Carrying firearms in a truck

THATS IT!!!!! I AM CALLING IN THE SHORT BUS.......

 

I thought you was the driver? You didn't say you was a passenger....

 

lollololllolollolloll.good one...RAMBO

 

Stating an obvious fact to someone that is blind or can't hear, or that does not wish to see or hear, is not possible. There are those that, for whatever reason, want something to be a certain way, or do not want something to be a certain way. When this idea is contrary to fact it will not matter.
There are those that do not like guns or do not want the average person to have guns. These can be catagorized as:
1)-Oppressors. There are those in power that want their "subjects" to stay subservant.
2)-Victims- Someone fell prey to another where firearms were involved. Some of those left feel as victims also. They use this tragady as a vehicle for a cause. My mother was killed by a kitchen knife. I suppose some would want all knifes or kitchen knifes to be banned. There is too much common sense for even the most ignorant to realize cutting food would be hard without a knife.
Some choose to believe that guns have no purpose and can be done away with which leads to;
3)-Ignorant- a)- Those that woke up just this morning in a new world. b)-Those that were told a lie they believe true. c) Those that do not understand that freedom has no garrantee. d)-Those that wish to deny facts. e)-Those that wish to argue for arguments sake.

If all firearms were taken away would this prevent crimes? If so, and there is proof, I will change my mind. That is not going to happen because crimes will happen anyway. If a firearm is not available other means will be chosen.

All that read, with any common sense, pay attention:

We are free simply because we believe we can be. It is not written in stone. We believe we can be free because we have the determination to be free. With the determination to be free is the knowledge that if we are oppressed we can take action. Not just as a country but also as individuals. --otr500--2008

I posted laws, facts, and reasons concerning why a firearm can be legally carried in a commercial vehicle. No one posted arguments about that post because it contained laws.

My post:
"This is for any that do not know. These are facts, to the best of my knowledge(except where the law is stated), and if anyone has questions, concerns, rebutals, or try to refute or confute any part, please copy and paste that part with the post.
There have been several(as in many) posts on weapons. Some concern carrying in a CMV, and the different state laws, and some, concerning concealed carry.
A CCW is a permit to carry a concealed weapon issued by a state of domicile. As posts show different states have different laws and requirements. There are also certain restrictions.
Some states honor permits issued by other states and some do not. There was a great site posted with an abundance of information on state reciprocity concerning CCW's and other facts.
Having a CCW permit from a state and the legal right to have a firearm in a CMV while traveling thru a state are two distinct and seperate discussions unless it is on the person.
The right to travel through a state with a firearm is allowed by federal law. The Firearm Owners' Protection Act (FOPA) revised a large portion of the Gun Control Act of 1968. Federal laws superceed state laws and no organization can make a law or ruling that is against, or that would restrict or otherwise void, a federal law.
1)- There may be state weapons laws but a citizen of the United States can travel from state to state, with a firearm. This does not mean that the proverbial Barney Fife will not try to enforce a law that does not exist. It means that a person has rights recognized by the federal government and states must honor.
2)-The federal law DOES NOT differentiate between a citizen in a "private" vehicle and a citizen in a CMV. Because of this there is no DOT regulations concerning firearms in a CMV.
3)- Some states have laws concerning how or where a firearm(weapon) can be carried. A person carrying any firearm should be familiar with the laws of any state traveled thru. Know if the firearm must be in a locked box, can be loaded or must be unloaded, or have a trigger guard, or other restrictions. If a driver is not on an interstate(a federal highway) or within the right of ingress or egress of the federal highway system, that person better know the firearm laws of that state.
A certain state law might say a firearm may be carried in that state in a locked box or in a trunk or seperate compartment. An individual may reside in a state where a firearm may be carried in the drivers compartment or the glovebox. A person traveling through a state may be in violation of that state's laws if a firearm is not carried according to the laws of that state."

It appears that any with doubts or disbelief have no grounds for a debate or argument with the above post.
I am sure it has been read by those posting remarks, in light of the posting, as if it didn't exist. Maybe they can not argue facts in a negative so they post what might, to some, appear to be ignorant remarks.

A debate is when people argue a point with their views of merrit, and reasons for their belief or idea. One side will believe they are right and another side will believe they are right. The winner of the debate is the side that produces the most favorable argument especially with proof.
It is hard for only two people to actually have a debate between just themselves. If anyone does not believe this try to talk religion or politics to one other individual with different views of conviction. It may start out to be a debate but will never end as one.
The same is true concerning firearms in a commercial vehicle or firearms in general.
I believe that the founding fathers intended for individuals to own(bear) firearms. I have trouble comprehending how others could refute this.
Our nation as a whole still holds to this belief. The few that do not are a minority.
The above post concerning firearms(not just specifically handguns) IS SUPPORTED BY LAW. I even sought some that wished to debate the facts. Dictionary.com lists the definition of facts: something that actually exists; reality; truth:
1)-Fact(truth): There are no laws forbidding firearms in a commercial vehicle. This is the reason why no one can produce any proof. People just ignore facts and post things for any reason.
2)-Fact(truth): The courts and federal government has acknowledged the rights of individuals to own(bear) arms. This was affirmed with new rulings, as posted above, and affirms citizens rights to possess and travel from state to state with their firarms.
3)-fact(truth): There is no federal law limiting the type of vehicle a citizen can travel in. This includes a commercial vehicles or a "big truck" in particular.
Unless this proven subject can be refuted this post should be closed unless kept open for entertainment purposs only.

 

The main problem arises when someone claims to have seen you "Brandishing" (showing) a firearm in a threatening manner, or when you enter upon private property (Shippers, Receivers, Truck Stops, Company Terminals) with a weapon in your truck.
You could actually do more time for exercising you Second Amendment rights, than the criminal you stop while exercising those rights.
Unfortunately most laws protect the criminal, not the law abiding. Homeowners getting sued by criminals who injure themselves while unlawfully entering the victim's residence. Businesses are sued when criminals get injured trying to break in.

 

Personally if it was up to me, we would all be able to carry whatever we wanted, own what we wanted, and live free like we want. There have been many studies showing that Armed Societies are polite societies with lower crime rates.

 

You are correct 100%....That is how i see it and have seen it...why? Lets face it,your from cali and i am from ny....liberal hell...lol,llo

But i am in kansas city,mo now and let me tell you brother....wild west out here.And i like there laws....This is great news for us ''good people'' rolmfao....This is great....

They just passed a law here not to long ago

Gov. Matt Blunt signed legislation on Tuesday allowing Missourians to fatally shoot intruders without fear of prosecution or lawsuits.
​

Not all too surprising really. We, in Missouri, like our guns, even when we don’t like them. (I’m referring to our state legislature passing a concealed weapons law allowing people to carry with a permit even though the voters said no).

The measure spells out that people are not required to retreat from an intruder and can use deadly force once the person illegally enters their home, vehicle or other dwelling, including a tent. The bill provides an absolute defense against being charged or sued for using such force.
​

 

That is exactly as it should be. No individual should have to fear for his life (prosecution) after just having defended it.

 

This is one of the few reasons i love MO.......

Just had a home invasion at 3:00 a.m. 4 weeks ago and the owner shot and killed 2 people.I am not allowed to tell you what color they were...lol

:smt071The owner never got a ticket,cops said goodbye and thats it.Its over..Interviewed the guy on t.v. and he is very thankful his wife and 2 daughters are safe.Yes he will be moving from the home which sucks but they are alive.

.By the way the 2 hooded bandits had knifes and handgun on there poccession....:smt068

:smt070Know they lay dead.As it should be...ARN'T YOU SAD FOR THEM...BO WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

 

Home invasions are on the rise as more and more people are getting home security, since the cost has dropped. The invaders figure it's easier to kick in the door while the family is relaxing in the evening and the alarm is disarmed. Unfortunately, many don't like to leave witnesses. With the economy in the toilet, you can bet that the desperate will be raising the crime stats.