Sooo...NOT happpy. Utah permit no longer valid in Nevada??

[rpyne]

imported post

Pace wrote:

Playing devils advocate here: having a weapon and carrying it may allowed but concealing it might not be under the 2nd. Ie, you can carry one, but there are restrictions on how?

To which I say: What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?

 

[Pace]

imported post

Well, common law and the supreme court have determined that the rights can not be infringed, but can be regulated for safety.

IE, you can have free speech, but you can't yell fire in a movie theater.

You are allowed to have freedom of religion, but not if it affects someone else (we'd all love to have 10 virgin slaves, no?)

Owning a gun might be legal, but how about regulating what types of guns are allowed to be manufactured?

I think its important to understand both sides. Personally, from a political and moral point of view, I think that gun ownership should be legal at 18 or 21 for all citizens in general, and taught in schools, and so on so when peopel are 18 they have the training and responsibility to have a gun!

It's important to understand all levels of the law if you want to be a gun advocate, because we have to win some battles before a war.

 

[Yooper]

imported post

rpyne wrote:

ProtectedBy9mm wrote:

Does NV offer out of state permits for non-residents?? I'm going to be traveling to Nevada in the next couple of month and wouldn't mind hitting up a CFP class, with the live fire, of course...:?

Can't believe they don't honor UT or FL permits anymore...wow.

Yes, Nevada does offer out of state permits. Why do really think they made this change? In reality, it was to generate more revenue through their out of state permits.

Do you really want to feed their greed?

Funny that not ONE of the states they now recognize offer non resident permits....
I'm glad that Michigan is still recognized. But I wish every state would have laws that would recognize a permit from every state.

 

[rpyne]

imported post

Pace wrote:

IE, you can have free speech, but you can't yell fire in a movie theater.

Yelling "fire" is an action, not a possession, that causes injury to others.

You are allowed to have freedom of religion, but not if it affects someone else (we'd all love to have 10 virgin slaves, no?)

Again, an action that causes injury to others.

Owning a gun might be legal, but how about regulating what types of guns are allowed to be manufactured?

No action against a person involved, no person injured, therefore not a legitimate use of law.

I think its important to understand both sides. Personally, from a political and moral point of view, I think that gun ownership should be legal at 18 or 21 for all citizens in general, and taught in schools, and so on so when peopel are 18 they have the training and responsibility to have a gun!

It's important to understand all levels of the law if you want to be a gun advocate, because we have to win some battles before a war.

The only legitimate law under the principles on which this nation was founded are those laws designed to provide restitution to a person who has been injured by the ACTION of another.

Having been a "gun advocate" for nearly 30 years, I do understand all levels of the law as well as the principle of choosing the battles we can win.

There is a big difference between what the law is and does and what is legitimate for the law to be and do. The vast majority of law today is not legitimate regardless of what the legislators or the courts say. Just because it is law it doesn't mean it is legitimate. Illegitimate law only gains its power because we, the people, allow it.

 

[rpyne]

imported post

Yooper wrote:

Funny that not ONE of the states they now recognize offer non resident permits....

Oh, one does, Nevada. How else would they increase their revenue by ending recognition of Florida and Utah?

Like most things in government, if you want the truth, follow the money.