Not the Joe Manchin who got my vote
I voted for Joe Manchin in 2012 for US Senator from West Virginia. The first Democrat that I’ve voted for national office since Jimmy Carter in 1976. Mostly I voted for him because he introduced a National concealed carry bill to the Senate. I’d hoped that he would be good on guns. A few months after I cast that vote for him he tried to run a gun control bill through the Senate in the wake of the Sandy Hook tragedy.
Now the West Virginia legislature voted overwhelmingly for permitless concealed carry for law abiding West Virginians. Manchin “strongly opposes” this legislation;
In a news release Thursday, Manchin noted that he is a member of the National Rifle Association and considers himself an advocate of the Second Amendment. However, Manchin said allowing a person to carry a concealed weapon without a permit or training is “irresponsible” and “dangerous.”
“There is not one West Virginian whose Second Amendment rights will be infringed without this bill.With the right to bear arms comes the responsibility to use it in a safe and reasonable manner,” Manchin said in the Thursday news release.
There are still some reasons to get a Concealed Carry Weapon permit (I have one, by the way). 32 other states recognize West Virginia CCW permits, so, you’ll need one to cross state lines with your weapon. Last year, the legislature changed state laws so that anyone with a current CCW would not have to subject themselves to background checks every time they buy guns. Once every five years to renew your permit is good enough. So, see, it benefits a gun owner to have a CCW permit, but this way, it’s a choice, not a requirement.
I also don’t see Manchin putting his name on that new National CCW bill in the Senate, you know, even though he was for it before his election.
But, this Joe “I’m a member of the NRA” Manchin is not the fellow for whom I voted in 2012, so I won’t be making that mistake again.
Category: Guns
I feel your pain — we’ve discussed the Congressman with whom I am currently not amused. It seems like the only leopards that change their spots are politicians.
Leopard NO, he changed colors like a chameleon.
RINO ALERT!!
In WV, as most other states, one can carry a handgun openly. No permit is required. I am guessing that Manchin is aware of this. As soon as one covers the handgun, say, with a sweater or windbreaker, WV law requires that he have a permit. Manchin’s argument against the permitless concealed carry bill is that it is dangerous and irresponsible to allow a person to carry a handgun concealed. Says he, “With the right to bear arms comes the responsibility to use it in a safe and reasonable manner.” So, to Joe Manchin, I guess a sweater or windbreaker makes the difference between whether a bearer of a handgun is presumptively dangerous and irresponsible or safe and responsible. What’s that he said about common sense?
that idea of training is way beyond the pale.
Manchin is your typical “professional” politician. Lies like a rug.
I don’t know whether you are aware of this or just backed into it but Manchin’s job before politics? Rug salesman.
Next time you get the urge to vote democrat, remember this: One day, a scorpion looked around at the mountain where he lived and decided that he wanted a change. So he set out on a journey through the forests and hills. He climbed over rocks and under vines and kept going until he reached a river. The river was wide and swift, and the scorpion stopped to reconsider the situation. He couldn’t see any way across. So he ran upriver and then checked downriver, all the while thinking that he might have to turn back. Suddenly, he saw a frog sitting in the rushes by the bank of the stream on the other side of the river. He decided to ask the frog for help getting across the stream. “Hellooo Mr. Frog!” called the scorpion across the water, “Would you be so kind as to give me a ride on your back across the river?” “Well now, Mr. Scorpion! How do I know that if I try to help you, you wont try to kill me?” asked the frog hesitantly. “Because,” the scorpion replied, “If I try to kill you, then I would die too, for you see I cannot swim!” Now this seemed to make sense to the frog. But he asked. “What about when I get close to the bank? You could still try to kill me and get back to the shore!” “This is true,” agreed the scorpion, “But then I wouldn’t be able to get to the other side of the river!” “Alright then…how do I know you wont just wait till we get to the other side and THEN kill me?” said the frog. “Ahh…,” crooned the scorpion, “Because you see, once you’ve taken me to the other side of this river, I will be so grateful for your help, that it would hardly be fair to reward you with death, now would it?!” So the frog agreed to take the scorpion across the river. He swam over to the bank and settled himself near the mud to pick up his passenger. The scorpion… Read more »
+ 100
Too long, didn’t read? Here’s a video that captures a theme of Arby’s post. Not disgusting if you’re Paul K. Wickre:
Dammit, you beat me to it! First thing I thought when I read the post was “Because it is my nature…”
That’s a classic explanation for the ongoing war in the middle east.
I’m gonna be seen as an enemy, but while I do believe in the right to carry firearms, I also believe that training in how to use them before that right is recognized individually should be mandated. Also, there are some crazy civvies and some really too crazy brothers and sisters that should not be allowed to touch firearms, but I think that’s in the minority.
No. You are not the enemy. Let me ask you this, though. Would you also require training before one can serve hot dogs to children, carry a legally permissible knife, ferry passengers on public roadways in your car, carry a lighter, swim in public place, or use a bow and arrow on public land? I can go on but I’m guessing you see my point. Do you wonder why no training is required to walk down Main Street with a rifle over your shoulder or a handgun holstered on your hip but it’s unsafe to do so when those things are at all covered?
We do not require training, or government approval, to exercise rights. By your thinking, we could prohibit unlicensed, untrained speech, publication,mwork hip, etc.
All have been mis-used to bring about the deaths of untold millions.
A free society criminalizes behavior that directly harms the life, liberty, or property of others. It does not pre-emptively criminalize behavior that harms no one.
In no way, shape, or form are you in any way harmed by someone, be they “civvies” “brothers” or “sisters”, walking around with a firearm.
Your fears of imaginary harms carry no weight balanced agains the unalienable rights of free people to go peaceably about their business, armed or not.
Do you really mean to say that your fears of people -in general- limit their rights? What of those of us who fear your statements may incite oppressive laws? Do I this gain power of license over your posting here?
Of course not.
Neither does your imagination of potential harm in any way entitle you to pre-judge my worthiness to bear arms, Absent any demonstrably harmful action on my part.
Separate the two. If we mandate something, simply mandate that training in basic arms be mandatorily available from the government, through law enforcement or military trainers, available to all at cost. A responsible person might avail themselves of it, or otherwise do so elsewhere. If not, and then they do something stupid, liability would be glaring.
Jonn, I, too, had higher hopes for Manchin, foolishly believing that he might represent a return to common sense by some in the Democrat party, like those conservative Democrats we had in Texas, Oklahoma and other such places when I was a young man. But liberal idiocy apparently is contagious to those who are receptive, those like Manchin who call themselves Democrats yet still have a modicum of common sense remaining before they join that Unicorn Caucus in Washington. All you troops heads up! Lesson learned here! DON’T VOTE for DEMOCRATS!!! No matter what they tell you when campaigning. Yes, I know Republicans lie too, but even when they do, their lies tend to be more tolerable to conservative constituents. Some don’t lie like my Senator, Tom Cotton, who promised to carry Arkansas’ conservative values to Washington and to shake up the liberal status quo. Bless that boy. As for the gun training, I think that anyone who can produce a DD-214 that shows he/she served in any combat arms unit in the military should be grandfathered in under laws requiring pre-licensing training. I’ll leave it up to those of you who were Navy and Air Force to figure out how that could be applied to you. What I’m looking for is a presumption of pistol qualification at sometime and somewhere in your military service. In my opinion, some states allow these trainers to charge exorbitant fees for a few hours training that aren’t needed by people like me. I’d be fine with a brief interview by a LEO to determine you’re not a raving lunatic followed by a low-fee, written exam regarding basic gun handling, safety and state laws, much like a driver’s exam, but I don’t need some officious dude correcting my shooting grip, stance and marksmanship. If I have to pay the government to exercise a constitutional right then it has become a privilege bestowed by that government, not a right, more akin to operating an automobile. I’m surprised that no liberal lawyer has challenged such gun licensing laws on the basis that they are discriminatory against… Read more »
Okay, I’ll bite. What other Constitutional right requires one to complete a training course before the right may be legally exercised? Why do you suppose it is that some states require a permit only when the handgun is to be concealed but not when it is openly carried, if safety is the issue? Is a holstered firearm more dangerous under one’s shirt than outside of it? And why differentiate among Vets and handgun training, as opposed to rifle? The safety principles are identical, or nearly so, aren’t they? Also, why qualify a Vet who last fired a handgun 30 years ago but not do the same for someone who just completed BCT rifle training? Or am I missing some pieces here?
Not a fan of Manchin et al – but I have to wonder how much of the opposition to unlimited CHL reciprocity is due to the states which require no training, nothing but paying a fee to obtain said CHL. I’m not uncomfortable with requiring equivalent training across all states provided it is reasonable (Texas has class time, range testing, and a background check) – I’m actually OK with requiring either an open carry permit or maybe that you must have a CHL to open carry. I don’t consider taking a minimal step for public safety an infringement on constitutional rights, any more than I object to proper ID to vote.
Maybe it’s a holdover to having started serving in the ’70s – but training then was minimal, especially after they started the joint-sexes BCT in which they only fired 400 rounds TOTAL and never fired a handgun ever, and someone who only did that is probably not safe on the streets without further instruction.
Um, Cav, I’ve always looked at gun handling kinda like riding a bicycle or missionary position sex: once you learn the basics you generally tend to get better and some folks can even learn a few neat tricks. And my experience has been that once you learn the basics of those activities, you can go a long time not actually doing them without forgetting the fundamentals. Without question, the more you practice the better you get and the beauty of that is that if you do lay off for a while, you generally resume closer to where you left off last, rather than where you started originally. As for your contention regarding BCT rifle training, I’m not sure what I think on that. At the end of my first year in the Army I was qualified on the M-1 Rifle, the M-1 carbine, the the Browning Automatic Rifle, the 60 cal machine gun, the bazooka, hand grenades and the T-10 parachute. Except for the two M-1’s, every system was unique and required special knowledge and handling. During that time I also qualified on the.45 pistol, and it, too, had its own special requirements. The key word in all that discussion is “system.” With the exception of the T-10, all are weapons but with the exception of shoulder fired rifles, all tend to have very unique operating system requirements and that held true through the years as I qualified on the M-14, then the M-16, the M-79 grenade launcher and the 50 cal heavy machine gun. Through all of that, the pistol remained unique and in my opinion the easiest weapon system to learn and operate effectively. Considering that, I’m not sure with I agree with your point that BCT rifle training should confer on an individual any handgun handling skills despite the similar safety training. I’m open to arguments. Frankly, I’m not sure I agree that those lacking any military weapons experience should be required to demonstrate their knowledge and proficiency with a handgun. When they can arm themselves with an AR-15 or a short-barreled, automatic 12 gauge and carry… Read more »
That was thorough. We diverge on the handgun/rifle training b/c I view the military training as delivering basic safety, regardless of weapon–rifle or HG–safety which meets civilian permit requirements (e.g., a weapon is always loaded; finger on trigger only when shooting) You have in mind something more, the particulars of a given weapon or category (HG v. rifle.) If the purpose of a civilian firearm safety course is indeed basic safety and nothing more, then I can’t see why BCT wouldn’t suffice for any firearm in the civilian world. If it’s more, then I agree that rifle and HG training are to be distinguished. Of course, none of this has anything to do with requiring a course in the first place–something I think is very wise but should not be a gov’t requirement.
I personally think that the problem now days with weapons of any sort is mostly due to lack of adult guidance for children. I know several kids I would trust with any weapon. Most kids now days only see movies and video games. That DOES scare me as they are not learning responsibility with them when they do get their hands on them, knifes, clubs, or even fists included. Open carry or not doesn’t really address the problem. 🙁
Yeah, I feel the same way about some teenagers and adults driving on the roadways. Scares the hell out of me to see what I see sometimes. And to think that these knuckleheads passed a written and practical driving exam and were certified by a state to be minimally competent to drive! 3000 (or so) lbs of potential hurt and death being operated by morons.
My take away from the New Mexico CHL class was more of the legal side of carrying and using a firearm. Learning the difference between self-defense and murder made the class worth taking.
Poetrooper, this one’s late to the party but I have to confess I used to vote for one Democrat every time he ran for office.
A fella named John Glenn.
I hope you don’t think less of me. 🙂
“The first Democrat that I’ve voted for national office since Jimmy Carter in 1976”. Ya lost me after that line 😀
Jonn sez: “…Once every five years to renew your permit is good enough. …”
My Florida CCW gets renewed after 10 years.
“permitless concealed carry for law abiding West Virginians”.
Lots of key words in there for sure. Because criminals use “permitless concealed carry as NON-law abiding West Virginians”, always. Never heard of a criminal open carry in their usually thuggery until they decide it’s time to do the crime. As for the idea of permitless concealed carry with only training certification…no. Again, the least trained concealed gun carriers ARE criminals and they won’t be signing up for training any time soon. I agree with Poetrooper that an Honorably Discharged veteran with a DD-214 showing either combat training or small arms weapons certification from any branch, should be given a pass on any required training. If training is made mandatory, the prices will only skyrocket and they’re already higher than a Georgia Pine. As for the places that require a sit down with a LEO for an interview to rule out nut jobs, again, criminals ARE nut jobs by definition. These legislative efforts, unless advocating for a permanent permitless, concealed carry, after a full background check, for proven, law abiding citizens always have too many loopholes. When I write “permanent” permit, it goes without saying, if the person is convicted of a crime denying them the possession of a firearm, they are off the “concealed carry” registry forever. These laws are great on the face of them and any progress is better than steps backwards. However, there is always hamstringing language in most of it. I still advocate for a national concealed carry permit good in all states.
We have a rino governor in Michigan that vetod a cpl bill a few months ago. Michigan is absurd with its cpl process and fees to get it.
The worst part is we have open carry here but don’t you dare because the police usually flip right the Fuck out disobeying the law if they see you or if they get intentional bogus complaints about somebody with a gun.
This country needs some serious federal gun rights bills. This constitutional right is so abused and intentionally so.
My answer to most of the questions above: Money. How can the States make a buck from one of my constitutional rights.
Dude! You voted for a Democrat! To quote a famous trailer park supervisor'”A shit Leopard doesn’t change it’s spots”. If it makes you feel better, have Candice Miller for a confessional representation, or lack thereof.