GlockTalk.com
Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.

 
  
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-10-2011, 10:45   #21
BillR
Senior Member
 
BillR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Flagstaff, AZ
Posts: 1,338
Quote:
Originally Posted by coyotehunter223 View Post
Probably less likely to pass now, I would think...
It's already passed.
__________________
"The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else."
BillR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2011, 18:46   #22
OldCurlyWolf
Senior Member
 
OldCurlyWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 747
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc Holliday View Post
'Shall not be infringed'.

Cops won't be able to bust the gangbangers for carrying 'concealed without a license' anymore, but it's the 2nd Amendment and you gotta take the 'bad' along with the good on that one.

I support this new law.
They will still get a lot of them for felon in possession.

It won't hurt the LEO'S in their dealings with GB'ers. They always handle them as if they are armed.
__________________
I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted, and I won't be laid a hand on. I don't do those things to other people and I require the same of them.

Politicians should serve two terms, one in office and one in prison.(borrowed from RioKid)
OldCurlyWolf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2011, 18:53   #23
Angry Fist
Lifetime Membership
The Original®
 
Angry Fist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: LOZ
Posts: 27,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc Holliday View Post
...still waiting...

Nothing happened, except now maybe the criminals will think twice about jacking someone up in Arizona, since EVERYONE might be carrying...
Brother, I wish that was the case yesterday.
__________________
I want rustlers, cut throats, murderers, bounty hunters, desperados, mugs, pugs, thugs, nitwits, halfwits, dimwits, vipers, snipers, con men, Indian agents, Mexican bandits, muggers, buggerers, bushwhackers, hornswogglers, horse thieves, bull dykes, train robbers, bank robbers, ass-kickers, s**t-kickers, Methodists, and the GTDS.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
Angry Fist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2011, 19:24   #24
mboylan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,495
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldCurlyWolf View Post
They will still get a lot of them for felon in possession.

It won't hurt the LEO'S in their dealings with GB'ers. They always handle them as if they are armed.
They'll get some of them for felon in possession. They used to be able to get any one of them for CC without a license.

Take the good with the bad.
mboylan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2011, 12:34   #25
SilverGlock
Account closed.
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: United States
Posts: 56
Bottom line: the fact that this country has any gun control is violating The Constitution.
SilverGlock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2011, 12:49   #26
Palmguy
Boom.
 
Palmguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: NW FL
Posts: 2,229
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunderbolt56 View Post
Given that CCW is a state side decision, I'd prefer if all states would implement some form of issuable permit. There are a couple reasons, but I have relatives (in-laws) that live in Vt. When they come down to visit us each year (sometimes for prolonged periods), they have to leave their guns in the car or leave them home as my state doesn't recognize their right to carry in Vermont. Whereas, if I go to Vermont, I can carry anytime since I have a permit, yet other out-of-staters can't do it legally.

If there isn't any other qualification than being a state resident, they should still issue them to folks that want them in order to fully reciprocate with other states.
I know this is an old post in a thread that was resurrected, but I never saw this addressed. I haven't seen anything that states that you have to have a permit issued by some other state to carry in Vermont if you are a non-resident. If you are legally allowed to possess the gun, you can carry it...your FL license is not required in VT.

Your relatives can always get a non-resident FL license if they want to carry here.
Palmguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2011, 19:32   #27
kirklite99
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by Palmguy View Post
I know this is an old post in a thread that was resurrected, but I never saw this addressed. I haven't seen anything that states that you have to have a permit issued by some other state to carry in Vermont if you are a non-resident. If you are legally allowed to possess the gun, you can carry it...your FL license is not required in VT.
That's not what he's talking about. He's talking about coming from VT and carrying in FLORIDA. Vermont doesn't require a permit, so the concern was if they don't have a VT permit, they can't carry in FL since they need a resident permit from their home state, provided FL would honor it, hypothetically.

That said, I'm not sure if VT issues a permit, for those who want one, just for this very reason. AZ no longer requires a permit, but you can still get one for states that recognize AZ. As I recall, Alaska also issues a permit for the state reciprocity thing...

Last edited by kirklite99; 01-19-2011 at 19:36..
kirklite99 is offline   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 -6. The time now is 19:07.




Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 1,254
368 Members
886 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,672
Aug 11, 2014 at 2:31