RTC discussion from KS

[GarandFan]

From time to time, we have discussed the issue of a "license" to carry versus a true "right" to carry (without a permission slip). Thankfully, most of us are pragmatic enough to know that rights are regained step-wise rather than all at once. That will certainly be the case in Illinois, where the opposition, although weakened, is still strong.

 

 

This NRA guy in Kansas sums it up pretty well:

 

http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2010/aug/08/critics-target-concealed-carry-changes/?city_local

 

“Some folks would argue with us that the right to carry a firearm for personal protection is not a fundamental right, but we now have two Supreme Court cases that have affirmed it,” said Jordan Austin, the NRA lobbyist assigned to Kansas.

 

... After the Kansas Legislature last session agreed to loosen the restrictions on who could receive a license to carry a concealed firearm, questions have emerged on whether Kansas will be next to follow a recent Arizona law that makes it legal to carry concealed weapons without any permit.

 

“That is fundamentally what we believe, but it is not a political reality in some states,” Austin said of not needing a license to carry concealed. “But we’re doing what we can to move closer to that, and I think Kansas has taken a big step forward. Arizona sent a great message and I already have had legislators in Kansas say, are we next? Let’s start considering this.”

[Drylok]

There's another state where there was talk about constitution carry but I can't remember which it is. I want to say western state, like Montana maybe. It's a good point he makes there about regaining the right in steps. It seems to me in the grand scheme of things that when a right is taken away swiftly it can be restored swiftly but when it's taken away "in time and by slow operations" it must be restored in the same manner.

[GarandFan]

There's another state where there was talk about constitution carry but I can't remember which it is. I want to say western state, like Montana maybe.

 

Utah.

[Drylok]

Oh ya that's right. Don't you find it a little curious that a state like Utah which has some of the highest training requirements and the most $ is considering constitution carry, but states like IN and PA which have no training requirements and a mere 20 something $ are not considering it. Just all comes down to the legislative atmosphere in each state I suppose.

[Ashrak]

What is the base argument, simple and straight forward, for not seeking Constitutional Carry?

What is the on the scale against making the case for Constitutional Carry and what is on the scale for it? What supposedly outweighs seeking it openly?

 

What is there to lose?

 

Are folks honestly afraid to get sitting politicians on record with a vote AGAINST Constitutional Carry? Are folks afraid they might get torqued off at actually having to take a serious position that they will be held to account for?

 

What is the merit in saying that it has been done this way everywhere else so we must do it the same way - even though it was done the way it was prior to Heller and McDonald? These are game changers so why is the game from some the same as it ever was?

 

What is the reason to do this?:

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/20070322oliver.jpg

Why beg at the feet of masters when it is already declared in almost every way possible that We THE People already hold a right to carry?

[GarandFan]

Please, Askrak. Read the first post. The suggestion was that constitutional carry is not a political reality in many states. One of those states is Illinois.

 

Your post fails to catch the simple and straightforward gist of this thread.

[Ashrak]

Please, Askrak. Read the first post. The suggestion was that constitutional carry is not a political reality in many states. One of those states is Illinois.

 

Your post fails to catch the simple and straightforward gist of this thread.

Please garandfan, offer answers to the questions if you can.

 

Here, I will add one that one could easily infer from the questions I asked.

 

Why is Constitutional Carry not a political reality in many states, like Illinois?

 

Could it be that it is because folks who claim to be all about constitutional carry talk fellow supporters of it out of even seeking it?

 

Hopefully, you will offer an alternative answer.....

[GarandFan]

Why is Constitutional Carry not a political reality in many states, like Illinois?

 

Could it be that it is because folks who claim to be all about constitutional carry talk fellow supporters of it out of even seeking it?

 

Hopefully, you will offer an alternative answer.....

 

Sigh. No, and please don't be condescending.

 

It's because it will be hard enough to muster the votes to pass a meaningful shall-issue bill, complete with background checks, fingerprinting, fees, training, etc. and etc. Constitutional carry is a far higher hurdle. Far higher. Just how long have people been working to enact shall-issue?

 

Just because you can imagine it, and just because it's right, doesn't mean Illinois is going to enact it. Do you somehow think that Chicago shall magically disappear?

 

This is one of those "practical versus principle" arguments ... and I shall cease writing about it. Maybe you need someone who knows more about Illinois politics and the Chicago way to explain the reasons why. But consider this ... a man's got to know his limitations.

[Ashrak]

Why is Constitutional Carry not a political reality in many states, like Illinois?

 

Could it be that it is because folks who claim to be all about constitutional carry talk fellow supporters of it out of even seeking it?

 

Hopefully, you will offer an alternative answer.....

 

Sigh. No, and please don't be condescending.

 

It's because it will be hard enough to muster the votes to pass a meaningful shall-issue bill, complete with background checks, fingerprinting, fees, training, etc. and etc. Constitutional carry is a far higher hurdle. Far higher. Just how long have people been working to enact shall-issue?

 

Just because you can imagine it, and just because it's right, doesn't mean Illinois is going to enact it. Do you somehow think that Chicago shall magically disappear?

 

This is one of those "practical versus principle" arguments ... and I shall cease writing about it. Maybe you need someone who knows more about Illinois politics and the Chicago way to explain the reasons why. But consider this ... a man's got to know his limitations.

I returned what you sent to me GF. Your projection is amazing. Note the "sigh". Just because you say so doesn't make it true. You present your opinion as fact. Please point to a Constitutional Carry measure formally presented to the ILGA, in the post Heller/McDonald world that has met with epic failure. Oooops, you can't do that.

 

You speak of man knowing his limitations. Considered. How about man reminding government of its own limitations- like Constitutional ones.

 

Let me ask you this way:

How can you expect to gain something that you won't even seek because you convince yourself, and others, that it is impossible?

 

For decades people said it was impossible to even think Chicago's handgun restrictions to the point of being a ban would be removed. They were wrong. Many said it would have to take elections if there was ever even to be a thought of it, they were wrong too.

 

You present this notion that we must all bow before government and accept the scraps it throws our way. Well, that position may well curry favor in your neck of the woods but there is a movement going on all across this country proving merit in something else.

 

Example: Several "little people" got together and told truth, asked questions and refused to stand down in the face of MSM and elected official's dismissals. An attempted state level bailout of a politically connected bank was stopped dead in its tracks as a result. The same thing is happening this minute, as a result, on the federal level. ShoreBank is going to be dissolved my friend. Instead of being swept under the rug all hush hush like because people just sit back and wait for someone else to offer them scraps - all the while claiming that accomplishing anything is impossible. Well its not impossible.

 

"Oh, we can't do this or that because of Chicago."

 

**** too.

 

We can do this, in spite of Chicago if it must be that way. The way to see it through is to put it on the table with the open knowledge that rebuffing it, voting against it, will be common knowledge. In other words, tell all siting politicians to go ahead and vote against the RIGHT to CARRY. Go For It. See how that works out for you at town halls, after all, they have to campaign sometime.......

[Federal Farmer]

Why is Constitutional Carry not a political reality in many states, like Illinois?

 

Could it be that it is because folks who claim to be all about constitutional carry talk fellow supporters of it out of even seeking it?

 

Hopefully, you will offer an alternative answer.....

 

Sigh. No, and please don't be condescending.

 

It's because it will be hard enough to muster the votes to pass a meaningful shall-issue bill, complete with background checks, fingerprinting, fees, training, etc. and etc. Constitutional carry is a far higher hurdle. Far higher. Just how long have people been working to enact shall-issue?

 

Just because you can imagine it, and just because it's right, doesn't mean Illinois is going to enact it. Do you somehow think that Chicago shall magically disappear?

 

This is one of those "practical versus principle" arguments ... and I shall cease writing about it. Maybe you need someone who knows more about Illinois politics and the Chicago way to explain the reasons why. But consider this ... a man's got to know his limitations.

I returned what you sent to me GF. Your projection is amazing. Note the "sigh". Just because you say so doesn't make it true. You present your opinion as fact. Please point to a Constitutional Carry measure formally presented to the ILGA, in the post Heller/McDonald world that has met with epic failure. Oooops, you can't do that.

 

You speak of man knowing his limitations. Considered. How about man reminding government of its own limitations- like Constitutional ones.

 

Let me ask you this way:

How can you expect to gain something that you won't even seek because you convince yourself, and others, that it is impossible?

 

For decades people said it was impossible to even think Chicago's handgun restrictions to the point of being a ban would be removed. They were wrong. Many said it would have to take elections if there was ever even to be a thought of it, they were wrong too.

 

You present this notion that we must all bow before government and accept the scraps it throws our way. Well, that position may well curry favor in your neck of the woods but there is a movement going on all across this country proving merit in something else.

 

Example: Several "little people" got together and told truth, asked questions and refused to stand down in the face of MSM and elected official's dismissals. An attempted state level bailout of a politically connected bank was stopped dead in its tracks as a result. The same thing is happening this minute, as a result, on the federal level. ShoreBank is going to be dissolved my friend. Instead of being swept under the rug all hush hush like because people just sit back and wait for someone else to offer them scraps - all the while claiming that accomplishing anything is impossible. Well its not impossible.

 

"Oh, we can't do this or that because of Chicago."

 

**** too.

 

We can do this, in spite of Chicago if it must be that way. The way to see it through is to put it on the table with the open knowledge that rebuffing it, voting against it, will be common knowledge. In other words, tell all siting politicians to go ahead and vote against the RIGHT to CARRY. Go For It. See how that works out for you at town halls, after all, they have to campaign sometime.......

 

Draft a Constitutional Carry bill and find a state legislator to sponsor it. I imagine it would primarily consist of a lot of striking out more than actual new legislation, which would be a good thing to see.

[Ashrak]

Why is Constitutional Carry not a political reality in many states, like Illinois?

 

Could it be that it is because folks who claim to be all about constitutional carry talk fellow supporters of it out of even seeking it?

 

Hopefully, you will offer an alternative answer.....

 

Sigh. No, and please don't be condescending.

 

It's because it will be hard enough to muster the votes to pass a meaningful shall-issue bill, complete with background checks, fingerprinting, fees, training, etc. and etc. Constitutional carry is a far higher hurdle. Far higher. Just how long have people been working to enact shall-issue?

 

Just because you can imagine it, and just because it's right, doesn't mean Illinois is going to enact it. Do you somehow think that Chicago shall magically disappear?

 

This is one of those "practical versus principle" arguments ... and I shall cease writing about it. Maybe you need someone who knows more about Illinois politics and the Chicago way to explain the reasons why. But consider this ... a man's got to know his limitations.

I returned what you sent to me GF. Your projection is amazing. Note the "sigh". Just because you say so doesn't make it true. You present your opinion as fact. Please point to a Constitutional Carry measure formally presented to the ILGA, in the post Heller/McDonald world that has met with epic failure. Oooops, you can't do that.

 

You speak of man knowing his limitations. Considered. How about man reminding government of its own limitations- like Constitutional ones.

 

Let me ask you this way:

How can you expect to gain something that you won't even seek because you convince yourself, and others, that it is impossible?

 

For decades people said it was impossible to even think Chicago's handgun restrictions to the point of being a ban would be removed. They were wrong. Many said it would have to take elections if there was ever even to be a thought of it, they were wrong too.

 

You present this notion that we must all bow before government and accept the scraps it throws our way. Well, that position may well curry favor in your neck of the woods but there is a movement going on all across this country proving merit in something else.

 

Example: Several "little people" got together and told truth, asked questions and refused to stand down in the face of MSM and elected official's dismissals. An attempted state level bailout of a politically connected bank was stopped dead in its tracks as a result. The same thing is happening this minute, as a result, on the federal level. ShoreBank is going to be dissolved my friend. Instead of being swept under the rug all hush hush like because people just sit back and wait for someone else to offer them scraps - all the while claiming that accomplishing anything is impossible. Well its not impossible.

 

"Oh, we can't do this or that because of Chicago."

 

**** too.

 

We can do this, in spite of Chicago if it must be that way. The way to see it through is to put it on the table with the open knowledge that rebuffing it, voting against it, will be common knowledge. In other words, tell all siting politicians to go ahead and vote against the RIGHT to CARRY. Go For It. See how that works out for you at town halls, after all, they have to campaign sometime.......

 

Draft a Constitutional Carry bill and find a state legislator to sponsor it. I imagine it would primarily consist of a lot of striking out more than actual new legislation, which would be a good thing to see.

 

I hope such a challenge is not made in jest, for I am game to engage in that endeavor so long as you make it honorably and seriously.

[Federal Farmer]

Why is Constitutional Carry not a political reality in many states, like Illinois?

 

Could it be that it is because folks who claim to be all about constitutional carry talk fellow supporters of it out of even seeking it?

 

Hopefully, you will offer an alternative answer.....

 

Sigh. No, and please don't be condescending.

 

It's because it will be hard enough to muster the votes to pass a meaningful shall-issue bill, complete with background checks, fingerprinting, fees, training, etc. and etc. Constitutional carry is a far higher hurdle. Far higher. Just how long have people been working to enact shall-issue?

 

Just because you can imagine it, and just because it's right, doesn't mean Illinois is going to enact it. Do you somehow think that Chicago shall magically disappear?

 

This is one of those "practical versus principle" arguments ... and I shall cease writing about it. Maybe you need someone who knows more about Illinois politics and the Chicago way to explain the reasons why. But consider this ... a man's got to know his limitations.

I returned what you sent to me GF. Your projection is amazing. Note the "sigh". Just because you say so doesn't make it true. You present your opinion as fact. Please point to a Constitutional Carry measure formally presented to the ILGA, in the post Heller/McDonald world that has met with epic failure. Oooops, you can't do that.

 

You speak of man knowing his limitations. Considered. How about man reminding government of its own limitations- like Constitutional ones.

 

Let me ask you this way:

How can you expect to gain something that you won't even seek because you convince yourself, and others, that it is impossible?

 

For decades people said it was impossible to even think Chicago's handgun restrictions to the point of being a ban would be removed. They were wrong. Many said it would have to take elections if there was ever even to be a thought of it, they were wrong too.

 

You present this notion that we must all bow before government and accept the scraps it throws our way. Well, that position may well curry favor in your neck of the woods but there is a movement going on all across this country proving merit in something else.

 

Example: Several "little people" got together and told truth, asked questions and refused to stand down in the face of MSM and elected official's dismissals. An attempted state level bailout of a politically connected bank was stopped dead in its tracks as a result. The same thing is happening this minute, as a result, on the federal level. ShoreBank is going to be dissolved my friend. Instead of being swept under the rug all hush hush like because people just sit back and wait for someone else to offer them scraps - all the while claiming that accomplishing anything is impossible. Well its not impossible.

 

"Oh, we can't do this or that because of Chicago."

 

**** too.

 

We can do this, in spite of Chicago if it must be that way. The way to see it through is to put it on the table with the open knowledge that rebuffing it, voting against it, will be common knowledge. In other words, tell all siting politicians to go ahead and vote against the RIGHT to CARRY. Go For It. See how that works out for you at town halls, after all, they have to campaign sometime.......

 

Draft a Constitutional Carry bill and find a state legislator to sponsor it. I imagine it would primarily consist of a lot of striking out more than actual new legislation, which would be a good thing to see.

 

I hope such a challenge is not made in jest, for I am game to engage in that endeavor so long as you make it honorably and seriously.

 

I am serious. Such a bill would be great, in my opinion. However, I seriously doubt it has a chance in heck of passing with our current legislature. It could provide a nice foil for our other carry bills. Like good cop, bad cop.

 

I'd love to get our legislators on record voting for/against any carry bill, but they've dodged voting on even highly restrictive bills for probably a decade by locking them up in committee.

 

Probably the biggest step we could take is to wrest Senate Presidency from Cullerton. Second biggest would be electing Bill Brady as Governor. Third, wresting House control from Madigan. All of these require boots on the ground, as you know since you were one of the few that showed up to our meeting in Springfield. I haven't heard how the meeting up north went.

 

If we can't manifest any political power by seriously influencing even a State House election, we might as well just turn this site into a rant and rave forum and forget about accomplishing anything.

[Ashrak]

Why is Constitutional Carry not a political reality in many states, like Illinois?

 

Could it be that it is because folks who claim to be all about constitutional carry talk fellow supporters of it out of even seeking it?

 

Hopefully, you will offer an alternative answer.....

 

Sigh. No, and please don't be condescending.

 

It's because it will be hard enough to muster the votes to pass a meaningful shall-issue bill, complete with background checks, fingerprinting, fees, training, etc. and etc. Constitutional carry is a far higher hurdle. Far higher. Just how long have people been working to enact shall-issue?

 

Just because you can imagine it, and just because it's right, doesn't mean Illinois is going to enact it. Do you somehow think that Chicago shall magically disappear?

 

This is one of those "practical versus principle" arguments ... and I shall cease writing about it. Maybe you need someone who knows more about Illinois politics and the Chicago way to explain the reasons why. But consider this ... a man's got to know his limitations.

I returned what you sent to me GF. Your projection is amazing. Note the "sigh". Just because you say so doesn't make it true. You present your opinion as fact. Please point to a Constitutional Carry measure formally presented to the ILGA, in the post Heller/McDonald world that has met with epic failure. Oooops, you can't do that.

 

You speak of man knowing his limitations. Considered. How about man reminding government of its own limitations- like Constitutional ones.

 

Let me ask you this way:

How can you expect to gain something that you won't even seek because you convince yourself, and others, that it is impossible?

 

For decades people said it was impossible to even think Chicago's handgun restrictions to the point of being a ban would be removed. They were wrong. Many said it would have to take elections if there was ever even to be a thought of it, they were wrong too.

 

You present this notion that we must all bow before government and accept the scraps it throws our way. Well, that position may well curry favor in your neck of the woods but there is a movement going on all across this country proving merit in something else.

 

Example: Several "little people" got together and told truth, asked questions and refused to stand down in the face of MSM and elected official's dismissals. An attempted state level bailout of a politically connected bank was stopped dead in its tracks as a result. The same thing is happening this minute, as a result, on the federal level. ShoreBank is going to be dissolved my friend. Instead of being swept under the rug all hush hush like because people just sit back and wait for someone else to offer them scraps - all the while claiming that accomplishing anything is impossible. Well its not impossible.

 

"Oh, we can't do this or that because of Chicago."

 

**** too.

 

We can do this, in spite of Chicago if it must be that way. The way to see it through is to put it on the table with the open knowledge that rebuffing it, voting against it, will be common knowledge. In other words, tell all siting politicians to go ahead and vote against the RIGHT to CARRY. Go For It. See how that works out for you at town halls, after all, they have to campaign sometime.......

 

Draft a Constitutional Carry bill and find a state legislator to sponsor it. I imagine it would primarily consist of a lot of striking out more than actual new legislation, which would be a good thing to see.

 

I hope such a challenge is not made in jest, for I am game to engage in that endeavor so long as you make it honorably and seriously.

 

I am serious. Such a bill would be great, in my opinion. However, I seriously doubt it has a chance in heck of passing with our current legislature. It could provide a nice foil for our other carry bills. Like good cop, bad cop.

 

I'd love to get our legislators on record voting for/against any carry bill, but they've dodged voting on even highly restrictive bills for probably a decade by locking them up in committee.

 

Probably the biggest step we could take is to wrest Senate Presidency from Cullerton. Second biggest would be electing Bill Brady as Governor. Third, wresting House control from Madigan. All of these require boots on the ground, as you know since you were one of the few that showed up to our meeting in Springfield. I haven't heard how the meeting up north went.

 

If we can't manifest any political power by seriously influencing even a State House election, we might as well just turn this site into a rant and rave forum and forget about accomplishing anything.

I would add to your list the name of Lisa Madigan. The Office of AG matters too, especially in terms of influencing the potential actions of the ILGA as a whole in regards to this site's focus.

 

Boots on the ground, I agree totally. Though what those boots are doing is an open debate. Some seek to support specific candidates, I get that and the merit that goes along with it. Some look more to party, I get that also. Myself, I look at each candidate as a peer, one tasked with answering straightforward and direct questions of serious substance. In order to gain answers, they must be first be asked the questions. Heck sometimes, all too may times, when asked they still duck their responsibility to answer. I offer that we must see all angles engaged, as opposed to one or the other.

 

I hear what you are saying about locking up the door and throwing away the key if no progress can be made. Believe me, I feel that frustration also. But I will tell you this my friend, I find great value in a forum like this, because of my personal experience with them, aside from legislative or judicial progress. This one is one of the better ones. Overall, great discussion takes place here. A great deal of teaching and learning takes place here. I can say with confidence that I have been able to engage in both because of information sharing availability. I would offer that others can offer the same thing.

 

I have said before that I was inspired, called to action, by folks just like yourself. I meant that when I said it. That is true not only because of the actions you have taken, but also because of the interactions I have had with you right here on these pages. So on that note, obviously, a serious attempt is not made on a whim. This will take some dedicated thought and some time. I will get back to you on this subject soon.

 

Fair enough?

[Federal Farmer]

I have said before that I was inspired, called to action, by folks just like yourself. I meant that when I said it. That is true not only because of the actions you have taken, but also because of the interactions I have had with you right here on these pages. So on that note, obviously, a serious attempt is not made on a whim. This will take some dedicated thought and some time. I will get back to you on this subject soon.

 

Fair enough?

 

Yep.