesUSA DrjonesUSA is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 3,080
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by -hanko View Post
...how about Idaho Gov. Little OKs 18-year-olds carrying concealed guns in cities without permits.

Changes in Idaho's CWL laws

Legislation lowering from 21 to 18 the age limit for carrying a concealed handgun within city limits in Idaho without a permit or training has been signed into law by Republican Gov. Brad Little.

What's so ironic is there are morons running around out there shrieking and foaming at the mouth enraged about 18 year olds (legal adults) being able to carry a gun, while simultaneously marching in the streets for the "right" of 16 year olds to vote and have unfettered abortions on demand, w/o notifying parents.

Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 8:34 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2018, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
Calguns.net and The Calguns Foundation have no affiliation and are in no way related to each other.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.