National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011 [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011


mervstump
05-07-2011, 18:51
This bill (HR 822) was introduced by Cliff Stearns in February of this year. It essentially requires that any state which allows concealed carry recognize concealed carry permits from all other states. There may be a few issues with it but on the whole it sounds good. I just checked the status of the bill and it currently has 200 co-sponsors so it just may have a chance. Write your congressman. BTW you can check the status of the bill (and find out if your congressman is a sponsor at: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d112:822:./list/bss/d112HR.lst:@@@X

Merv

TangoFoxtrot
05-08-2011, 04:53
Already did! But I don't think it stands a chance in hell.

firefighter4215
05-08-2011, 04:57
I'd like to see it pass, but hasn't this been introduced and failed several times in the past?

RussP
05-08-2011, 05:50
This bill (HR 822) was introduced by Cliff Stearns in February of this year. It essentially requires that any state which allows concealed carry recognize concealed carry permits from all other states. There may be a few issues with it but on the whole it sounds good. I just checked the status of the bill and it currently has 200 co-sponsors so it just may have a chance. Write your congressman. BTW you can check the status of the bill (and find out if your congressman is a sponsor at: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d112:822:./list/bss/d112HR.lst:@@@X

MervWhat do you see as the issues with it?

RussP
05-08-2011, 06:08
H.R.822 -- National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011 (Introduced in House - IH)

HR 822 IH

112th CONGRESS
1st Session

H. R. 822
To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a national standard in accordance with which nonresidents of a State may carry concealed firearms in the State.


IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
February 18, 2011

Mr. STEARNS (for himself and Mr. SHULER) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary


A BILL
To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a national standard in accordance with which nonresidents of a State may carry concealed firearms in the State.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011'.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

The Congress finds the following:

(1) The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States protects the fundamental right of an individual to keep and bear arms, including for purposes of individual self-defense.

(2) The Supreme Court of the United States has recognized this right in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller, and in the case of McDonald v. City of Chicago, has recognized that the right is protected against State infringement by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

(3) The Congress has the power to pass legislation to protect against infringement of all rights protected under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

(4) The right to bear arms includes the right to carry arms for self-defense and the defense of others.

(5) The Congress has enacted legislation of national scope authorizing the carrying of concealed firearms by qualified active and retired law enforcement officers.

(6) Forty-eight States provide by statute for the issuance to individuals of permits to carry concealed firearms, or allow the carrying of concealed firearms for lawful purposes without the need for a permit.

(7) The overwhelming majority of individuals who exercise the right to carry firearms in their own States and other States have proven to be law-abiding, and such carrying has been demonstrated to provide crime prevention or crime resistance benefits for the licensees and for others.

(8) The Congress finds that preventing the lawful carrying of firearms by individuals who are traveling outside their home State interferes with the constitutional right of interstate travel, and harms interstate commerce.

(9) Among the purposes of this Act is the protection of the rights, privileges, and immunities guaranteed to a citizen of the United States by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

(10) The Congress, therefore, should provide for national recognition, in States that issue to their own citizens licenses or permits to carry concealed handguns, of other State permits or licenses to carry concealed handguns.

SEC. 3. RECIPROCITY FOR THE CARRYING OF CERTAIN CONCEALED FIREARMS.

(a) In General- Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 926C the following:

`Sec. 926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms

`(a) Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof, related to the carrying or transportation of firearms, a person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, and who is carrying a government-issued photographic identification document and a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of a State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm, may carry a concealed handgun (other than a machinegun or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, in any State, other than the State of residence of the person, that--

`(1) has a statute that allows residents of the State to obtain licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms; or

`(2) does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms by residents of the State for lawful purposes.

`(b) A person carrying a concealed handgun under this section shall be permitted to carry a handgun subject to the same conditions or limitations that apply to residents of the State who have permits issued by the State or are otherwise lawfully allowed to do so by the State.

`(c) In a State that allows the issuing authority for licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms to impose restrictions on the carrying of firearms by individual holders of such licenses or permits, a firearm shall be carried according to the same terms authorized by an unrestricted license or permit issued to a resident of the State.

`(d) Nothing in this section shall be construed to preempt any provision of State law with respect to the issuance of licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms.'.

(b) Clerical Amendment- The table of sections for such chapter is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 926C the following:

`926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms.'.

(c) Severability- Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, if any provision of this section, or any amendment made by this section, or the application of such provision or amendment to any person or circumstance is held to be unconstitutional, this section and amendments made by this section and the application of such provision or amendment to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby.

(d) Effective Date- The amendments made by this section shall take effect 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.

glock30user
05-08-2011, 06:09
What do you see as the issues with it?

As much as I would enjoy being to carry anywhere…it is a violation of states rights.

Darqnezz
05-08-2011, 06:32
I like it.

firemedic1343
05-08-2011, 06:38
As much as I would enjoy being to carry anywhere…it is a violation of states rights.

Yeah, and blanket refusal of a persons right to bear arms is a violation of ones constitutional right.

snubfan
05-08-2011, 06:41
This is a horrible thing and we do not want it to happen! Be careful what you wish for...let the states handle this.

HexHead
05-08-2011, 06:44
As much as I would enjoy being to carry anywhere…it is a violation of states rights.

How do you figure? State's have to recognize other state's drivers and marriage licenses.

joker42179
05-08-2011, 06:47
How do you figure? State's have to recognize other state's drivers and marriage licenses.



this.....

snubfan
05-08-2011, 07:15
What about when the .gov starts throwing in a few "common sense" requirements or blanket restrictions. How would you like a national ten round mag limit or no carry of those "cop killer" hollow points? No church carry?(Which is a restiction in my state but not in all.) National age requirement of 23 to get a permit.(like Missouri, I believe) Just a few here to start but I'm sure we could come up with more.

If you want to push for something at the national level, push for National Constitutional Carry.

RussP
05-08-2011, 07:55
What about when the .gov starts throwing in a few "common sense" requirements or blanket restrictions. How would you like a national ten round mag limit or no carry of those "cop killer" hollow points? No church carry?(Which is a restiction in my state but not in all.) National age requirement of 23 to get a permit.(like Missouri, I believe) Just a few here to start but I'm sure we could come up with more.It would not be if that would happen, but how soon.If you want to push for something at the national level, push for National Constitutional Carry.Anything legislated can be amended. And, for certain, the Judicial Branch would be working overtime "interpreting" the law.

The Machinist
05-08-2011, 07:58
As much as I would enjoy being to carry anywhere…it is a violation of states rights.
That was my immediate thought, but then again, states don't have a right to strip the lawful among us of our right to carry concealed.

BailRecoveryAgent
05-08-2011, 08:05
As much as I like the idea of national reciprocity, I'd also like the federal government to have less control over matters of the state. Like snubfan said, magazine and ammo restrictions and such would also likely be implimented by the govt again, and we all remember 1994-2004.

If there was language in the legislation that prevented the govt from implementing such nationwide restrictions, and just made the carriers abide by each individual states laws of which wording for is already in it, then I think it would be much better.

I like my Washington State gun laws and don't want to be forced to abide by California/Massachusets/NY/NJ type laws in my home state 51 weeks out of the year so that I can carry on vacation for one.

Dragoon44
05-08-2011, 09:08
How do you figure? State's have to recognize other state's drivers and marriage licenses.

States do not have to recognize drivers licenses from other states. They do so through a voluntary interstate compact not because of any federal law.

Though how "voluntary" it was is questionable since The federal Govt. threatened to withhold highway funds from any state that did not "voluntarily" join into the compact.

Dragoon44
05-08-2011, 09:10
Issues like this reveal who really believes in rights and who just wants to get their way regardless of the cost.

The same people that bemoan an overreaching federal Govt. when that Govt. does something they don't like suddenly become ardent Federalists when that same govt. will give them what they want.

snubfan
05-08-2011, 09:52
It would not be if that would happen, but how soon.Anything legislated can be amended. And, for certain, the Judicial Branch would be working overtime "interpreting" the law.
I should have explained myself better on my Constitutional carry comment. My understanding of the states that have it is that they basicly acknowledge the second amendment for what it is. It would be nice if every state and the fed could do the same but until then each state doing their own thing is working. A lot of good progress has been made at the state level with ccw in the last 15-20 years. Any involvement by the fed at this point would only screw that progress up IMHO.

kensteele
05-08-2011, 11:53
How do you figure? State's have to recognize other state's drivers and marriage licenses.

I believe that states got together and all decided to recognise each other's DL, so they did it on their own without have been told to by the Federal gvt.

If the states would all come together on the CCW permit, that would be great.

kensteele
05-08-2011, 11:58
Currently I'm on the fence with this one, need to think about it a bit more. If I were selfish, I would say I get to carry exactly the way I want 95% of the time. If I were thinking about the gun community, way too many people under too many restrictions with the present system.

IndyGunFreak
05-08-2011, 12:00
This matter is best left to the states to handle.

IGF

A6Gator
05-08-2011, 12:02
As much as I would enjoy being to carry anywhere…it is a violation of states rights.

Kinda like Obama-care?

While driver's licenses and marriages are privileges, this would provide an interesting 2A question. Are states not doing this "infringing?"

BlackDobe
05-08-2011, 12:18
Would I love it if all 50 states reciprocated by recognizing CFL from any state? Absolutely! We are not too far from that already.

My big concern is if this were mandated by the federal government then how long before the license itself becomes issued by the same federal government?

If/when that happens, what other restrictions will be made part of that license?

Do we really need the leftwing nut states putting immense pressure on the feds to make changes (additional restrictions) that accommodate their anti-gun sentiments that will have an impact on CFL holders in all other states?

It's just too much of a risk, IMHO.

Certain powers just need to remain in the hands of the states.

I also believe that abortion laws belong in the hands of the states rather than the feds. <--- had to throw that in. :whistling:

David Armstrong
05-09-2011, 11:05
If the Feds can mandate that all states must recognize the CCW permits from other states as valid then the Fed also has the power to prohibit a CCW permit from one state being recognized as in any other state. Remember the ancient Chinese curse of "May you get what you wish for."

Sippo
05-09-2011, 11:36
As much as I would enjoy being to carry anywhere…it is a violation of states rights.

Did you ever wonder why that doesn't apply to your driver's license?

David Armstrong
05-09-2011, 11:56
As mentioned before, driver's licenses are recognized through an interstate compact among the states themselves, not through a federal law.

btj
05-09-2011, 12:02
In a perfect world, I'd love to see this pass, but given that the world is not so perfect... I think I'd definitely rather see this left to the individual states to do as they see fit.

Brucev
05-09-2011, 12:21
Leave it to the states. Do not at all trust anyone in the fed. govt. to have such power. Some states will not agree to cc. Tough for citizens of those states. Good for those in states that do agree to cc. Not willing to jeopardize things for all.

TSAX
05-09-2011, 13:33
Some states now recognize others currently but if state A allows a permit from state B to M but not states C from N to Z then that is hypocritical. When I was in AZ and wanted to take a permit class I was told that I would have to get 3 from certain states that would have reciprocity with 33 states. Then the instructor said it was because of money, thats mainly why its like this.





:50cal:

redbaron007
05-09-2011, 14:34
First, drivers licenses and such are a 'Priviledge' under that states rules, not a consitutional right.

Second, the 'right to bear arms' is a consitutional issue. Two completely different issues.

After briefly reading the bill, it appears it's just consolidating all the CCW permits to make them equal in all states in the states that issue CCWs. Meaning, if I have a MO permit and I am in AL, my permit is reciprocating with AL and I am bound by AL guidelines. It doesn't force the state to accept CCW, unless they already have it.

I have mixed feelings. Since most of the states have different parameters for CCWs, I tend to side with it should be left up to the different states to either accept or not accept another states CCW. I don't feel comfortable letting Uncle Sam make that blanket acceptance. Seems like it could be a slippery slope after that.

On the other hand, I think every state should offer the individual to purchase, retain and carry firearms.

Just my .02.


:wavey:

red

usmc4641
05-09-2011, 15:11
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Toorop
05-09-2011, 16:09
As much as I would enjoy being to carry anywhere…it is a violation of states rights.
So is FOPA and LEOSA.
Should we repeal those laws as well?

Dragoon44
05-09-2011, 16:12
This abomination pases and you can expect in a few years they will amend it. To "standardize" carry requirements like training etc. Then before long it will have it's own bureaucracy whose only purpose is to promulgate rules and regulations whether they are needed or not.

Toorop
05-09-2011, 16:15
Kinda like Obama-care?

While driver's licenses and marriages are privileges, this would provide an interesting 2A question. Are states not doing this "infringing?"

Marriage is not a privilege. In many religions you can only have sexual relations with someone whom you are married to. If you forbid people from marrying you are violating their religious beliefs in my opinion.

vram74
05-09-2011, 16:24
How about instead of this we get a law spelling out and reaffirming the 2nd amendment as a right, the complete nullification of any Local/State/Federal law that restricts the 2nd amendment and a permanent ban on the possibility of it ever being brought up again in the future?

Toorop
05-09-2011, 16:33
How about instead of this we get a law spelling out and reaffirming the 2nd amendment as a right, the complete nullification of any Local/State/Federal law that restricts the 2nd amendment and a permanent ban on the possibility of it ever being brought up again in the future?

Then they will just repeal that law.

Oso
05-09-2011, 16:50
I think the whole point has been missed. The bill is for Reciprocity of CCW licenses. This means that the states have to recognize the CCW license as valid, not the issuing states laws. A state like New York could still limit your possession of "high"capacity magazines and where and how you can carry. I personally think it would become a logistic nightmare and anti-gun states would make it miserable enough that even valid CCW carries would be afraid to carry in that state.

Gokyo
05-09-2011, 16:54
As much as I would enjoy being to carry anywhere…it is a violation of states rights.

I like the idea. But it does violate states rights. I would not vote for it.

Kegs
05-09-2011, 17:00
We already have that - it's called the 2nd amendment.

David Armstrong
05-10-2011, 09:55
How about instead of this we get a law spelling out and reaffirming the 2nd amendment as a right,
I think we have that now as a result of the Heller and the McDonald cases.
the complete nullification of any Local/State/Federal law that restricts the 2nd amendment
All amendments are subject to reasonable regulation and restrictions.
and a permanent ban on the possibility of it ever being brought up again in the future?
No such thing possible, as it unlawfully restricts the actions of a future elected body to consider and pass legislation.

uhlawpup
05-10-2011, 10:01
How about instead of this we get a law spelling out and reaffirming the 2nd amendment as a right, the complete nullification of any Local/State/Federal law that restricts the 2nd amendment and a permanent ban on the possibility of it ever being brought up again in the future?

The permanent ban itself would be unconstitutional, and unwise. Things can change...greatly.

uhlawpup
05-10-2011, 10:03
I'm still on the fence about this one, too. The vast difference in the requirements from state to state to obtain a permit makes this problematic for me, as does the federalist intrusion. Then, again, there must be some way of achieving the goal of universal carry without endangering the fragile framework of laws and the balance that we have among rights, duties, and necessities.

BailRecoveryAgent
05-10-2011, 10:12
I would be fine with abiding by the states laws that you're visiting, like carrying 10 rounders in states that prohibit anything over that, I just think that eventually we would see some federal restrictions that would result in the loss of some freedoms in order to gain one.

Like I said in my first post in this thread, I don't want to have to abide by restrictive gun laws in my home state just so I can carry in another no more than once or MAYBE twice a year.

snubfan
05-10-2011, 16:00
I think the whole point has been missed. The bill is for Reciprocity of CCW licenses. This means that the states have to recognize the CCW license as valid, not the issuing states laws. A state like New York could still limit your possession of "high"capacity magazines and where and how you can carry. I personally think it would become a logistic nightmare and anti-gun states would make it miserable enough that even valid CCW carries would be afraid to carry in that state.
So if I have a permit from a "shall issue" state, does a "may issue" state (like New York) have to accept my permit and allow me to carry even though they deny most of their own citizens that right?







.

glock30user
05-10-2011, 16:25
To all of those who mentioned drivers licenses or marriage licenses, a marriage is a religious union which has been around forever…even before the US, so that is a moot point because they have always been recognized and don’t always need a govt. issued permit to be recognized. As for drivers lisc. the federal govt does all kinds of crazy things that don’t make sense…and that is the best I’ve got.

glock30user
05-10-2011, 16:30
Tenth Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
The federal govt. can’t tell one state to recognize a CCW permit from another because it is unconstitutional just like obamacare. I would love to carry in any state but that doesn't make it right by the constitution. When the fed govt. starts regulating it never stops and will overstep its bounds very soon. Look at income taxes - not equally applied to all the people - violation of the constitution, but generally accepted as ok.

Donn57
05-10-2011, 16:41
History has shown us that a federal law that has anything to do with guns or gun ownership is likely to turn out badly for gun owners.

StarfoxHowl
05-10-2011, 16:47
That was my immediate thought, but then again, states don't have a right to strip the lawful among us of our right to carry concealed.

I don't recall that there ever was a separate 'right to carry concealed'. If there is, could you enlighten me?

kensteele
05-10-2011, 17:04
History has shown us that a federal law that has anything to do with guns or gun ownership is likely to turn out badly for gun owners.

You mean like National Parks Carry?

glock30user
05-10-2011, 17:10
So is FOPA and LEOSA.
Should we repeal those laws as well?

In short YES!

RottnJP
05-10-2011, 17:23
I have mixed feelings on it too. I the one hand, I want it, and think that it is, at least based on my reading, permissible based on "full faith and credit."

"Article IV
Section 1.

Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.
Section 2.

The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states."

To me, that's the applicable section of the Constitution. It's got to be based on that, and anchored to the premise that it is the states' legislation which is the governing body of law, and the U.S. law is preventing undue abridgement of one's rights when traveling in another state. Using that, you could probably stretch the commerce clause to permit it as well.

The thing that worries me, as others have mentioned, is the tendency of legislation to be twisted and abused. What to me is designed to prevent abridgement of my rights when I travel could to Hillary be an opening, as I think we all agree: "Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof." That *should* mean that the states' laws can be *more* permissive than the Fed's, but not *less.*

But we all know that the Fed willfully bribes the states into compliance using our own money, a la highway dollars, anti-crime dollars, anti-terrorism dollars, etc.

But here's the kicker, and ultimately why I *think* (right now, anyway) I'd vote for national reciprocity... The Fed can already pass legislation trampling on the RtKBA and using the Federal coffers to get compliance from those who are willing to let themselves be bribed... It's really just us, the good guys we can elect, and the NRA's lobbying power, that prevent that from happening already. So I guess we might as well get something good out of it while we can.

RottnJP
05-10-2011, 17:26
I think we have that now as a result of the Heller and the McDonald cases.


Dave, did you miss your Wheaties this morning? You know as well as I do that a court case is nothing but a precedent. There's no law until the legislative branch makes one.

Oso
05-10-2011, 17:37
Yep, that is what national reciprocity would mean.

So if I have a permit from a "shall issue" state, does a "may issue" state (like New York) have to accept my permit and allow me to carry even though they deny most of their own citizens that right?







.

David Armstrong
05-10-2011, 18:20
Dave, did you miss your Wheaties this morning? You know as well as I do that a court case is nothing but a precedent. There's no law until the legislative branch makes one.
Don't think I said anything about the court case being a law. Heller and McDonald spelled out and affirmed the 2nd amendment as a right, which was the core of the statement. But FWIW, case law certainly is law. It is not statutory law, but it is considered a form of law none the less.

RottnJP
05-10-2011, 19:15
Don't think I said anything about the court case being a law. Heller and McDonald spelled out and affirmed the 2nd amendment as a right, which was the core of the statement. But FWIW, case law certainly is law. It is not statutory law, but it is considered a form of law none the less.

O.K., yeah, I guess it depends on the semantics of "law." From a practical standpoint, "case law" = "precedent." If I get picked up in D.C. with a pistol in my car, I can talk about Heller all I want, I'm still spending the night (at least) in jail.

If the only statutory laws in place don't permit what I'm doing, the law isn't on my side, and it won't be until (a) the statutory law is changed or (b) the judiciary strikes it down.

That's the valid comparison with national reciprocity- The law doesn't say I can do it, so referencing the Heller case is not relevant to the legality of carrying across state lines.

codecowboy
05-10-2011, 20:50
As much as I would enjoy being to carry anywhere…it is a violation of states rights.

Agreed. That is exactly what is bothering me.

J_Rico
05-11-2011, 07:52
Like many, I have mixed feelings about this. I would love to see such reciprocity, but imposition by the Feds seems a violation of state's rights. IMO state's rights are the more important of these two issues.

Another viewpoint might be that this is helping restore those rights being abridged by certain states. The 2A rights of citizens have been limited by some states. This law would be removing some of that limitation.

After all, if New York enacted a law tomorrow requiring a one hour delay for broadcast news and a 1 day delay for print media, to allow censorship of the news, what would be the reaction? Would people condemn this attack on the 1A or stand up for New York's state rights?

David Armstrong
05-11-2011, 09:19
O.K., yeah, I guess it depends on the semantics of "law." From a practical standpoint, "case law" = "precedent." If I get picked up in D.C. with a pistol in my car, I can talk about Heller all I want, I'm still spending the night (at least) in jail.
True, as regards Heller specifically. If, however, there is case law that says the police cannot do that, then you probably get to avoid that even if there is a statute prohibiting it.
If the only statutory laws in place don't permit what I'm doing, the law isn't on my side, and it won't be until (a) the statutory law is changed or (b) the judiciary strikes it down.
Yes, both have the same practical effect and are considered law.
That's the valid comparison with national reciprocity- The law doesn't say I can do it, so referencing the Heller case is not relevant to the legality of carrying across state lines.
Perhaps, but again, the statement did not address carrying across state lines, the statement specifically referenced "How about instead of this we get a law spelling out and reaffirming the 2nd amendment as a right," which Heller and McDonald certainly did.

Donn57
05-12-2011, 05:40
You mean like National Parks Carry?

Even a blind squirrel finds a nut now and again.

Gunnut 45/454
05-12-2011, 09:28
snubfan
I agree 100%! National Constitutional carry is all thats needed! Get the government out of it at all levels! :supergrin:

TBO
05-12-2011, 09:34
Issues like this reveal who really believes in rights and who just wants to get their way regardless of the cost.

The same people that bemoan an overreaching federal Govt. when that Govt. does something they don't like suddenly become ardent Federalists when that same govt. will give them what they want.
This is too often ignored.

http://www.gifsoup.com/webroot/animatedgifs2/1572351_o.gif

David Armstrong
05-12-2011, 09:41
snubfan
I agree 100%! National Constitutional carry is all thats needed! Get the government out of it at all levels! :supergrin:
LOL!! You do realize that "National Constitutional Carry" is based on government control at all levels....or maybe you don't!:faint:

dogchild
05-12-2011, 10:02
What about when the .gov starts throwing in a few "common sense" requirements or blanket restrictions. How would you like a national ten round mag limit or no carry of those "cop killer" hollow points? No church carry?(Which is a restiction in my state but not in all.) National age requirement of 23 to get a permit.(like Missouri, I believe) Just a few here to start but I'm sure we could come up with more.

If you want to push for something at the national level, push for National Constitutional Carry.

Great point, and i agree it sould be left to the States

Toorop
05-12-2011, 11:31
LOL!! You do realize that "National Constitutional Carry" is based on government control at all levels....or maybe you don't!:faint:

I agree. Then I could open carry my M4 with attached 203 to the local park to watch the little league games in safety and see my nephews play. And I could have my bayonet attached while I walk through the mall and shop for my girlfriend at Bed, Bath, and Beyond. I'd never have to worry about what the antis think!

Sam Spade
05-12-2011, 13:07
I'm in with RottnJP. This is an issue of states recognizing each others' decisions and extending the same privileges to travellers as they do to their own. No one says that the visitor can ignore any restriction that the local has to obey. And for states like IL and WI, there's no requirement to allow any carry for anyone.

And, yes, it's a federal issue precisely because it deals with travel and commerce between the states.

Warp
05-12-2011, 13:11
I agree. Then I could open carry my M4 with attached 203 to the local park to watch the little league games in safety and see my nephews play. And I could have my bayonet attached while I walk through the mall and shop for my girlfriend at Bed, Bath, and Beyond. I'd never have to worry about what the antis think!

Now, you know you can't start talking about that without pictures. :supergrin:

Where are the pics?! A link to pics in another thread would be great

RottnJP
05-12-2011, 17:57
This abomination pases and you can expect in a few years they will amend it. To "standardize" carry requirements like training etc. Then before long it will have it's own bureaucracy whose only purpose is to promulgate rules and regulations whether they are needed or not.

I would totally agree with you IF we were talking about nationalized CCW scheme. That would be a train wreck waiting to happen, and would be a violation of the states' rights.

But basing national legislation on "full faith and credit" is different- In that case, any federal restrictions might impact the reciprocity piece of the issue, but would not supercede the states' legislation. So, for example, let's say nat'l reciprocity passes, then Hillary is elected President, and decides to F with it. At worst, the fed could tack on rules that make the federal reciprocity useless. None of that would impact state residents abiding by their own states regulations.

In fact, later federal abuse of a law based on full faith and credit could even be ignored by states which have undertaken their own reciprocity agreements, because at no time would the nat'l legislation have greater force than the states- It would simply be there to protect the "minimum rights" as congress understands them at any given point in time.

Warp
05-12-2011, 18:12
In fact, later federal abuse of a law based on full faith and credit could even be ignored by states which have undertaken their own reciprocity agreements, because at no time would the nat'l legislation have greater force than the states- It would simply be there to protect the "minimum rights" as congress understands them at any given point in time.

Then how does it ever have an effect?

kensteele
05-12-2011, 18:20
I would totally agree with you IF we were talking about nationalized CCW scheme. That would be a train wreck waiting to happen, and would be a violation of the states' rights.

But basing national legislation on "full faith and credit" is different- In that case, any federal restrictions might impact the reciprocity piece of the issue, but would not supercede the states' legislation. So, for example, let's say nat'l reciprocity passes, then Hillary is elected President, and decides to F with it. At worst, the fed could tack on rules that make the federal reciprocity useless. None of that would impact state residents abiding by their own states regulations.

In fact, later federal abuse of a law based on full faith and credit could even be ignored by states which have undertaken their own reciprocity agreements, because at no time would the nat'l legislation have greater force than the states- It would simply be there to protect the "minimum rights" as congress understands them at any given point in time.

Are you saying that even after National Reciprocity passes, California could still continue to not recognise a UT license because CA has a state law that says no permit from other than CA shall be recognised...?

RottnJP
05-12-2011, 19:54
O.K., I guess I didn't say it right- I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know all the right words- It does impact the states laws in the sense of what that article of the Constitution says- Individual states can't abridge the rights of other states residents.

So a CA law saying "we don't play" would be illegal. The law would be saying that states have to let other states' residents play by the "home" state's rules, if that makes sense. (So you might have to know that if you're traveling to MA, you'd better have a couple 10 round mags handy, and put your evil full size mags in the trunk... I would think CCW-travelers would have to be very careful to "study up" before hitting the road for another state.)

But the courts would likely get involved in determining what is a "reasonable" restriction, just like they do now, with a state that chooses to put an unreasonably onerous restriction in place. Kind of like the Fed saying poll taxes are illegal (unreasonable) while a residency requirement might be perfectly fine.

So CA might pass a law saying out of state visitors with CCW's have to check in with the state police and register their firearm, destination, length of visit, etc. Someone would sue, and the court would get involved there.

So yes, I suppose no option is perfectly clean as regards states rights. The courts have long held that the Fed can play a role in ensuring certain rights are held to a minimum level in all states, and that's where this would help- That's what it would do for the 2nd amendment. In my opinion, anyway... It's definitely a bit of a challenging issue.

Warp
05-13-2011, 14:07
I agree. Then I could open carry my M4 with attached 203 to the local park to watch the little league games in safety and see my nephews play. And I could have my bayonet attached while I walk through the mall and shop for my girlfriend at Bed, Bath, and Beyond. I'd never have to worry about what the antis think!

Any pics yet?

Which rifle, specifically, is your "M4"?

Toorop
05-13-2011, 14:15
Now, you know you can't start talking about that without pictures. :supergrin:

Where are the pics?! A link to pics in another thread would be great Once the Congress finally decides to recognize the 2nd Amendment as it was meant to be. I will have an M4 or maybe an MP5 to take with me everywhere as I go on about my daily life.

I figure it will happen at about the same time national reciprocity happens.

Warp
05-13-2011, 14:17
Once the Congress finally decides to recognize the 2nd Amendment as it was meant to be. I will have an M4 or maybe an MP5 to take with me everywhere as I go on about my daily life.

I figure it will happen at about the same time national reciprocity happens.


Do you have any experience carrying a rifle? If so, where?

Toorop
05-13-2011, 14:22
Do you have any experience carrying a rifle? If so, where?

I do. I'd rather leave it at that. By chance do you?

Warp
05-13-2011, 14:25
I do. I'd rather leave it at that. By chance do you?

If you aren't willing to discuss it why do you keep throwing it out there?

dsa1115
05-13-2011, 14:56
I live in the Peoples Republic of Illinois. Here they don't respect the Constitution and don't care about citizens rights.

Toorop
05-13-2011, 15:00
If you aren't willing to discuss it why do you keep throwing it out there?
Once it passes I will. Maybe the two of us could march down the street in Atlanta or Chicago or New York City with our rifles openly displayed and as American citizens like the Founders Intended.

I am just saying that if the congress starts giving us our rights back, for lack of a better expression, then we can exercise them.

Warp
05-13-2011, 19:55
Once it passes I will. Maybe the two of us could march down the street in Atlanta or Chicago or New York City with our rifles openly displayed and as American citizens like the Founders Intended.

I am just saying that if the congress starts giving us our rights back, for lack of a better expression, then we can exercise them.

I could already do that, legally, here in Georgia.

I think there are laws about walking in the street, though. Wouldn't want to get run over.

RottnJP
05-13-2011, 20:48
This was a very interesting discussion... How did it devolve into carrying rifles down main street again?

Warp
05-13-2011, 21:10
This was a very interesting discussion... How did it devolve into carrying rifles down main street again?

Ask Toorop.

HotRoderX
05-13-2011, 21:13
Biggest fear about something like this passing is simply states refusing to issue any more CCP to people.

If a state does not wanna agree with it easy solution just stop issuing permits.

ponders
12-04-2011, 11:56
Biggest fear about something like this passing is simply states refusing to issue any more CCP to people.

If a state does not wanna agree with it easy solution just stop issuing permits.



permits are an infringment on our rights to carry firearms anyway.. IMHO they wouldnt or couldnt stop issuing permits that would be a total violation of being able to carry. so they would have a lot of protesting on that one

TrybalRage
12-04-2011, 18:38
So how does this possible legislation affect those who live in states that don't issue permits, like Vermont? Wouldn't the state then have to start issuing permits (restricting it's citizen's rights) so that they can carry in other states?

jeffyjeff
12-04-2011, 20:11
So how does this possible legislation affect those who live in states that don't issue permits, like Vermont? Wouldn't the state then have to start issuing permits (restricting it's citizen's rights) so that they can carry in other states?

they could easily continue on without requiring permits, but then issue permits in addition for any residents that travel.

xmanhockey7
12-05-2011, 04:22
Looking at the fact many states issue non-resident permits it shouldn't be a problem.

TangoFoxtrot
12-05-2011, 09:00
Biggest fear about something like this passing is simply states refusing to issue any more CCP to people.

If a state does not wanna agree with it easy solution just stop issuing permits.


You have a good point! I think it would drive violent crimes down. I think the thugs would have to wonder...Is he/she packing or not??? especially in a place like NYC or Boston. I just don't see this happening...unfortunitley.

kensteele
12-05-2011, 17:56
If a state does not wanna agree with it easy solution just stop issuing permits.

Ok, let's use this as an example.

New Jersey issues permit.

You can't carry in NJ.

National Reciprocity law passes.

You can now carry in NJ.

New Jersey gets pissed off and stop issuing permits.

You can no longer carrying in NJ.

What's the problem? In this context, tell me how this law is bad for non-NJ residents.

kensteele
12-05-2011, 18:00
So how does this possible legislation affect those who live in states that don't issue permits, like Vermont? Wouldn't the state then have to start issuing permits (restricting it's citizen's rights) so that they can carry in other states?

This law has zero practical affect on VT. They can pretty much go on with business as usual. This law doesn't NOT give state residents the ability to carry in other states. It only affects those with a valid state-issued permit. If you don't have a permit, no effect on you, what you didn't yesterday is same as what you do tomorrow. VT residents are still free to choose their own course of action if they have other needs (just as they would do today).

TrybalRage
12-05-2011, 18:35
This law has zero practical affect on VT. They can pretty much go on with business as usual. This law doesn't NOT give state residents the ability to carry in other states. It only affects those with a valid state-issued permit. If you don't have a permit, no effect on you, what you didn't yesterday is same as what you do tomorrow. VT residents are still free to choose their own course of action if they have other needs (just as they would do today).

Would this law allow a VT resident to get a Florida permit and have it valid in other states that currently do not have reciprocity with Florida, or does it require the licensee to have the permit from their home state? It's a little unclear on that.

Otherwise, a NY resident would just go get the easiest permit they could and poof, they can now carry in NY instead of going through all of their home state's rules.

If they haven't covered that, someone will before this gets to the next level.

mfm9
12-05-2011, 19:02
I guess everyone in favor of HR 822 is aware of these provisions in the bill that was passed:

SEC. 3. GAO AUDIT OF THE STATES' CONCEALED CARRY PERMIT OR LICENSING REQUIREMENTS FOR NON-RESIDENTS.

(a) The Comptroller General of the United States shall conduct an audit of--
(1) the laws and regulations of each State that authorize the issuance of a valid permit or license to permit a person, other than a resident of such State, to possess or carry a concealed firearm, including a description of the permitting or licensing requirements of each State that issues concealed carry permits or licenses to persons other than a resident of such State;
(2) the number of such valid permits or licenses issued or denied (and the basis for such denials) by each State to persons other than a resident of such State; and
(3) the effectiveness of such State laws and regulations in protecting the public safety.
(b) Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall submit to Congress a report on the findings of the study conducted under subsection (a).
SEC. 4. GAO STUDY OF THE ABILITY OF STATE AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT TO VERIFY THE VALIDITY OF OUT-OF-STATE CONCEALED FIREARMS PERMITS.

(a) In General- The Comptroller General of the United States shall conduct a study of the ability of State and local law enforcement authorities to verify the validity of licenses or permits, issued by other States, to carry a concealed firearm.
(b) Report to the Congress- Within 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall submit to the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate a written report which contains the results of the study required by subsection (a).

-Mike

xmanhockey7
12-05-2011, 19:09
Would this law allow a VT resident to get a Florida permit and have it valid in other states that currently do not have reciprocity with Florida, or does it require the licensee to have the permit from their home state? It's a little unclear on that.

Otherwise, a NY resident would just go get the easiest permit they could and poof, they can now carry in NY instead of going through all of their home state's rules.

If they haven't covered that, someone will before this gets to the next level.
It allows you to get any carry permit from any state and carry in any state, other than your state of residence, that allows concealed carry. A NJ resident can get a FL non-resident and carry in every state except NJ and IL. A VT resident can get a NH permit and carry in every state except IL. If IL were to pass concealed carry then you could carry there.

PAGunner
12-05-2011, 19:13
Otherwise, a NY resident would just go get the easiest permit they could and poof, they can now carry in NY instead of going through all of their home.

Wouldn't go down like that, NYS issues permits to own firearms, Let alone carry. Most of the populous of NYS (NYC) and other counties with large populations will not even be issued an "unrestricted" (carry) permit.

xmanhockey7
12-05-2011, 19:16
Wouldn't go down like that, NYS issues permits to own firearms, Let alone carry. Most of the populous of NYS (NYC) and other counties with large populations will not even be issued an "unrestricted" (carry) permit.

It all depends on where you live. Some counties are easier than others.

kensteele
12-05-2011, 21:45
Would this law allow a VT resident to get a Florida permit and have it valid in other states that currently do not have reciprocity with Florida, or does it require the licensee to have the permit from their home state? It's a little unclear on that.

Otherwise, a NY resident would just go get the easiest permit they could and poof, they can now carry in NY instead of going through all of their home state's rules.

If they haven't covered that, someone will before this gets to the next level.

Would this law allow a VT resident to get a Florida permit and have it valid in other states that currently do not have reciprocity with Florida? Yes. When this bill passes, FL will instantly have "reciprocity" with 48 other state permits. Doesn't much matter where you live, how you got the permit, or where you are going, your valid state-issued permit is valid in 49 states (with a few home state exceptions).

Would this law allow a MO resident to get a Florida permit and have it valid in MO? Yes. But this new bill didn't create this condition, MO created it. MO doesn't care where you get your permit from, even if you are a MO resident you are free to get a permit from another state if you wish. The new bill doesn't change the existing MO state law with regards to it's own residents.

Would this law allow a NY resident to get a Florida permit and have it valid in NY? No. This new bill doesn't override NY state law. NY cares where their residents get their permit from and right now NY says if you live in NY and you want to carry in NY, you have to get permission from NY via a NY permit. The new bill doesn't change the existing state law with regards to it's own residents.

I know how people feel about "states rights" and in the last example, NY has sole discretion over it's own residents but personally I don't feel NY has the right to DENY out of state residents their rights just because I don't own a resident in the state of NY. If NY (and other states) has an out of state visitor program, maybe that's fine. Maybe it's ok for NY to say yes or no to out of state residents as to whether they can carry or not. However, this isn't happening. NY has said "No! forgot about it." NY said denied my rights in their state and once again, if NY want to deny a NYer, that between them but don't try to impose unreasonable NY state laws onto visitors from KS and elsewhere. It is reasonable to have some types of restrictions (especially reasonable restrictions that apply to your own residents as well) but to completely deny my rights (when those same rights are given to some residents) means the Federal government has to step in to help restore my rights. And that's exactly what is happening here....in the least intrusive way possible, I might add.

EAJuggalo
12-05-2011, 22:00
I guess everyone in favor of HR 822 is aware of these provisions in the bill that was passed:

SEC. 3. GAO AUDIT OF THE STATES' CONCEALED CARRY PERMIT OR LICENSING REQUIREMENTS FOR NON-RESIDENTS.

(a) The Comptroller General of the United States shall conduct an audit of--
(1) the laws and regulations of each State that authorize the issuance of a valid permit or license to permit a person, other than a resident of such State, to possess or carry a concealed firearm, including a description of the permitting or licensing requirements of each State that issues concealed carry permits or licenses to persons other than a resident of such State;
(2) the number of such valid permits or licenses issued or denied (and the basis for such denials) by each State to persons other than a resident of such State; and
(3) the effectiveness of such State laws and regulations in protecting the public safety.
(b) Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall submit to Congress a report on the findings of the study conducted under subsection (a).
SEC. 4. GAO STUDY OF THE ABILITY OF STATE AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT TO VERIFY THE VALIDITY OF OUT-OF-STATE CONCEALED FIREARMS PERMITS.

(a) In General- The Comptroller General of the United States shall conduct a study of the ability of State and local law enforcement authorities to verify the validity of licenses or permits, issued by other States, to carry a concealed firearm.
(b) Report to the Congress- Within 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall submit to the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate a written report which contains the results of the study required by subsection (a).

-Mike
Yes I was aware of it and I agree with it. It was not a provision of the bill as introduced, it was the only one of 10 amendments to pass the house. This still needs to go through the senate and the White House before becoming law.

redbaron007
12-06-2011, 13:08
Would this law allow a VT resident to get a Florida permit and have it valid in other states that currently do not have reciprocity with Florida? Yes. When this bill passes, FL will instantly have "reciprocity" with 48 other state permits. Doesn't much matter where you live, how you got the permit, or where you are going, your valid state-issued permit is valid in 49 states (with a few home state exceptions).

Would this law allow a MO resident to get a Florida permit and have it valid in MO? Yes. But this new bill didn't create this condition, MO created it. MO doesn't care where you get your permit from, even if you are a MO resident you are free to get a permit from another state if you wish. The new bill doesn't change the existing MO state law with regards to it's own residents.

Would this law allow a NY resident to get a Florida permit and have it valid in NY? No. This new bill doesn't override NY state law. NY cares where their residents get their permit from and right now NY says if you live in NY and you want to carry in NY, you have to get permission from NY via a NY permit. The new bill doesn't change the existing state law with regards to it's own residents.

I know how people feel about "states rights" and in the last example, NY has sole discretion over it's own residents but personally I don't feel NY has the right to DENY out of state residents their rights just because I don't own a resident in the state of NY. If NY (and other states) has an out of state visitor program, maybe that's fine. Maybe it's ok for NY to say yes or no to out of state residents as to whether they can carry or not. However, this isn't happening. NY has said "No! forgot about it." NY said denied my rights in their state and once again, if NY want to deny a NYer, that between them but don't try to impose unreasonable NY state laws onto visitors from KS and elsewhere. It is reasonable to have some types of restrictions (especially reasonable restrictions that apply to your own residents as well) but to completely deny my rights (when those same rights are given to some residents) means the Federal government has to step in to help restore my rights. And that's exactly what is happening here....in the least intrusive way possible, I might add.

When the SCOTUS declares CCWing as part of the 2A, then you are right.
Right now, CCWing is a privilege that states regulate. CCW is not a right at this time. Should it be, yes. However, until then, NY has not infringed on your right. Subsequently, a state should be able to govern their own and the visitors that come in/to it for CCW. It shouldn't be the feds under the CC, but only due in part to the 2A.


:wavey:

red

xmanhockey7
12-06-2011, 13:22
Unfortunately it is treated as a privilege by most states even though it is a right. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. I don't what those idiots think bear means. If they had written the 2nd amendment to help dumb it down they would have written it something like this..."Because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to own and carry weapons shall not be infringed."

redbaron007
12-06-2011, 13:29
Unfortunately it is treated as a privilege by most states even though it is a right. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. I don't what those idiots think bear means. If they had written the 2nd amendment to help dumb it down they would have written it something like this..."Because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to own and carry weapons shall not be infringed."

Exactly!

Although I hate it being treated as a privilege, I wish it would be re-established as a Right!

:wavey:

red

xmanhockey7
12-06-2011, 14:49
Exactly!

Although I hate it being treated as a privilege, I wish it would be re-established as a Right!

:wavey:

red

Arizona (mostly), Alaska, Vermont, and Wyoming agree it is.

maxmanta
12-06-2011, 14:58
Do you really think Obama would sign this into law? I don't.

xmanhockey7
12-06-2011, 15:05
Do you really think Obama would sign this into law? I don't.

I don't see Romney doing it either. If we got Newt into office thought I believe he would sign it.

Old Junes
12-06-2011, 18:08
Issues like this reveal who really believes in rights and who just wants to get their way regardless of the cost.

The same people that bemoan an overreaching federal Govt. when that Govt. does something they don't like suddenly become ardent Federalists when that same govt. will give them what they want.

I think this is right on the money. I found myself originally favoring this bill and then realized that you can't pick and choose when you want the long arm of the fed govt in your business if you claim to want it out in virtually every other scenario.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

kensteele
12-06-2011, 18:35
When the SCOTUS declares CCWing as part of the 2A, then you are right.
Right now, CCWing is a privilege that states regulate. CCW is not a right at this time. Should it be, yes. However, until then, NY has not infringed on your right. Subsequently, a state should be able to govern their own and the visitors that come in/to it for CCW. It shouldn't be the feds under the CC, but only due in part to the 2A.


:wavey:

red

This bill is a step closer to seeing it as a right to self-protection. When you leave the state and you are traveling, your firearm is your right to self-protection, not necessarily CCW. CCW is what states grant to their residents at home. When I'm on the road, my state will disembark at the state line and the Federal govt will hitch a ride with me as I travel across this great country and see that I am protected against the crazy laws out there that would make me a criminal for trying to protect myself. Embrace this bill.

Again, I don't think NY has a duty to provide me with a CCW when I visit their state. Not asking for one. However, when NY tries to arrest me (a permitted person) for carrying a firearm to protect myself when they do not arrest their own permitted residents for carrying a firearm to protect themselves, I have a problem with that. And you should, too. NY (the government) has no right to pick winners and losers.

redbaron007
12-06-2011, 19:23
This bill is a step closer to seeing it as a right to self-protection. When you leave the state and you are traveling, your firearm is your right to self-protection, not necessarily CCW. CCW is what states grant to their residents at home. When I'm on the road, my state will disembark at the state line and the Federal govt will hitch a ride with me as I travel across this great country and see that I am protected against the crazy laws out there that would make me a criminal for trying to protect myself. Embrace this bill.

Again, I don't think NY has a duty to provide me with a CCW when I visit their state. Not asking for one. However, when NY tries to arrest me (a permitted person) for carrying a firearm to protect myself when they do not arrest their own permitted residents for carrying a firearm to protect themselves, I have a problem with that. And you should, too. NY (the government) has no right to pick winners and losers.

I don't necessarily disagree with your philosophy. However, it comes back to the a state being able to regulate a privilege, not a constitution right, they offer to their citizens. If they want you to have a permit, and it's there permit, then until, it sucks.

:wavey:

red

jeffyjeff
12-06-2011, 21:32
I don't necessarily disagree with your philosophy. However, it comes back to the a state being able to regulate a privilege, not a constitution right, they offer to their citizens. If they want you to have a permit, and it's there permit, then until, it sucks.

:wavey:

red

carrying a gun is a constitutional right, not a privilege for states to regulate.

kensteele
12-06-2011, 23:26
I don't necessarily disagree with your philosophy. However, it comes back to the a state being able to regulate a privilege, not a constitution right, they offer to their citizens. If they want you to have a permit, and it's there permit, then until, it sucks.

:wavey:

red

Again, I am not asking NY to give me a permit. I don't care if they give me a permit or not. If they want to regulate NY permits, go ahead and regulate them. But being able to regulate NY permits don't extend to meaning regulating a person's right to self-defense and protection. But it WILL if people continue to believe that it will. It will NOT the instant this law passes.

So in summary, states being able to regulate a privilege they offer to their resident is fair today. If NY states wants to give a permit to their residents (or not) and don't want to give a permit to me, that's fine. I don't need one. But when I go to NY (and I take the Federal govt with me), NY has a lot less say over me. I'm not a NY resident so believe it or not, a lot of NY laws don't apply to me and I'm exempt from a quite a few NY laws. This is going to be one of them.

If NY reserves certain privileges for it's own residents, that's fine too. But life, liberty, protection, privacy, and a whole bunch of others goodies belong to all American and no way can NY remove those from me just because I'm not a NY resident. I take those with me regardless of what state I am in. This bill seeks to add and clarify the reach of my KS permit and it will immediately trump whatever NY believes is a "privilege" reserved for it's residents only. Frankly, I don't understand why so many people are against this...logically speaking.

redbaron007
12-07-2011, 07:56
carrying a gun is a constitutional right, not a privilege for states to regulate.

Right now, the courts disagree with you. So please CCW your gun in IL and be the test case, if you feel that strong. Philosophically, I agree, but legally your wrong in the majority of states and feds.

Again, I am not asking NY to give me a permit. I don't care if they give me a permit or not. If they want to regulate NY permits, go ahead and regulate them. But being able to regulate NY permits don't extend to meaning regulating a person's right to self-defense and protection. But it WILL if people continue to believe that it will. It will NOT the instant this law passes.

So in summary, states being able to regulate a privilege they offer to their resident is fair today. If NY states wants to give a permit to their residents (or not) and don't want to give a permit to me, that's fine. I don't need one. But when I go to NY (and I take the Federal govt with me), NY has a lot less say over me. I'm not a NY resident so believe it or not, a lot of NY laws don't apply to me and I'm exempt from a quite a few NY laws. This is going to be one of them.

If NY reserves certain privileges for it's own residents, that's fine too. But life, liberty, protection, privacy, and a whole bunch of others goodies belong to all American and no way can NY remove those from me just because I'm not a NY resident. I take those with me regardless of what state I am in. This bill seeks to add and clarify the reach of my KS permit and it will immediately trump whatever NY believes is a "privilege" reserved for it's residents only. Frankly, I don't understand why so many people are against this...logically speaking.

Again, when you enter into another state, you abide by their laws/regs to enjoy their privileges they want to apply to you. CCW is one of those privileges they want to regulate, for their residents and when you come to their state. Once again, until the SCOTUS (or Feds) changes and says CCW is part of the 2A, you really don't have a say in NY, especially since you are not a resident.

In addition, this bill is being passed under the CC, not the 2A, which makes it very easy to ammend and change, it opens the door for the feds to obtain more control later. However, if it was through the 2A, the amendments would have a more difficult time of being passed and a higher chance of being supported by the 2A through the courts.

It doesn't matter how one twists their thoughts and philosophy on CCW, in the majority of the states, it is a privilege they regulate, for residents and guests. It's their turf, if you want to play on their turf, you abide by their rules.

Think about it like this; in your state, your nieghborhood speed limit is 35mph, however you got to state 'B' and thier neighborhood speed limit is 25mph, since driving is a privilege, they (state 'B') can regulate the speed on their turf. If you drive 35mph and get stopped, do you think they will accept your states speed limit? Nope. Again, it is a privilege they regulate. Also, your state doesn't honor NY permits.

I wish it would become part of the 2A; however, sliding a CCW under the CC is a feel good law that opens the door for more fed intervention. When have you known the Feds to not expand something......especially if you get a liberal congress in 3-5 years?

Anyway, I think it is a mute point, I have very little doubt it will not pass the senate, if it gets to come up to a vote. IMHO, this is a feel good bill pushed through by the NRA. I support the NRA, but we disagree on this issue.

:wavey:

red

JuneyBooney
12-07-2011, 08:01
I think this is right on the money. I found myself originally favoring this bill and then realized that you can't pick and choose when you want the long arm of the fed govt in your business if you claim to want it out in virtually every other scenario.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

The state already has your info even if they don't admit it. During the DC sniper events the pd came to my door looking for a history of my 223 guns I had purchased in the past. So they "know" even if they don't admit it. I like the HR bill and it is a step in the right direction.

HexHead
12-07-2011, 08:19
This bill is a step closer to seeing it as a right to self-protection. When you leave the state and you are traveling, your firearm is your right to self-protection, not necessarily CCW. CCW is what states grant to their residents at home. When I'm on the road, my state will disembark at the state line and the Federal govt will hitch a ride with me as I travel across this great country and see that I am protected against the crazy laws out there that would make me a criminal for trying to protect myself. Embrace this bill.

Again, I don't think NY has a duty to provide me with a CCW when I visit their state. Not asking for one. However, when NY tries to arrest me (a permitted person) for carrying a firearm to protect myself when they do not arrest their own permitted residents for carrying a firearm to protect themselves, I have a problem with that. And you should, too. NY (the government) has no right to pick winners and losers.

Excellent!

HexHead
12-07-2011, 08:27
How is this really any different than the Feds rules for interstate transport?

A provision of the federal law known as the Firearms Owners` Protection Act, or FOPA, protects those who are transporting firearms for lawful purposes from local restrictions which would otherwise prohibit passage.



Those of you that oppose the National Reciprocity Act, are you also against FOPA?

redbaron007
12-07-2011, 08:33
How is this really any different than the Feds rules for interstate transport?



Those of you that oppose the National Reciprocity Act, are you also against FOPA?

Not sure....do you have a cite for your quote? I'm not familar with 'FOPA'. It may be apples to oranges in comparison.


:wavey:

red

HexHead
12-07-2011, 08:34
Anyway, I think it is a mute point, I have very little doubt it will not pass the senate, if it gets to come up to a vote. IMHO, this is a feel good bill pushed through by the NRA. I support the NRA, but we disagree on this issue.



A similar bill came up in the Senate in 2009, when the Dems had an even stronger grip. Harry Reid, who has an "A" rating from the NRA, let it come up for a vote and it failed to get the 60 vote majority by only two votes.

Why does everyone think it has no shot?

HexHead
12-07-2011, 08:34
Not sure....do you have a cite for your quote? I'm not familar with 'FOPA'. It may be apples to oranges in comparison.


:wavey:

red


http://www.nraila.org/gunlaws/federal/read.aspx?id=59

redbaron007
12-07-2011, 08:40
A similar bill came up in the Senate in 2009, when the Dems had an even stronger grip. Harry Reid, who has an "A" rating from the NRA, let it come up for a vote and it failed to get the 60 vote majority by only two votes.

Why does everyone think it has no shot?

Partisan politics. :whistling:

IIRC, a majority is 51 votes; veto overide is 60; & supermajority is 67 (amending the constitution).

:wavey:

red

HexHead
12-07-2011, 08:41
Partisan politics. :whistling:

IIRC, a majority is 51 votes; veto overide is 60; & supermajority is 67 (amending the constitution).

:wavey:

red

60 prevents a filibuster.

bandmasterjf
12-07-2011, 08:44
I don't necessarily disagree with your philosophy. However, it comes back to the a state being able to regulate a privilege, not a constitution right, they offer to their citizens. If they want you to have a permit, and it's there permit, then until, it sucks.

:wavey:

red

Do do you think NY should have the ability to not recognize our DL? If they allow a carry permit with thier residents then everyone else should be on a level playing field as their guys. If they allowed no one to carry I could see the argument, but that's not the case.

Lotiki
12-07-2011, 08:48
How do you figure? State's have to recognize other state's drivers and marriage licenses.

Are you sure about that? Google it.

HexHead
12-07-2011, 09:08
Are you sure about that? Google it.

How about you tell us what states don't recognize other state's drivers licenses or heterosexual marriage licenses?

redbaron007
12-07-2011, 11:45
Do do you think NY should have the ability to not recognize our DL? If they allow a carry permit with thier residents then everyone else should be on a level playing field as their guys. If they allowed no one to carry I could see the argument, but that's not the case.

Yes, at one time they did. The states worked it out to reciprocate with ALL states. It's not fed mandated. :faint:

:wavey:

red

redbaron007
12-07-2011, 11:45
60 prevents a filibuster.

Does it not also overide a veto?


:wavey:

red

kensteele
12-07-2011, 11:55
Right now, the courts disagree with you. So please CCW your gun in IL and be the test case, if you feel that strong. Philosophically, I agree, but legally your wrong in the majority of states and feds.



Again, when you enter into another state, you abide by their laws/regs to enjoy their privileges they want to apply to you. CCW is one of those privileges they want to regulate, for their residents and when you come to their state. Once again, until the SCOTUS (or Feds) changes and says CCW is part of the 2A, you really don't have a say in NY, especially since you are not a resident.

In addition, this bill is being passed under the CC, not the 2A, which makes it very easy to ammend and change, it opens the door for the feds to obtain more control later. However, if it was through the 2A, the amendments would have a more difficult time of being passed and a higher chance of being supported by the 2A through the courts.

It doesn't matter how one twists their thoughts and philosophy on CCW, in the majority of the states, it is a privilege they regulate, for residents and guests. It's their turf, if you want to play on their turf, you abide by their rules.

Think about it like this; in your state, your nieghborhood speed limit is 35mph, however you got to state 'B' and thier neighborhood speed limit is 25mph, since driving is a privilege, they (state 'B') can regulate the speed on their turf. If you drive 35mph and get stopped, do you think they will accept your states speed limit? Nope. Again, it is a privilege they regulate. Also, your state doesn't honor NY permits.

I wish it would become part of the 2A; however, sliding a CCW under the CC is a feel good law that opens the door for more fed intervention. When have you known the Feds to not expand something......especially if you get a liberal congress in 3-5 years?

Anyway, I think it is a mute point, I have very little doubt it will not pass the senate, if it gets to come up to a vote. IMHO, this is a feel good bill pushed through by the NRA. I support the NRA, but we disagree on this issue.

:wavey:

red

Again, you are missing the point. If and when the bill passes, if you want me come back and explain to you how this happened, I'll be happy to. I will be glad to show your how this NY turf my rules pay to play isn't what you really hope or think it is.

Your speed limit comparison is bogus. My KS permit gives me permission to operate a motor vehicle on public streets and the condition of my KS DL says I must obey the posted speed limits for the road on which I travel. My KS permit doesn't instruct me to only obey KS speed limits, it says I have to drive according to the sign that right in front of my face no matter what state I am in.

My KS permit does the same. It says when I carry my weapon in another state, I have to obey the carry laws in the other state, not the KS laws. And I'm happy to do that. But apparently NY won't let me obey the NY carry laws because they won't even let me carry in the first place. That's like NY not letting me drive on NY streets with a KS license claiming driving is a privilege only extended to residents. But we all know that's bogus and while I understand the states together decided to agree on DLs, they HAD to agree else the Fed gvt would have decided it for them. Just like this carry law is eventually going to play out.

NY requires a front license plate. KS does not. When I go to NY in my KS car, I do not have to follow that law meaning a NY trooper cannot write me a ticket for no front license plate on my POV. Technically the law says all NY registered vehicles must show 2 plates but it's an example where visitors do not have to abide by the same rules as the residents just in case you continue to think their turf, their rules.

NY: Change your rules and allow my KS permit to act like a NY permit when I am in NY. I get that you will never understand why but that's irrelevant at this point. Change the rule yourself or have the Federal gvt change it for you. Bottom line. ;)

kensteele
12-07-2011, 12:04
Yes, at one time they did. The states worked it out to reciprocate with ALL states. It's not fed mandated. :faint:

:wavey:

red

You got it backwards. It's not federally mandated ONLY because the states worked it out for themselves. Had the states not worked it out (ala carry permit) then the Fed gvt would have the duty to fix it for people like me (KS) going to places like (NY). And the states certainly didn't want that to happen.

When all the states agree on a DL framework, the Fed gvt has no interest to step in (even though some folks think they love power and just want to make laws and rules and reign over the states where they have no business). It's when you don't agree that you get Fed mandates esp when it comes to rights and freedom to travel (which as you know, an entire bloody war was fought over it).

So I'm confused, help me understand. If the states DL was akin to carry permits and their were only some agreements and lots of restrictions, would you be ok with that? Something like no cars over 2 wheels in SHALL ISSUE DL state and no out of state drivers in IL. Nobody needs a DL in VT but FL DL is no good in NM and WA. You ok with that bro? Because it sounds to me like you are ok with these priviledge laws because they don't necessarily infringe on you personally.

xmanhockey7
12-07-2011, 12:17
One of my concerns about carry in a state like Cali, NY, NJ, etc. is the GFSZs.

hoosier#17
12-07-2011, 12:43
This matter is best left to the states to handle.

IGF







Yup! What I was thinking too.

redbaron007
12-07-2011, 13:22
How is this really any different than the Feds rules for interstate transport?



Those of you that oppose the National Reciprocity Act, are you also against FOPA?

http://www.nraila.org/gunlaws/federal/read.aspx?id=59


Overall, I'm not a fan of the GCA-1968 (which is what FOPA amended).


:wavey:

red

redbaron007
12-07-2011, 13:47
...
Your speed limit comparison is bogus. My KS permit gives me permission to operate a motor vehicle on public streets and the condition of my KS DL says I must obey the posted speed limits for the road on which I travel. My KS permit doesn't instruct me to only obey KS speed limits, it says I have to drive according to the sign that right in front of my face no matter what state I am in.

Exactly, because the STATES argreed to reciprocate on this privilege.

My KS permit does the same. It says when I carry my weapon in another state, I have to obey the carry laws in the other state, not the KS laws. And I'm happy to do that. But apparently NY won't let me obey the NY carry laws because they won't even let me carry in the first place.

This is their privilege at this time, like it or not. Get KS to accept NY permit.

That's like NY not letting me drive on NY streets with a KS license claiming driving is a privilege only extended to residents. But we all know that's bogus and while I understand the states together decided to agree on DLs, they HAD to agree else the Fed gvt would have decided it for them. Just like this carry law is eventually going to play out.

Really, the feds threatened the states to do something that they could have taken control over? Do you actually believe that?

NY requires a front license plate. KS does not. When I go to NY in my KS car, I do not have to follow that law meaning a NY trooper cannot write me a ticket for no front license plate on my POV. Technically the law says all NY registered vehicles must show 2 plates but it's an example where visitors do not have to abide by the same rules as the residents just in case you continue to think their turf, their rules.

Is your vehicle registered in NY? Again, the states got together to agree on this...the feds did not write a law forcing this issue.

NY: Change your rules and allow my KS permit to act like a NY permit when I am in NY. I get that you will never understand why but that's irrelevant at this point. Change the rule yourself or have the Federal gvt change it for you. Bottom line. ;)


See the common thread here.....THE STATES AGREED together! The FEDS didn't mandate it!

It's not that I don't understand, its that fact I do understand. This is a bigger picture than you carrying in NY. Unfortunately, many only see the short view. And as it stands, IIRC, even with this law, it would probably not allow you to carry in NYC because they don't allow it (or have their own permit) and the state says it is ok. Since NYC is not bound by the state laws for CCW, this law may not effect NYC.

A privilege is a privilege. The states have that control, like it or not. The feds do not need to be involved in the privileges governed by the states, especially this one.

It all boils down to this being a 2A issue. The states need to do this, not the feds under the CC. If the feds want to make this a better law, run it under the 2A.

:wavey:

red

kensteele
12-07-2011, 17:22
You said "Really, the feds threatened the states to do something that they could have taken control over? Do you actually believe that?"

My answer: "The DL agreement is not totally comprehensive but it is good enough to keep the Federal govt out of the business."

I believe if NY decides tomorrow that they will no longer accept a NJ DL valid for operating a motor vehicle on NY streets, the Federal gvt will immediately pass an emergency order that will override NY state law and protect NJ drivers who find themselves behind the wheel while driving from NJ to CT. I'll let you do the research to figure out how and why that could happen. My point was states don't want this kind of Federal legislation so they do whatever is necessary to avoid it.

If you want, I can name a bunch of other state misses (including your so-called privileges) that have caused the Fed gvt to step in? I'll start with CCW permits. For those of us who know how to wield it, interstate commerce is a powerful weapon.

Again just so I am clear, the state agreed so the fed gvt didn't have to mandate anything.

When the states don't agree, you'll find the fed gvt trying to mandate when it's in the best interest of all citizens.

EAJuggalo
12-07-2011, 17:26
One of my concerns about carry in a state like Cali, NY, NJ, etc. is the GFSZs.
There is an exception for carrying written into the GFSZ act.

Red, it takes 67 votes in the Senate to override a Presidential Veto.

xmanhockey7
12-07-2011, 17:41
There is an exception for carrying written into the GFSZ act.

Red, it takes 67 votes in the Senate to override a Presidential Veto.

Yes and the only exemption for someone who is carry, who is not an ON DUTY LEO is if:
(ii) if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so by the State in which the school zone is located or a political subdivision of the State, and the law of
the State or political subdivision requires that, before an individual obtains such a license, the law
enforcement authorities of the State or political subdivision verify that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license;
Unless you have a permit from the state which you are in and to get that permit you underwent a background check from law enforcement in the state which the school zone is located.

EAJuggalo
12-08-2011, 06:43
And HR 822 requires states and political subdivisions. Like NYC. To accept out of state permits the same as an unrestricted license in that state or political subdivision. It's the same as me carrying in any state other than Minnesota or Pennsylvania, by your reading of the law I would not be covered from the GFSZA, which I am as long as I'm carrying legally.

redbaron007
12-08-2011, 08:29
You said "Really, the feds threatened the states to do something that they could have taken control over? Do you actually believe that?"

My answer: "The DL agreement is not totally comprehensive but it is good enough to keep the Federal govt out of the business."

I believe if NY decides tomorrow that they will no longer accept a NJ DL valid for operating a motor vehicle on NY streets, the Federal gvt will immediately pass an emergency order that will override NY state law and protect NJ drivers who find themselves behind the wheel while driving from NJ to CT. I'll let you do the research to figure out how and why that could happen. My point was states don't want this kind of Federal legislation so they do whatever is necessary to avoid it.

If you want, I can name a bunch of other state misses (including your so-called privileges) that have caused the Fed gvt to step in? I'll start with CCW permits. For those of us who know how to wield it, interstate commerce is a powerful weapon.

Again just so I am clear, the state agreed so the fed gvt didn't have to mandate anything.

When the states don't agree, you'll find the fed gvt trying to mandate when it's in the best interest of all citizens.

I don't know where you have this idea the Feds step in everytime when the states don't agree on a reciprocity. Since you champion this concept for the DL, please provide some relaible information that shows the feds threatened the states to come to an agree or we will step in. I know you have this opinion they did this, but would you please back it wth credible info? Please? This isn't attack, but an attempt to understand your reasoning behind this.

So, based upon your argument, my hunting permit here in MO should be honored in KS. This is a privilege the states govern, but based upon your theory, the feds should step in and make a national law, under the CC, to allow me to hunt in KS or any other state because I have a hunting license in MO.

This is the problem with the CC. One can just about justify anything under it. Therefore, if the feds want to regulate CCW, regulate it under the 2A where it should be.

Unfortunately, you and I will disagree on this topic. Your thoughts of having more fed government involvement are diametrically opposed to mine. If the feds want to jump into the waters with more gun legislation, let them do it under the 2A, not the catch all CC. The states should still work this out....they've made significant gains in the last 6-10 years. Give them time.


:wavey:

red

redbaron007
12-08-2011, 08:30
And HR 822 requires states and political subdivisions. Like NYC. To accept out of state permits the same as an unrestricted license in that state or political subdivision. It's the same as me carrying in any state other than Minnesota or Pennsylvania, by your reading of the law I would not be covered from the GFSZA, which I am as long as I'm carrying legally.

Good catch. The summary I read was not the official transcript.

:wavey:

red

xmanhockey7
12-08-2011, 08:45
That is what the law says. I literally quoted it. Here is a link to the text of the law http://www.gunlaws.com/Gun_Free_School_Zones_Act.pdf

(2)(A) It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.
(B) Subparagraph (A) shalldoes not apply to the possession of a firearm—
(i) on private property not part of school grounds;
(ii) if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so by the State in which the school zone is located or a political subdivision of the State, and the law of the State or political subdivision requires that, before an individual obtains such a license, the law enforcement authorities of the State or political subdivision verify that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license;
(iii) whichthat is— (I) not loaded; and (II) in a locked container, or a locked firearms rack
whichthat is on a motor vehicle;
(iv) by an individual for use in a program approved by a
school in the school zone;
(v) by an individual in accordance with a contract entered
into between a school in the school zone and the
individual or an employer of the individual;
(vi) by a law enforcement officer acting in his or her
official capacity; or
(vii) that is unloaded and is possessed by an individual
while traversing school premises for the purpose of gaining access to public or private lands open to hunting, if the entry on school premises is authorized by school authorities.


A letter written to the ATF regarding carrying out of state within 1,000 feet of a school. http://www.handgunlaw.us/documents/batf_school_zone.pdf

kensteele
12-08-2011, 11:55
I don't know where you have this idea the Feds step in everytime when the states don't agree on a reciprocity.

Negative, I do not believe the Feds should jump in everytime when states don't agree on reciprocity. I believe the Feds should jump in when the states don't agree on reciprocity and recognition AND the disagreement adversely affects you and I, in certain areas of our lives.

For example, driving across the country, seeking accomodation in a hotel, carrying and transporting firearms, freedom of expression in terms of your clothing, car bumper stickers, etc, currency, marriages...and so on. If I live a state where red shirts are ok, I need protection when I cross the state line into a state where red shirts are not ok. I don't need permission to wear a red shirt, I just need to be protected from being arrested for wearing one. If I can drive with NRA bumper stickers in KS, I need protection from being stopped and harassed in MO counties that outlaw the NRA. If I am allowed to defend myself in KS and stop someone from hurting me, I need to be able to do the same when I visit CA or NY. I should not have to go somewhere within this country that outlaws self-protection. If some of these "privileges" are licensed and I have a license, my license needs to come with me as I travel. The Federal govt will protect me as I peacefully travel across this country and take my rights and privileges with me.

Since you champion this concept for the DL, please provide some relaible information that shows the feds threatened the states to come to an agree or we will step in. I know you have this opinion they did this, but would you please back it wth credible info? Please? This isn't attack, but an attempt to understand your reasoning behind this.

I never said threatened, not sure what you mean by that term. But almost all states find the commerce clause to be "threatening." Either way, this isn't the topic of the thread but if you do a little research....if you were around sometime late last century you would be more familiar with this.

So, based upon your argument, my hunting permit here in MO should be honored in KS. This is a privilege the states govern, but based upon your theory, the feds should step in and make a national law, under the CC, to allow me to hunt in KS or any other state because I have a hunting license in MO.

No this isn't my argument. No way is one state's license supposed to be valid in all 50 states. Just because you have a license to practice law in KS doesn't mean MO should let you practice law there. Just because you have a library card in Johnson County KS doesn't mean you should be able to check out books in Jackson County MO. Just because you can hunt on KS lands doesn't mean you should be able to hunt on MO lands. Practicing law and checking out library books and hunting are not rights or even associated with any privileges that you have everywhere you go.

As I said in an earlier thread, some privileges are specific to residents. Since nobody has the right to hunt, you can't expect to be able to hunt everywhere in this country. Maybe MO only wants residents to hunt there, ok that fine. Hunting is an exercise, an event, a sport, you can easily avoid hunting in another state and therefore avoid any sanctions associated with your actions. Tell me how I am supposed to avoid protecting myself so as to not violate another state's law? Tell me what am I supposed to do with my weapon when I move my home across the country as I peacefully travel and visit and spend money all over my country? Tell me why my permit in KS is not at least as good as the permits they issue in NY? Again, I need to Fed gvt in limited cases where I become a felony or are subjected to harsh penalties when I engage in a lawful activity at home that is just as lawful in the other state except it isn't just because the state says so (permit denial). If carrying concealed is unlawful for everyone in the state, then it is unlawful for me, too....permit or not.

This is the problem with the CC. One can just about justify anything under it.

Agreed. If all the food disappeared on the earth and only animals would be left to hunt which you must eat to survive, all state restrictions on hunting across state lines would probably go away if the states didn't come up with some sort of plan for everyone. Look, it is perfectly fine the way it is today. States accomodate the citizens of this country else the Fed govt will accomodate for you. Perhaps you should look into some of the "history" behind this so you can get a sense of balance why this is so needed. I agree it's not obvious but it is important. However, I cannot always explain the overreach.

redbaron007
12-08-2011, 14:41
[snip]...
I never said threatened, not sure what you mean by that term. But almost all states find the commerce clause to be "threatening." Either way, this isn't the topic of the thread but if you do a little research....if you were around sometime late last century you would be more familiar with this.

But we all know that's bogus and while I understand the states together decided to agree on DLs, they HAD to agree else the Fed gvt would have decided it for them. Just like this carry law is eventually going to play out.


Nope, you didn't use the word 'threating', however your statement would allow one to make that conclusion. But once again, you can't substantiate this behavior; it's just your opinion; which I disagree with.

[snip]....
As I said in an earlier thread, some privileges are specific to residents. Since nobody has the right to hunt, you can't expect to be able to hunt everywhere in this country. Maybe MO only wants residents to hunt there, ok that fine. Hunting is an exercise, an event, a sport, you can easily avoid hunting in another state and therefore avoid any sanctions associated with your actions. Tell me how I am supposed to avoid protecting myself so as to not violate another state's law? Tell me what am I supposed to do with my weapon when I move my home across the country as I peacefully travel and visit and spend money all over my country? Tell me why my permit in KS is not at least as good as the permits they issue in NY? Again, I need to Fed gvt in limited cases where I become a felony or are subjected to harsh penalties when I engage in a lawful activity at home that is just as lawful in the other state except it isn't just because the state says so (permit denial). If carrying concealed is unlawful for everyone in the state, then it is unlawful for me, too....permit or not.

I can buy a permit and never go out to hunt. CCW is the same, you can get one, but never use it.

Its unlawful because they don't want you to play (CCW) on their turf; only their folks play CCW on their turf. It is their turf. What is legal on your turf, may not be legal on their turf. They can do with it what they want; even if you don't like it. Since they are not violating any laws (which I think they are, but legally as of now, they are not) they can do that.

[snip]....
Agreed. If all the food disappeared on the earth and only animals would be left to hunt which you must eat to survive, all state restrictions on hunting across state lines would probably go away if the states didn't come up with some sort of plan for everyone. Look, it is perfectly fine the way it is today. States accomodate the citizens of this country else the Fed govt will accomodate for you. Perhaps you should look into some of the "history" behind this so you can get a sense of balance why this is so needed. I agree it's not obvious but it is important. However, I cannot always explain the overreach.

Your straw arguement on food is not relevant.

Since you seem to be the knowlege keeper, feel free to edjucate me on this hisotry you speak of.

Once again, it appears, you are saying you have a right to conceal and carry to protect yourself in other states that have CCW for their people or subjects. NO you don't have that RIGHT. You have a 'privilege' to CCW in other states, if they so choose to allow you. There is a difference. CCW needs to be a right; legislating it through the CC does not help. If you subject it to the CC, it NOW is regulated and isn't considered a right. I believe CCW should be a right; however, it is only a privilege at this point.

We both agree on one thing.....CCW should be a right to protect ourselves, wherever, as we travel in the US; however, it appears you want it now, under the commerce clause; I want it through the states or under the 2A. Regulating it under the 2A provides a more difficultly for politicians to screw with; however, if it is just 'regulated' under the CC; it's open to revision under every congress to amend, which they can and do every year. The CC should be used very narrowly; it isn't, it's being used very broadly....example....Obamacare.

OBTW, hunting is a privilege, check with your state's regulatory unit.


:wavey:

red

kensteele
12-08-2011, 17:53
^In light of today's incident, my right to self-protection follows me everywhere I go whether it's NY or VA and I'm not going to let any state stand in my way. The reason why we cannot carry in NY today is because people like you support the state's power to stop us even though the Fed gvt is working hard to allow it. You are so scared of something, I don't know, that you won't even accept the ability to carry out of state because of "techincal" reasons or whatever "categorical" reasons you claim....all at the same time you are forgetting that people have to go unarmed and defenseless because of it. While you sit back and analyse this on paper, honest people are having to deal with the realities of this stupidity in real life. I live right on the state line and if MO didn't recognise my KS license, I would be screwed.

It would be different if it's just one place like downtown Chicago or a small town in suburban Los Angeles or a liberal county in Florida banning carry, places that may not affect the larger population. However, we're talking about entire swaths of the country with a patchwork of laws and very harsh stiff penalties for even small violations and with all the crime abound and the massive amount of people traveling and the states not making [good enough] progress fast enough (in fact, some states are revoking agreements), something has to be done....and it will be done by the Fed gvt.

You made this particular statement that irks me "You have a 'privilege' to CCW in other states, if they so choose to allow you." The only reason today why a state is not allowing it is because some people are lining up to keep it in force and make sure the states have the power to keep on [dis]allowing it...for bogus reasons, what do you call it, states rights or 2a or whatever. If the right people come together (and it's possible they will), "if they so choose to allow you" will disappear literally overnight. Using all the existing laws on the books with no changes to the Constitution, all of a sudden a state has no choice but to "allow it." Imagine that. It could happen. But it WON'T because you simply don't want it to happen and you are doing everything you can to see that it doesn't happen using all the tricks in your book to squash it. I hope you know who you are teaming up with. Sad.

EAJuggalo
12-08-2011, 18:05
I had not ever seen that letter from the ATF previously. I spoke to an Indiana State Trooper about it and what he told me was that in order to be charged with it in Indiana you would have to be arrested and charged in federal court with another crime.

xmanhockey7
12-08-2011, 18:10
I had not ever seen that letter from the ATF previously. I spoke to an Indiana State Trooper about it and what he told me was that in order to be charged with it in Indiana you would have to be arrested and charged in federal court with another crime.

Well first off never take legal advice from a cop. It is not uncommon for them to be wrong. Legally they can get you just on the GFSZ charge. But really if you're in a state like Indiana they're not going to give you any trouble if you're from out of state. Really to be charged you're probably going to be charged by a federal LEO (ATF, FBI, etc).

We had someone OCing in Michigan while on school property watching 4th of July fireworks get written up by a local LEO for open carrying on school the premises of a school, being within 1,000 feet of a school, and being in violation of the concealed carry law by open carrying. He was not violating any of the following and never even had to show up for court.

redbaron007
12-08-2011, 19:49
^In light of today's incident, my right to self-protection follows me everywhere I go whether it's NY or VA and I'm not going to let any state stand in my way. The reason why we cannot carry in NY today is because people like you support the state's power to stop us even though the Fed gvt is working hard to allow it. You are so scared of something, I don't know, that you won't even accept the ability to carry out of state because of "techincal" reasons or whatever "categorical" reasons you claim....all at the same time you are forgetting that people have to go unarmed and defenseless because of it. While you sit back and analyse this on paper, honest people are having to deal with the realities of this stupidity in real life. I live right on the state line and if MO didn't recognise my KS license, I would be screwed.

It would be different if it's just one place like downtown Chicago or a small town in suburban Los Angeles or a liberal county in Florida banning carry, places that may not affect the larger population. However, we're talking about entire swaths of the country with a patchwork of laws and very harsh stiff penalties for even small violations and with all the crime abound and the massive amount of people traveling and the states not making [good enough] progress fast enough (in fact, some states are revoking agreements), something has to be done....and it will be done by the Fed gvt.

You made this particular statement that irks me "You have a 'privilege' to CCW in other states, if they so choose to allow you." The only reason today why a state is not allowing it is because some people are lining up to keep it in force and make sure the states have the power to keep on [dis]allowing it...for bogus reasons, what do you call it, states rights or 2a or whatever. If the right people come together (and it's possible they will), "if they so choose to allow you" will disappear literally overnight. Using all the existing laws on the books with no changes to the Constitution, all of a sudden a state has no choice but to "allow it." Imagine that. It could happen. But it WON'T because you simply don't want it to happen and you are doing everything you can to see that it doesn't happen using all the tricks in your book to squash it. I hope you know who you are teaming up with. Sad.

Blame me for it! That's original and thought provoking. It's said when someone has to blame others for their lot in life. Why settle for second best when the best is achievable?


Good Luck my friend on your pursuits!


:wavey:

red

kensteele
12-08-2011, 21:55
Blame me for it! That's original and thought provoking. It's said when someone has to blame others for their lot in life. Why settle for second best when the best is achievable?


Good Luck my friend on your pursuits!


:wavey:

red

Well, I just hope the bill passes the senate and if it does, obama will sign it. This isn't the first time so if not this time, maybe the next time. Good luck to you too! :)