NFOA MEMBERS FORUM
General Categories => Laws and Legislation => Topic started by: StuartJ on March 27, 2017, 05:19:55 PM
-
My understanding is our state doesn't accept permits from states that allow conceal carry at 18. So how long before Nebraska stops accepting Utah conceal carry permits?
Also Nevada is considering allow former military personnel under 21 to carry. So will Nebraska stop accepting Nevada permits?
-
Nebraska could state the permit is only recognized for those 21 and over.
-
I am not sure exactly how I feel about this. I know a lot of people that I would not want carrying over the age of 21. The reasoning given for signing the bill is the same we have heard for many other things including the drinking age, "if old enough to serve and die, old enough to do (fill in the blank). The problem with this thought process is that many who enlist in the service at 18 do not finish or make it past boot camp or the first year in service. Those that do mature very fast while in the military. Age does not equate to mentally adulthood and responsibility. I feel until you are able to financially support your actions than you should be limited on what you can do that causes costs to others.
-
I am not sure exactly how I feel about this. I know a lot of people that I would not want carrying over the age of 21.
Nothing personal, Merl, but I wish we could all get out of this mindset of "your" freedom is subject to "my" feelings and opinions. There are so many people of all ages that I would not feel comfortable around as they exercise their freedoms. But, they have the right, just as we do.
Lots of folks are only ok with people exercising their gun rights with training. Well, studies have concluded that mandatory training does not equate to more safety, just more obstacles.
I heard today on the radio that they want to give back voting rights to felons in some expedited manner compared to how they do it now. I say go for it. If you are going to give them the rights they should have, no point in stopping with voting. If they can't be trusted to be armed, they can't be trusted to vote and probably should not be among the law-abiding. How do you think Senator Chambers would feel about that?
-
I got a Utah permit because I go to Washington state sometimes and the criminal gang that runs that state recognized Utah permits but not Nebraska permits. So I am guessing that now Washington state will no longer recognize Utah permits. I'll have to check before I go there again I guess.
These things are why national reciprocity is necessary. We just need to make sure the national law is not poisoned by traitors like Schumer and Feinstein.
-
I am not sure exactly how I feel about this. I know a lot of people that I would not want carrying over the age of 21. The reasoning given for signing the bill is the same we have heard for many other things including the drinking age, "if old enough to serve and die, old enough to do (fill in the blank). The problem with this thought process is that many who enlist in the service at 18 do not finish or make it past boot camp or the first year in service. Those that do mature very fast while in the military. Age does not equate to mentally adulthood and responsibility. I feel until you are able to financially support your actions than you should be limited on what you can do that causes costs to others.
Freedom can be scary for some....
-
Nothing personal, Merl, but I wish we could all get out of this mindset of "your" freedom is subject to "my" feelings and opinions. There are so many people of all ages that I would not feel comfortable around as they exercise their freedoms. But, they have the right, just as we do.
Lots of folks are only ok with people exercising their gun rights with training. Well, studies have concluded that mandatory training does not equate to more safety, just more obstacles.
I heard today on the radio that they want to give back voting rights to felons in some expedited manner compared to how they do it now. I say go for it. If you are going to give them the rights they should have, no point in stopping with voting. If they can't be trusted to be armed, they can't be trusted to vote and probably should not be among the law-abiding. How do you think Senator Chambers would feel about that?
It has nothing to do with my "Feelings" as you put it, it has to do with the maturity of the 18 year old. For example in Nebraska a parent is responsible for his child until the age of 19. Under the premise of rights as you state them why is there any age limit, why not let a 6 year old or 12 year old carry? We as a society establish an age we mandate as becoming an adult and this usually ties into that you are able to support yourself and pay your own way. While this has changed in some respects, it is still a viable argument that at some point age equals being a legal adult.
-
Deleted
-
It has nothing to do with my "Feelings" as you put it, it has to do with the maturity of the 18 year old. For example in Nebraska a parent is responsible for his child until the age of 19. Under the premise of rights as you state them why is there any age limit, why not let a 6 year old or 12 year old carry? We as a society establish an age we mandate as becoming an adult and this usually ties into that you are able to support yourself and pay your own way. While this has changed in some respects, it is still a viable argument that at some point age equals being a legal adult.
In your case it is mostly opinions based on your feelings. But, while I was using your post to address it, it is mostly a commentary on how we ended up where we are and not meant as a jab at you personally.
I think if you are voting, you ought to be able to participate in what you are trying to preserve or destroy. Maturity and responsibility are not effectively measured by age and I don't think them relevant when it comes to gun rights as they are entirely subjective.
Consider that the Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791 and there were no real firearms restrictions until 1934. Some would say that we progressed but I would disagree. While guns are capable of causing great carnage, so are very many other things that we use on a daily basis. We don't even think twice about them in the way we do guns and they don't even enjoy Constitutional protection! It's mostly because of the duality of firearms. People fail or flat refuse to realize the positives that firearms bring to the table and only assign a negative connotation to their use, even though many studies suggest at least a two to one positive/ negative outcome.
We as a society need to get over so many of our hangups concerning firearms laws or we will be the ones that lose it all. Even in groups like this, varying levels of comfort hinder the greater effort.
-
At the risk of displaying my ignorance and destroying any credibility i might have had within this august body, I will offer up an opinion. Mntnman hit on what I believe to be a very solid point, that being that are a good many lethal items that young folks use on a daily basis that we give little notice to. Back in days gone by, young folks were exposed to firearms at a tender age and experienced in their use for the real purpose of hunting and self defense. They knew the value, purpose and consequences associated with this very valuable tool. As the families moved to town and acquired work away from the fields and woods, the young folks were less exposed/required to know about firearms, and lost the knowledge and responsibility for their use. Since we don't have the early experience of yore, we feel the necessity to establish some criteria, such as training and age level, to establish a benchmark for maturity. Fire at will!!!
-
At the risk of displaying my ignorance and destroying any credibility i might have had within this august body, I will offer up an opinion. Mntnman hit on what I believe to be a very solid point, that being that are a good many lethal items that young folks use on a daily basis that we give little notice to. Back in days gone by, young folks were exposed to firearms at a tender age and experienced in their use for the real purpose of hunting and self defense. They knew the value, purpose and consequences associated with this very valuable tool. As the families moved to town and acquired work away from the fields and woods, the young folks were less exposed/required to know about firearms, and lost the knowledge and responsibility for their use. Since we don't have the early experience of yore, we feel the necessity to establish some criteria, such as training and age level, to establish a benchmark for maturity. Fire at will!!!
No firing on this end, summed it up well. I deal with people all the time that have no background or experience with firearms at all, scares them to death when all they see about guns is from the media and hollywood/tv. Of course here I'm preaching to choir.
-
I truely mean no disrespect to you sir, however do you really feel that economic status decides when you are allowed your rights?
I find your argument rather, well, ridiculous. I signed on the line at 17 yrs old with my parents permission. I turned 18 already in the service to my country and to hear you say it I was not entitled to my God given rights until I made corporal so I had enough money to pay my own rent and such? I find it insulting that some people actually believe that there are rights that haven't been earned when those same young men and women that they would deny rights to are serving and dying to save those same rights and freedoms for them that they would deny them.
Do I also understand that you believe that rights are also contingent on emotional maturity? Have you sir actually read the Constitution of These United States? My neighbor is a broke, immature, dumbass and I would fight to my death to defend his rights just as I would yours sir. This isn't about how you feel...
I also enlisted at 17, and turned 18 in service to this country. The difference is that was almost 50 years ago. At the age of 12 I was guiding hunter friends of my uncles from Chicago on our family property but that was also 50 years ago. Do I equate rights from the constitution to financial or age tests, no you have the rights guaranteed by the constitution at birth, but that does not mean you have the right to exercise those rights at birth. Again it is a maturity issue and if a person has the maturity to use those rights in a proper way. My children were legally able to get drivers licenses at 16 but as their parent I did not see the maturity and responsibility within them at that time to allow them to do so. While driving is not a right it goes to the main principle of my argument, just because you have the right does not equate to you having the maturity to use it. As for the financial aspect of this argument it is set by society that when you are out of high school and can hold a full time job that most things become legal for you to do. That is maybe the benchmark society has set as when you become an adult and that age seems to be 21 by all markers in law. I actually find these arguments funny when most of you all seem to think the younger generations do not show the maturity to blow their own noses.
-
At the risk of displaying my ignorance and destroying any credibility i might have had within this august body, I will offer up an opinion. Mntnman hit on what I believe to be a very solid point, that being that are a good many lethal items that young folks use on a daily basis that we give little notice to. Back in days gone by, young folks were exposed to firearms at a tender age and experienced in their use for the real purpose of hunting and self defense. They knew the value, purpose and consequences associated with this very valuable tool. As the families moved to town and acquired work away from the fields and woods, the young folks were less exposed/required to know about firearms, and lost the knowledge and responsibility for their use. Since we don't have the early experience of yore, we feel the necessity to establish some criteria, such as training and age level, to establish a benchmark for maturity. Fire at will!!!
Well said Graybeard.
-
Do I equate rights from the constitution to financial or age tests, no you have the rights guaranteed by the constitution at birth, but that does not mean you have the right to exercise those rights at birth. Again it is a maturity issue and if a person has the maturity to use those rights in a proper way.
Bull! The subjective measurement of maturity is not used to determine whether or not you get to exercise your natural rights. BTW, you have them before birth. 😉
Can you tell me how many years we went before age restrictions became law in the first place?
-
As it is now, if you're 21, pass the test, and have the money, you can carry concealed. Whether or not you are an immature idiot never comes into play. I would say that there were several people in my class that gave me concern, but we all passed. Two older gentlemen were my greatest concern, BTW!
-
Bull! The subjective measurement of maturity is not used to determine whether or not you get to exercise your natural rights. BTW, you have them before birth. 😉
Can you tell me how many years we went before age restrictions became law in the first place?
You seem to get very upset with this topic so lets just agree to disagree, but I would really like to know at what point do you feel your right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is trumped by my right to carry and how you make that determination. There are many things that we have the right to do, but for safety of the public we write laws abridging on that right, for example the right to free speech and not yelling fire in a crowded theater. Again I state the obvious, just because you have the right does not mean you have a right to exercise said right. At some point logic and sense must play a role in how we use our rights. This argument being used by many, "that it is my right" has not worked for decades and will fail if that is the only argument being made. It is why I have advocated for changing the discussion from a rights issue to a liability and defense issue. The liberals care not about your rights but do care about their pocketbooks.
-
You seem to get very upset with this topic
It does not upset me at all.
I would really like to know at what point do you feel your right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is trumped by my right to carry and how you make that determination.
Neither has anything to do with the other. My right is mine, yours is yours. What do you mean? Does the fact that you are lawfully carrying your weapon cause me harm?
Again I state the obvious, just because you have the right does not mean you have a right to exercise said right.
How can you have a right if you can not exercise it? One cancels the other, do you have it or not?
There are many things that we have the right to do, but for safety of the public we write laws abridging on that right, for example the right to free speech and not yelling fire in a crowded theater. Again I state the obvious, just because you have the right does not mean you have a right to exercise said right.
You have the right to free speech. Once you use that right to harm me, like yelling fire just to cause harm with panic, you have violated my right. At that point, you will be held responsible for your abusing your right. You don't get to infringe on my rights until you can trust me not to harm you with them.
Do you think that someone has to take a class and buy a permit before they can exercise their right? Because they don't in this state if they open carry as long as they stay away from where all the lefties live en masse. They can wear whatever weapon the choose and strut around with no training at all and that's the way it should be. Until they harm someone, they are legal and don't need a maturity tape measure. :D
Nine states allow Constitutional carry any way you choose without permit. It should be fifty!
-
No firing on this end, summed it up well. I deal with people all the time that have no background or experience with firearms at all, scares them to death when all they see about guns is from the media and hollywood/tv. Of course here I'm preaching to choir.
After the terrorist attack in Orlando, my boss walked into work and yelled "Anyone who owns an AR is a f-n idiot!" I yelled back "Anyone that doesn't is a moron!" Then I asked him what kind of gun the terrorist used. He stated an AR15! I said, "Nope, it was a Sig Sauer MCX!" He didn't want to talk anymore because he doesn't know what that is either, lol.
-
Don't mind me, gentlemen, I am going to be over here in the corner quietly listening in on a very interesting conversation. I can see both points and I am interested to hear more as it is something I think is hotly debated and yet not settled.
-
Rights come with responsibilities, so my question is does today's average 18 year old understand and practice the responsibilities that go along with this right? Working in retail at a place where I see these young people everyday I would have my doubts that they do. Are there exceptions, yes but the general 18 year old is closer to a 5 year old in actions than an adult. Why, education and family instilling these responsibilities into our youth is a major problem,today's young adults are about their rights and don't worry about when those rights trample on yours and accommodate those rights.
-
It's too bad there can't be some test for maturity other than chronological age that the law could use, but unfortunately any such test would probably be used by the criminal gangs in government to disarm as many civilians as possible. So age about has to be used, as flawed as it is. Maybe some things could be added though, like you have to be a certain age and have a high school diploma and no record as a delinquent, for example.
To me driving is at least as dangerous as being armed. In fact it can be more so; there is no danger in texting while carrying a gun, for example. So the age of driving and the age of exercising our right to be armed should be the same. I would place that age at 18, and I would add having a diploma and no record; otherwise the age for both would be higher.
I remember when I was in junior high school in the mid 60s it was not uncommon for boys my age to have our own .22 rifles and .410 shotguns, and go out shooting cans or rabbits, with no adult supervision. And before 1968 we could buy a gun mail order. But we still had less crime then than we do now, including so-called gun crime.
Clearly the problem is not guns, it's rampant liberalism. But that's a subject for a different thread.
-
Right now 18 year olds can open carry in Nebraska without a permit and without a shred of training. Seems to be working.
-
Rights come with responsibilities, so my question is does today's average 18 year old understand and practice the responsibilities that go along with this right? Working in retail at a place where I see these young people everyday I would have my doubts that they do. Are there exceptions, yes but the general 18 year old is closer to a 5 year old in actions than an adult. Why, education and family instilling these responsibilities into our youth is a major problem,today's young adults are about their rights and don't worry about when those rights trample on yours and accommodate those rights.
I would tend to think that this is more of a responsibility issue as well, than maturity as the 2 are not necessarily synonymous, case in point, at 13 my son was anything but mature but was responsible with high-powered rifles and shotguns enough for his Dad to allow him to hunt with him and there's many adults that can't say the same. Depending on the crowd the normal 18 yr old is running with also has a tendency to dictate the level of responsibility shown. But since many kids aren't now raised with firearms training/familiarization the state has to impose age restrictions. Interesting discussion for sure. Many good points.
-
But since many kids aren't now raised with firearms training/familiarization the state has to impose age restrictions.
I disagree. The problem started when the idea that we need restrictions gained acceptance. We care enough about preserving our rights to participate in gun rights groups and yet we are so conditioned that we only want limit the restrictions put on us, not go back to the way it rightfully was. We are our worst enemies.
There are ways to address the concerns that hang some of you up that aren't counter to having the rights we naturally possess. Every time we go along with a restriction "for the greater good", we put another crack in the foundation of liberty.
-
I disagree. The problem started when the idea that we need restrictions gained acceptance. We care enough about preserving our rights to participate in gun rights groups and yet we are so conditioned that we only want limit the restrictions put on us, not go back to the way it rightfully was. We are our worst enemies.
There are ways to address the concerns that hang some of you up that aren't counter to having the rights we naturally possess. Every time we go along with a restriction "for the greater good", we put another crack in the foundation of liberty.
I worded that sentence poorly, I didn't mean the State had to but it has happened over the years, I've seen the effects of not raising kids around firearms, but I agree with most of your points. It is sad we've come to except these restrictions from government.
-
delete
-
You must prove your ability and knowledge of the safe rearing of a citizen and then beheld socially and financially responsible for all the actions of said citizen until they reach a socially acceptable level of maturity.
Actually, they would prefer you hand your children over to the state so that they can raise them to be completely dependent for every aspect of security and well being. We have already headed so far it that direction. (State as in government, not Nebraska, of course.)
Great post, you get it!
-
As you can see, everyone has their own idea of standards for someone else to be able to exercise their rights. What we have to realize is that it opens us up for our rights to be taken by others' standards.
We really need to wrap our heads around the fact that rights come with risks. We have to accept that just because the idea of some exercising their rights is scary to us, it does not make us right to deny their liberty. The left does that for us enough.
Once someone has abused a right, then we can talk about whether or not they should keep it. Also, once someone has fulfilled a debt to society, they too, should have their rights back.
-
This thread is a great illustration why our very wise forefathers founded a Constitutional Republic instead of a Democracy. They knew that the majority would vote away the rights of the minority.
-
I disagree. The problem started when the idea that we need restrictions gained acceptance. We care enough about preserving our rights to participate in gun rights groups and yet we are so conditioned that we only want limit the restrictions put on us, not go back to the way it rightfully was. We are our worst enemies.
There are ways to address the concerns that hang some of you up that aren't counter to having the rights we naturally possess. Every time we go along with a restriction "for the greater good", we put another crack in the foundation of liberty.
Right on! It's simple, prosecute people for their violent actions instead of infringing on rights based on the perception of possible negative actions and leave everyone else alone. Period.
-
I demand state's rights to choose, unless it's something I want then I demand the Federal mandate to the states the law.