National Right to Carry [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : National Right to Carry


Rollbar
03-14-2012, 14:29
http://www.usacarry.com/national-right-carry-reciprocity-act-2012-introduced-us-senate/?utm_source=March+14%2C+2012+Weekly+Shot&utm_campaign=USACN-3-14-2012&utm_medium=email


“National Right to Carry Reciprocity Act of 2012” introduced in U.S. Senate

by NRA-ILA on MARCH 14, 2012 in NATIONAL FIREARM NEWS, NEWS

“National Right to Carry Reciprocity Act of 2012” introduced in U.S. Senate
Today, March 13, U.S. Senators Mark Begich (D-Alaska) and Joe Manchin (D-West Virginia) introduced S. 2188, the “National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2012.” The bill is the Senate companion to H. R. 822,which was approved by the U. S. House last November by a vote of 272-154.

S. 2188, like H.R. 822, would allow any person with a valid state-issued concealed firearm permit to carry a concealed handgun in any other state that issues concealed firearm permits, or that does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms for lawful purposes. A state’s laws governing where concealed handguns may be carried would apply within its borders.

Today 49 states either issue carry permits or otherwise authorize law-abiding people to carry firearms outside the home for self-defense. 41 states have fair “shall issue” permit systems that allow any law-abiding person to get a permit.

In contrast to dire predictions from anti-gun groups, Right-to-Carry laws have been enormously successful. Interstate reciprocity will serve as a fundamental protection of the right to self-defense by providing people with the ability to protect themselves not only in their home states, but anywhere they travel where carry concealed carry is legal.

Contrary to the false claims of some, these bills would not create federal gun registration or gun owner licensing, nor would they allow any federal agency to establish a federal standard for a carry permit or impose gun control restrictions of any kind.

These bills would have no effect on permitless carry laws, currently on the books in Arizona, Alaska, Wyoming and Vermont, that allow concealed carry without a permit. In addition, Vermont residents would be able to take advantage of S. 2188 and H.R. 822 by obtaining a permit from one of the many states that offer non-resident permits.

Please contact your U.S. Senators today and urge them to cosponsor S. 2188. You can call your U.S. Senators at 202-224-3121 or send them an email by clicking here

xmanhockey7
03-14-2012, 15:04
Would love to see this get passed!

kensteele
03-14-2012, 15:54
Me, too. If the Senate passes this, Obama will sign it.

sglock45
03-14-2012, 15:59
at least the only state we would have to worry about is Illinois

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Oramac
03-14-2012, 16:00
If the Senate passes this, Obama will sign it.

And for that reason, half of me hopes it doesn't pass. I don't want Obama to be able to claim any kind of Pro-2A stances at all in his bid for reelection. The guy may have done more for gun sales in the last 4 years than any one person, but he certainly is NOT a supporter of our 2A.

oldman11
03-14-2012, 16:13
From what is said in this post, it does sound good. However, both of these Senators are Democrats. Democrats are notorious anti-gun; so this leads me to believe there is a hidden agenda that is not being disclosed at this time. This isn't the first "sneaky" thing the Dems and Obama have tried, with the final effort being anti-gun. Has anyone checked with the NRA-ILA about this bill? Also check with your state Governor.

liberty addict
03-14-2012, 16:24
From what is said in this post, it does sound good. However, both of these Senators are Democrats. Democrats are notorious anti-gun; so this leads me to believe there is a hidden agenda that is not being disclosed at this time. This isn't the first "sneaky" thing the Dems and Obama have tried, with the final effort being anti-gun. Has anyone checked with the NRA-ILA about this bill? Also check with your state Governor.

Look, this bill is unconstitutional anyhow; (of course so are CCW permits), but anyway HOW can you say you want the Feds telling the states what to do? and where do you think that will stop? Yes, the Dems have a hidden agenda all right, they want to SQUASH CCW rights period, and they think this is a start. I for one do not want the Feds anywhere near states CCW laws.

xmanhockey7
03-14-2012, 17:12
From what is said in this post, it does sound good. However, both of these Senators are Democrats. Democrats are notorious anti-gun; so this leads me to believe there is a hidden agenda that is not being disclosed at this time. This isn't the first "sneaky" thing the Dems and Obama have tried, with the final effort being anti-gun. Has anyone checked with the NRA-ILA about this bill? Also check with your state Governor.

It is very possible that they are pro gun democrats. Just like there are plenty antigun republicans.

HarleyGuy
03-14-2012, 17:26
It is very possible that they are pro gun democrats. Just like there are plenty antigun republicans.

Yes, but both Alaska and West Virginia are very friendly gun states and I doubt that either of the two Senators would really want to **** their constituents off.

oldman11
03-14-2012, 18:00
Yes, but both Alaska and West Virginia are very friendly gun states and I doubt that either of the two Senators would really want to **** their constituents off.

Yeah, you're right. I wasn't thinking. I lived in AK for a couple of years a long time ago.

kensteele
03-14-2012, 19:29
And for that reason, half of me hopes it doesn't pass. I don't want Obama to be able to claim any kind of Pro-2A stances at all in his bid for reelection. The guy may have done more for gun sales in the last 4 years than any one person, but he certainly is NOT a supporter of our 2A.

I understand. But my world is bigger than Obama and his feelings. What do you want him to do, force the Senate to defeat this bill and then claim he's a still a 2A supporter and would have signed it if the "people" had wanted it first? Learn to take a victory like the National Park carry victory. Gun rights are a total non-issue in the next election, accept every win you can get. Obama is NOT a gun rights supporter but at least we got second best which is couldn't care less one way or the other (he's not a gun rights crusher like Romney).

kensteele
03-14-2012, 19:31
If this is a sneaky bill, why isn't the GOP stopping it? Are they too stupid to see the "hidden agenda"? LOL LOL

There is no hidden agenda.

MinnesnowtaWild
03-15-2012, 01:25
If this is a sneaky bill, why isn't the GOP stopping it? Are they too stupid to see the "hidden agenda"? LOL LOL

There is no hidden agenda.

I agree. The rhetoric is overwhelming sometimes. It's this kind of stuff that keeps me from labeling myself "republican" instead of "independent".

BrewerGeorge
03-15-2012, 06:43
I understand. But my world is bigger than Obama and his feelings. What do you want him to do, force the Senate to defeat this bill and then claim he's a still a 2A supporter and would have signed it if the "people" had wanted it first? Learn to take a victory like the National Park carry victory. Gun rights are a total non-issue in the next election, accept every win you can get. Obama is NOT a gun rights supporter but at least we got second best which is couldn't care less one way or the other (he's not a gun rights crusher like Romney).
:goodpost:

pipedreams
03-15-2012, 06:54
What does the NRA-ILA have to say about this bill?

xmanhockey7
03-15-2012, 06:57
What does the NRA-ILA have to say about this bill?

They're making a huge push for this bill.

cowboy1964
03-15-2012, 08:25
This was talked about extensively a few months ago when it was up in the House. Same arguments, pro and con, apply.

Bottom line for me is I don't think the NRA is so stupid that they would support something that is actually stealthily anti-2nd.

TX expat
03-15-2012, 08:59
The big issue I have with this bill is what it is going to allow the Federal Government to do in the future. Sections 3 and 4 weren't even in the original bill but they were stuck in, in order to get passed on to the Senate.

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).

Ask yourself why those are in there and what could it mean for concealed carry holders, especially those that use out of state permits. When I look down the road I can see the Federal government intervening in out of state permits via Section 3 or making a pitch to get a hook in permits period via Section 4. If this bill were as transparent as the proponents would like you to believe, the Fed wouldn't need to create federal studies into anything about a state issed document...

Believe what you want to about this bill but don't be so foolish to believe that because the NRA is for it, then it must be good. The NRA is a money making organization and it's no less shortsighted than any other political organization. What they approve of today, they'll use as a reason to ask for more donations tomorrow. IMO the idea that this is totally benign and cannot be turned against CCW holders or firearms owners in general is a total whitewash; especially when only one of the three sections is actually about the reciprocity, the other two thirds is about audits and studies that the Federal Govt. is going perform regarding some aspect of state licensing.

kensteele
03-15-2012, 09:44
When I look down the road I can see the Federal government intervening in out of state permits via Section 3 or making a pitch to get a hook in permits period via Section 4.

Are you a laywer or is that a layperson's decription of "additional sections" and "federal oversight of state documents/processes/databases."

In the future, when the Federal government goes to do [whatever you claim they are getting ready to do], then we will vote it down and say no. When they make the pitch, push back.

Frankly I've never heard of a law that creates the framework or lays the groundwork for future activity by allowing the opposite to occur today. This one is new to me.

they are just studies and audits, only that. not blueprints for a government takeover. If it is, that's weak. That's a pretty lousy attempt and if I can figure out how to outmanuever it, so will the states.

Name one other NRA supported legislation that we all hated and they went along with anyway (and it passed) and the NRA supported it only for financial gain. There isn't one.

Nobody is saying this is great. We are saying it is better than what we have today and most importantly to me, it helps keep permit holders from being criminals just because another state says so. Because we are not all perfect and we carry firearms that your enemies hate, one day you will thank this bill if it becomes law. To me, that's priceless over what I might happen to think Congress is secretly planning even though they aren't.

TX expat
03-15-2012, 10:28
A. No, I'm no lawyer, and I'm not sure what you are asking about. Those sections I quoted are directly from the bill text as it stands in Congress now.

B. You won't vote anything down unless you happen to actually be a member of Congress and assuming that Congress won't pass something that the majority of Americans are against is fairly unrealistic. Most Americans were against Obama's healthcare reform but it passed... And all politicians know that the majority of Americans have very short memories and will go with the latest pitch that comes across the TV rather than remembering what someone did three years ago.

C. This bill doesn't allow the opposite of anything. All I'm saying is that could allow the Federal Government an inroad into state carry permits because that's exactly what it is doing by getting involved with them in the first place. States have successfully navigated all sorts of reciprocity with other states without the Federal Government creating Federal law to cover it.

D. Why does the Fed GAO need those studies and audits at all? What purpose does it serve to have the Federal Government study out of state permits and the ability of LE to validate permits on a national level?

E. I don't study what the NRA approves of or disapproves of, and it really doesn't matter to me. Your "if they try it, we'll vote it down' ideology is the same as theirs. I just don't agree with taking something simply because of the shortsighted gain and allowing a larger problem an opportunity to get a hook in.

The bottom line is the Federal Government has no business forcing this sort of thing onto the states. Period. The only way it's even within their Constitutional framework is if they are enforcing the Second Amendment, which they are not. In fact, if you look at the original text of the bill and the current text of the bill, you'll see that all of the "Constitutional" mentions have been deleted. If the Federal Government wants to start actually enforcing the Second Amendment, then I'll be the first in line to support it. When they stop allowing certain states to circumvent the Bill of Rights with State and City statutes, I'll applaud till my hands are sore. That's not what this does and I think it's shortsighted to assume that once you give the Federal Government a little power over state permits that they won't then seek further power over them.

4runner freak
03-15-2012, 10:29
Bottom line for me is I don't think the NRA is so stupid that they would support something that is actually stealthily anti-2nd.

Like Prince Harry Reid?
:whistling:

ponders
03-15-2012, 10:47
when is this suppose to pass and be signed.... and when would it become law if passed and signed???:wow:


come to think of it what ever happend to hr 822?

Oramac
03-15-2012, 12:14
Truncated.

I agree with TX 100% on this one. I can see a pretty solid progression from state to fed control of all permits being opened by this Bill:

1) Bill passes. GAO "studies" out-of-state permit processes.

2) Three to four years later, after they've gotten more Socialist judges on the SCOTUS (assuming Obama gets reelected, perish the thought), they use those studies and this law as support for the Fed to regulate out-of-state permit issuance.

3) Three to four years later, they use the Fed control of OOS permits to point to how well it's working (even if it's not), and to get a Federal CCW permit, or some such nonsense.

4) Three to four years after that, they use the Fed CCW permit to negate state permits, or to outlaw them outright (since the Fed permit is hunky dory under the 2A, you see).

5) Bam. Nine to 12 years and the Feds have total control over the permit process.

Some of you will call me Mr. Tin Foil Hat. I call it logic, and thinking long term, which we all know the Dems do.

kensteele
03-15-2012, 12:37
I agree with TX 100% on this one. I can see a pretty solid progression from state to fed control of all permits being opened by this Bill:

1) Bill passes. GAO "studies" out-of-state permit processes.

2) Three to four years later, after they've gotten more Socialist judges on the SCOTUS (assuming Obama gets reelected, perish the thought), they use those studies and this law as support for the Fed to regulate out-of-state permit issuance.

3) Three to four years later, they use the Fed control of OOS permits to point to how well it's working (even if it's not), and to get a Federal CCW permit, or some such nonsense.

4) Three to four years after that, they use the Fed CCW permit to negate state permits, or to outlaw them outright (since the Fed permit is hunky dory under the 2A, you see).

5) Bam. Nine to 12 years and the Feds have total control over the permit process.

Some of you will call me Mr. Tin Foil Hat. I call it logic, and thinking long term, which we all know the Dems do.

I don't call you Mr. Tin Foil Hat, not at all. I call your version of the future unrealistic and uniformed. It's not how government actually works but I can certainly see how you would envision your government doing this particularly if you feel as if your government is against you and trying to take away your rights. I understand that.

The Federal Government doesn't need this particular bill to do this things you mention (study, appoint judges, issue federal permit).

You probably applied the same type of thinking when the bill to allow National Park carry came along. Using your 5-step method above about how a bill becomes a law (and how the government takes over), what you are thoughts on how Congress will use the NP carry law to take over state permits?

If Congress introduced a bill to make Class 3 weapons legal in all 50 states, you would oppose that as well, true?

Finally, do you see anything positive that can come from National Reciprocity, do you benefit in any way?

Rollbar
03-15-2012, 12:38
Check our Sheriff out/letter he wrote to two Senators.

http://www.stillwaterfirearms.org/phpnuke/modules/coppermine/albums/userpics/varminter22/HR822/Sheriff_to_Sens_HR822_ltr_Mar14_2101.pdf

kensteele
03-15-2012, 13:14
A. No, I'm no lawyer, and I'm not sure what you are asking about. Those sections I quoted are directly from the bill text as it stands in Congress now.

B. You won't vote anything down unless you happen to actually be a member of Congress and assuming that Congress won't pass something that the majority of Americans are against is fairly unrealistic. Most Americans were against Obama's healthcare reform but it passed... And all politicians know that the majority of Americans have very short memories and will go with the latest pitch that comes across the TV rather than remembering what someone did three years ago.

C. This bill doesn't allow the opposite of anything. All I'm saying is that could allow the Federal Government an inroad into state carry permits because that's exactly what it is doing by getting involved with them in the first place. States have successfully navigated all sorts of reciprocity with other states without the Federal Government creating Federal law to cover it.

D. Why does the Fed GAO need those studies and audits at all? What purpose does it serve to have the Federal Government study out of state permits and the ability of LE to validate permits on a national level?

E. I don't study what the NRA approves of or disapproves of, and it really doesn't matter to me. Your "if they try it, we'll vote it down' ideology is the same as theirs. I just don't agree with taking something simply because of the shortsighted gain and allowing a larger problem an opportunity to get a hook in.

The bottom line is the Federal Government has no business forcing this sort of thing onto the states. Period. The only way it's even within their Constitutional framework is if they are enforcing the Second Amendment, which they are not. In fact, if you look at the original text of the bill and the current text of the bill, you'll see that all of the "Constitutional" mentions have been deleted. If the Federal Government wants to start actually enforcing the Second Amendment, then I'll be the first in line to support it. When they stop allowing certain states to circumvent the Bill of Rights with State and City statutes, I'll applaud till my hands are sore. That's not what this does and I think it's shortsighted to assume that once you give the Federal Government a little power over state permits that they won't then seek further power over them.

I had a long answer typed out and then I lost it. So I'll keep it brief:

Oh well, I guess this will have to be one of those situations where a few people will have to do the heavy lifting for the rest of eveyone else. If this bill passes, you'll be the first one to take advantage of the benefits and when your theories never materialise, you'll reap the rewards from someone's else hard no thanks to you, nothing new there. Like any other bill, I don't expect 100% pro-gun owners support. I just expect it to pass. This is not a popularity contest.

TX expat
03-15-2012, 13:54
@ Oramac

That's pretty much my fear.

I believe they'll first start legislating the out of state permits and basically make those invalid for non-residents. They'll have some excuse about how states cannot effectively track out of state permit holders and since they found no safety benefit, the risks outweigh the nonexistent benefits. There goes a whole segment of folks that have restrictive home state laws. Does it affect me? Nope. But that doesn't stop me from being concerned for their rights. Mostly because after them, it most likely will be my rights at stake.

I also believe it will push some states and cities to ban CCW altogether since they will still be able to keep their "community" weapon free by doing so. You think the voters in New York City will band together to stop NYC from making all handgun carry illegal? Or LA? Or the whole state, for that matter? Not a chance; there are too many liberal voters in those areas and I think it's a good possibility, if not likely, to regress permits to the extent that it might advance it. Remember, this bill does nothing to address the Constitutionality of CCW. If it did, it would address the national ability to carry as a whole; not leave the decision if you can carry to each state.

If you want full reciprocity, or at least as much as this bill would actually provide, then pressure your state congress to recognize all state permits. If your state honors all permits, then write to the congress members of states that don't honor your permit and let them know that your tourism dollars will not be coming to that state until they allow for the same reciprocity that your state honors.

@ kensteele

That's a two way street. You'll enjoy it until the Fed comes in and starts taking over the process and puts restrictions on everyone; because that's exactly what the Federal Government does; Gun Control Act of 1968 and The Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act are two that have taken place in my lifetime.

Also, I'll put my actions/voting record/hard work and funding for the Second Amendment up against yours any day of the week. I know how much I've done to realistically and intelligently promote our rights and I honestly doubt that many can claim any greater vigilance than I can; so I'd take care with how much credit you take for your 'hard work' as some steward of the Second Amendment. I care a great deal for everyone's right to own/carry firearms. I'm just not eager to see our Constitution trod upon for an immediate convenience that opens up so many negative possibilities.

Oramac
03-15-2012, 14:23
I don't call you Mr. Tin Foil Hat, not at all. I call your version of the future unrealistic and uniformed. It's not how government actually works but I can certainly see how you would envision your government doing this particularly if you feel as if your government is against you and trying to take away your rights. I understand that.

How many rights have we lost since Woodrow Wilson was President? 1? 10? 1000? I work in banking, so I can tell you bar none the Patriot Act is utter garbage that, imo, blatantly violates your 4th Amendment rights, among others. So yes, I feel that our Gov't is trying to take away our rights, and has been for decades.

The Federal Government doesn't need this particular bill to do this things you mention (study, appoint judges, issue federal permit).I know this. They could just propose a Bill that says "Only the Fed can issue CCW permits, and all state permits are null and void". But we both know that would never pass. However if they try to do it in baby steps, as I pointed out, it has a far greater chance of success. But the hardest part is the first step, therefore, we must prevent that first step.

You probably applied the same type of thinking when the bill to allow National Park carry came along. Using your 5-step method above about how a bill becomes a law (and how the government takes over), what you are thoughts on how Congress will use the NP carry law to take over state permits?Apples and oranges. The only correlation between the 2 is that they broadly refer to carry. The NP Bill talks about where one carries, the NR Bill talks about if one can carry.

If Congress introduced a bill to make Class 3 weapons legal in all 50 states, you would oppose that as well, true?Depends on the wording of the Bill. I'm not diametrically opposed to something simply because it's the Fed doing it.

Finally, do you see anything positive that can come from National Reciprocity, do you benefit in any way?Of course I see positive things here. Being able to carry across the country without having to check reciprocity would be great. But I see too many detriments offsetting the potential gains.

HarleyGuy
03-15-2012, 14:34
How many rights have we lost since Woodrow Wilson was President? 1? 10? 1000? I work in banking, so I can tell you bar none the Patriot Act is utter garbage that, imo, blatantly violates your 4th Amendment rights, among others. So yes, I feel that our Gov't is trying to take away our rights, and has been for decades.

I know this. They could just propose a Bill that says "Only the Fed can issue CCW permits, and all state permits are null and void". But we both know that would never pass. However if they try to do it in baby steps, as I pointed out, it has a far greater chance of success. But the hardest part is the first step, therefore, we must prevent that first step.

Apples and oranges. The only correlation between the 2 is that they broadly refer to carry. The NP Bill talks about where one carries, the NR Bill talks about if one can carry.

Depends on the wording of the Bill. I'm not diametrically opposed to something simply because it's the Fed doing it.

Of course I see positive things here. Being able to carry across the country without having to check reciprocity would be great. But I see too many detriments offsetting the potential gains.

Most of us (with the exception of LEOSA folk) will gain a few states where we can carry and reciprocity will be simplified but remember, IF the law is enacted, each state will still have their rights to determine their own laws in regards to "gun free zones" etc., just as they do now.
A gain is a gain.

Oramac
03-15-2012, 15:06
but remember, IF the law is enacted, each state will still have their rights to determine their own laws in regards to "gun free zones" etc., just as they do now.

You have, unfortunately, made the same mistake as kensteele did. Namely, looking at this in the short term. Remember my point about baby steps. Sure, after this Bill, the states will still be able to regulate their own laws, but the long-term implications of allowing the Fed any control over CCW is the Fed's penchant for overreach. We've all seen the "give em an inch and they take a mile" mindset that Gov't has. I've yet to see any reason this Bill would be any different.

jhoagland
03-15-2012, 15:13
From what is said in this post, it does sound good. However, both of these Senators are Democrats. Democrats are notorious anti-gun; so this leads me to believe there is a hidden agenda that is not being disclosed at this time. This isn't the first "sneaky" thing the Dems and Obama have tried, with the final effort being anti-gun. Has anyone checked with the NRA-ILA about this bill? Also check with your state Governor.

A. No, I'm no lawyer, and I'm not sure what you are asking about. Those sections I quoted are directly from the bill text as it stands in Congress now.

B. You won't vote anything down unless you happen to actually be a member of Congress and assuming that Congress won't pass something that the majority of Americans are against is fairly unrealistic. Most Americans were against Obama's healthcare reform but it passed... And all politicians know that the majority of Americans have very short memories and will go with the latest pitch that comes across the TV rather than remembering what someone did three years ago.

C. This bill doesn't allow the opposite of anything. All I'm saying is that could allow the Federal Government an inroad into state carry permits because that's exactly what it is doing by getting involved with them in the first place. States have successfully navigated all sorts of reciprocity with other states without the Federal Government creating Federal law to cover it.

D. Why does the Fed GAO need those studies and audits at all? What purpose does it serve to have the Federal Government study out of state permits and the ability of LE to validate permits on a national level?

E. I don't study what the NRA approves of or disapproves of, and it really doesn't matter to me. Your "if they try it, we'll vote it down' ideology is the same as theirs. I just don't agree with taking something simply because of the shortsighted gain and allowing a larger problem an opportunity to get a hook in.

The bottom line is the Federal Government has no business forcing this sort of thing onto the states. Period. The only way it's even within their Constitutional framework is if they are enforcing the Second Amendment, which they are not. In fact, if you look at the original text of the bill and the current text of the bill, you'll see that all of the "Constitutional" mentions have been deleted. If the Federal Government wants to start actually enforcing the Second Amendment, then I'll be the first in line to support it. When they stop allowing certain states to circumvent the Bill of Rights with State and City statutes, I'll applaud till my hands are sore. That's not what this does and I think it's shortsighted to assume that once you give the Federal Government a little power over state permits that they won't then seek further power over them.

I agree with TX 100% on this one. I can see a pretty solid progression from state to fed control of all permits being opened by this Bill:

1) Bill passes. GAO "studies" out-of-state permit processes.

2) Three to four years later, after they've gotten more Socialist judges on the SCOTUS (assuming Obama gets reelected, perish the thought), they use those studies and this law as support for the Fed to regulate out-of-state permit issuance.

3) Three to four years later, they use the Fed control of OOS permits to point to how well it's working (even if it's not), and to get a Federal CCW permit, or some such nonsense.

4) Three to four years after that, they use the Fed CCW permit to negate state permits, or to outlaw them outright (since the Fed permit is hunky dory under the 2A, you see).

5) Bam. Nine to 12 years and the Feds have total control over the permit process.

Some of you will call me Mr. Tin Foil Hat. I call it logic, and thinking long term, which we all know the Dems do.



I'll add my .02 to this. Who is to say that when the bill goes to vote that there will not be a flurry of tag ons to it?

If you trust the current government of these United States of America, You are a sucker.

TX expat
03-15-2012, 15:24
I'll add my .02 to this. Who is to say that when the bill goes to vote that there will not be a flurry of tag ons to it?

If you trust the current government of these United States of America, You are a sucker.

Well there already have been. The original text of this bill was all about our Constitutional right to carry. Now that it's passed, it's a little bit about reciprocity and a lot about GAO studies and audits of permits.

Have a look here for the complete text and version history.

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h822/show

TSAX
03-15-2012, 15:33
at least the only state we would have to worry about is Illinois

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


CA is one as well






:50cal:

JK-linux
03-15-2012, 16:06
Yes, it is an "in" for the Fed's to get into the State carry permit game, for better or worse. I'm assuming the GAO audit is to produce items, suggestions and/or recommendations to be acted upon. Call me crazy, but I suspect it won't be a prelude to the FedGov recommending constitutional carry. Studies usually bring about recommendations and suggestions which seem to lead to regulations, which are enforced by withholding funds for various things. This won't end well.

(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).

xmanhockey7
03-15-2012, 16:28
CA is one as well






:50cal:

Why would we have to worry about CA?

kensteele
03-15-2012, 17:14
Well, I can see I'm not going to win this one, it's not easy to battle such off-hand theories and mistrust of government. I'll just have to rely on cooler heads will prevail.

My biggest desire is not so I can carry in NYC or California but so I won't get arrested in those places and get treated like a criminal when I am found with a handgun in hundreds of [anti-gun] jurisdictions across the country (like this: http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1408729).

Good luck with the vote.

EAJuggalo
03-15-2012, 21:01
when is this suppose to pass and be signed.... and when would it become law if passed and signed???:wow:


come to think of it what ever happend to hr 822?

This is HR 822, just the senate version of it.

TX, what about going the other way with it. Universal recognition, to nationwide constitutional carry once it's proven that permit holders are more law abiding than LEOs.

kensteele
03-15-2012, 21:16
Could it be that some people are so selfish that they don't want to see anything gun positive happen during Obama? There is a whole lot of recent evidence that proves you may like something but as soon as Obama likes it, you hate it. Some GOP folks if Obama likes their mother would disown their own mother. The very same NP carry that Bush likes, now no one really cares for it since Obama signed it. In fact, the excuse is he pinched his nose while he signed off, that the rationale so it's clearly an exception.

So right, it would be an extreme blow to the idea that Obama is totally anti-gun if he were to sign this bill that all GOP want and most dems do not want and the NRA wants, too. That CANNOT be good for gun rights folks who absolutely want Obama to be the most anti-gun president in history so I understand why you will try to sink this bill by loading it up with far-fetched conspirarcy theories and wild speculation but please maybe you can take a second and stop siding with Brady and Bloomberg and use this bill as one step further to your ultimate goal moving forward. But if you can't figure out how to use this to your advantage (i.e. the lawmakers are smarter than you) then yes, I would scared too and afraid to sign off on pretty much anything. That's the impression I'm getting at least.

JK-linux
03-15-2012, 21:30
Could it be that some people are so selfish that they don't want to see anything gun positive happen during Obama? There is a whole lot of recent evidence that proves you may like something but as soon as Obama likes it, you hate it. Some GOP folks if Obama likes their mother would disown their own mother. The very same NP carry that Bush likes, now no one really cares for it since Obama signed it. In fact, the excuse is he pinched his nose while he signed off, that the rationale so it's clearly an exception.

So right, it would be an extreme blow to the idea that Obama is totally anti-gun if he were to sign this bill that all GOP want and most dems do not want and the NRA wants, too. That CANNOT be good for gun rights folks who absolutely want Obama to be the most anti-gun president in history so I understand why you will try to sink this bill by loading it up with far-fetched conspirarcy theories and wild speculation but please maybe you can take a second and stop siding with Brady and Bloomberg and use this bill as one step further to your ultimate goal moving forward. But if you can't figure out how to use this to your advantage (i.e. the lawmakers are smarter than you) then yes, I would scared too and afraid to sign off on pretty much anything. That's the impression I'm getting at least.

I think it would be awesome if Obama somehow found a way to repeal the 1986 FOPA and a whole litany of other things. If he spearheaded it, wrangled the votes, twisted the arms, set the mandates, etc... I'd give him full credit and say thanks. That does not however mean I'd vote for him, as I disagree on a ton of other things. And you know what... none of that has any impact on the position that FedGov, whether led by a (D) or led by a (R), should stay the hell out of the state firearms regulation game.

Oramac
03-16-2012, 10:04
Could it be that some people are so selfish that they don't want to see anything gun positive happen during Obama? There is a whole lot of recent evidence that proves you may like something but as soon as Obama likes it, you hate it. Some GOP folks if Obama likes their mother would disown their own mother. The very same NP carry that Bush likes, now no one really cares for it since Obama signed it. In fact, the excuse is he pinched his nose while he signed off, that the rationale so it's clearly an exception.

So right, it would be an extreme blow to the idea that Obama is totally anti-gun if he were to sign this bill that all GOP want and most dems do not want and the NRA wants, too. That CANNOT be good for gun rights folks who absolutely want Obama to be the most anti-gun president in history so I understand why you will try to sink this bill by loading it up with far-fetched conspirarcy theories and wild speculation but please maybe you can take a second and stop siding with Brady and Bloomberg and use this bill as one step further to your ultimate goal moving forward. But if you can't figure out how to use this to your advantage (i.e. the lawmakers are smarter than you) then yes, I would scared too and afraid to sign off on pretty much anything. That's the impression I'm getting at least.

Wow. And you call me paranoid? Pot, meet kettle.

Seriously, if that's what you think, I've lost a lot of the respect I had for you.

I'm done here. I've made my case, logically and rationally, and the only thing that's happened is I get called a paranoid conspiracy theorist. If you agree, great. If you disagree, that's fine too. It's your right. But it's also my right to ignore this thread from here on out. If anyone wants to talk to me, PM me.

kensteele
03-16-2012, 17:34
Wow. And you call me paranoid? Pot, meet kettle.

Seriously, if that's what you think, I've lost a lot of the respect I had for you.

I'm done here. I've made my case, logically and rationally, and the only thing that's happened is I get called a paranoid conspiracy theorist. If you agree, great. If you disagree, that's fine too. It's your right. But it's also my right to ignore this thread from here on out. If anyone wants to talk to me, PM me.

Yeah I hear ya. Up until last year, I wouldn't have believed it myself. But it's true. And i have proof. Whatever Obama likes, the GOP hates. Period. It's been said too many times for me not to believe it. And I see some of that here, that's all I am saying. But yeah, I agree with you, it's crazy. I can't explain it though.

kensteele
03-16-2012, 17:41
I think it would be awesome if Obama somehow found a way to repeal the 1986 FOPA and a whole litany of other things. If he spearheaded it, wrangled the votes, twisted the arms, set the mandates, etc... I'd give him full credit and say thanks. That does not however mean I'd vote for him, as I disagree on a ton of other things. And you know what... none of that has any impact on the position that FedGov, whether led by a (D) or led by a (R), should stay the hell out of the state firearms regulation game.

Me too but I can easily say that because I know it can't be done, it's not whether he wants to or not, not his call.

Who signed 1986 FOPA into law anyway?

MilitantBEEMER
03-17-2012, 12:30
Other than the National Parks carry law, can anyone name one bill that has been passed in the last several years by our "friends" in Washington that was to our benefit? Name one bill that passed that did not have a bunch of hidden caviates in it?
This bill may be ok, however our "friends" in Washington give me no reason to accept this bill on its face value and not assume there is a hidden agenda that is not in the best interest of my 2A rights.
I prefer the Feds stay out of the argument, I cannot name one thing they have entered into that is better off than it was before they entered into it.

kensteele
03-17-2012, 12:58
I cannot name one thing they have entered into that is better off than it was before they entered into it.

Except the National Parks carry bill, correct?

There is no "caviat" in this bill. The liberals are crafty but they're not as smart as you think. Yes, they have a hidden agenda but I can assure you the new strategy is not to pass pro-gun bills and hide little "caviats" in it to undermine guns later on years down the road. That's a losing strategy, when they come for your guns, you'll clearly recognise it. This isn't it.

This is a bona fide win and you can count this one as a win if only you wouldn't reject it and continue to claim there are no wins this year. You won't be getting full-blown repeal bills so scrutinize this little bill all you can and then you decide. Legislating isn't easy and nobody is going to hand you an open ticket to complete gun freedom. Hopefully you don't feel your "friends" (the NRA and GOP leaders who vote YES) are trying to screw you on this bill with a hidden agenda.

Take this one and build on the momentum and turn it to your advantage if you think you are smarter than your opponent by taking the win reciprocity (means safety and freedom from oppression nationwide) and blocking the audits and defunding the studies and strengthening your own state gun permits and basically causing havoc down the line for the parts you don't like.

But don't throw out the baby with the bath water. Don't pretend like if you claim your rights today, you'll be a sitting duck tomorrow. If the federal government tries to take over state permits, abolish state permits. You think your pro-gun state governer is going to sign off on this bill and then stand around with his thumb up his ass while the federal government takes over the state's business?

TX expat
03-17-2012, 13:37
Sorry but I don't buy your "take a little, risk a little" type of argument. There won't be any brining the cows back into the barn once they are out. If this gets legislated in, then the studies and audits will be part of the deal. Period. There won't be any fighting them or what they report or recommend. Remember please that this is the same federal government that was responsible for the 'fast and furious' debacle and look how much red tape and corruption investigators are having to wade through just to get actual truthful answers there. You think any of that was done with the idea of promoting our 2A rights? If they hadn't got caught with their pants down and had the whole thing blow up in their face, I guarantee you that there would have been legislation passed to 'curb all the illegal straw purchases that are funneling guns into Mexico'.

I don't believe it's a hidden agenda at all. As a matter of fact, it's pretty clearly out in the open what they are looking at and how they plan to gain a foothold. Given that more of the bill is about the studies and audits than actual carry reciprocity, it should be pretty clear.

You honestly think some state government is going to come in and save you? How many states successfully fought the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act? I don't recall any pro-gun state governors telling the Fed to go screw its assault weapons ban. Your entire argument borders on comical. The Federal Government will hold all the cards and no state is going to watch all of their federal funding dry up while they fight who controls permits, or fights whatever mandates the Fed places on them. So basically, yeah, they absolutely will sit around with their thumb in their ass and do nothing because they won't have a leg to stand on.

See here's my bottom line issue with this bill. It's unconstitutional. The Federal Government does not have the Constitutional authority to do this to the states. Argue all you want about whatever you 'like' about it, it's illegal. The Federal Government does not have the Constitutional authority to arbitrarily force states, or the people in general, to abide by any laws that fall outside their purview. Since they aren't addressing this from the Second Amendment perspective, they don't actually have any legal authority to tell states that they must honor some other state's documents. That is a state matter, not a federal matter. That's the simple bottom line for me. Just because I may 'benefit' from the law doesn't mean that I should allow that to blind me to the greater danger that allowing it poses.

MilitantBEEMER
03-17-2012, 13:53
sorry but i don't buy your "take a little, risk a little" type of argument. There won't be any brining the cows back into the barn once they are out. If this gets legislated in, then the studies and audits will be part of the deal. Period. There won't be any fighting them or what they report or recommend. Remember please that this is the same federal government that was responsible for the 'fast and furious' debacle and look how much red tape and corruption investigators are having to wade through just to get actual truthful answers there. You think any of that was done with the idea of promoting our 2a rights? If they hadn't got caught with their pants down and had the whole thing blow up in their face, i guarantee you that there would have been legislation passed to 'curb all the illegal straw purchases that are funneling guns into mexico'.

I don't believe it's a hidden agenda at all. As a matter of fact, it's pretty clearly out in the open what they are looking at and how they plan to gain a foothold. Given that more of the bill is about the studies and audits than actual carry reciprocity, it should be pretty clear.

You honestly think some state government is going to come in and save you? How many states successfully fought the public safety and recreational firearms use protection act? I don't recall any pro-gun state governors telling the fed to go screw its assault weapons ban. Your entire argument borders on comical. The federal government will hold all the cards and no state is going to watch all of their federal funding dry up while they fight who controls permits, or fights whatever mandates the fed places on them. So basically, yeah, they absolutely will sit around with their thumb in their ass and do nothing because they won't have a leg to stand on.

See here's my bottom line issue with this bill. It's unconstitutional. The federal government does not have the constitutional authority to do this to the states. Argue all you want about whatever you 'like' about it, it's illegal. The federal government does not have the constitutional authority to arbitrarily force states, or the people in general, to abide by any laws that fall outside their purview. Since they aren't addressing this from the second amendment perspective, they don't actually have any legal authority to tell states that they must honor some other state's documents. That is a state matter, not a federal matter. That's the simple bottom line for me. Just because i may 'benefit' from the law doesn't mean that i should allow that to blind me to the greater danger that allowing it poses.

+1 exactly!

kensteele
03-17-2012, 14:19
so let me see if i understand correctly: you support nyc right to lock up honest non-resident americans who bring a firearm into the city for their self-protection, right?

good grief, this has nothing to do with f&f. the liberals are going to win this fight against gun owners because gun owners are not smart enough to win it themselves. this is no different than the gop fighting within, putting each other down, etc. we are divided withink and weak.

tx epat (i assume you are in kcmo), who is it exactly in congress that you are referring to that is trying to pass this "unconstitutional" bill? if it passes, will you sue on that basis? i know you live in mo and have all kinds of permit freedoms and painless gun laws that gun owners in dozens of other states can only dream about. preemption, oc, shall issue, recognise every permit in the world, no signs, no must notify, etc. how about sharing some of that? imagine if ks was ny/nj and everytime you cross that line, your gun made you a felon. then how would you feel if your wife worked in kck or you couldn't leave your home and go anywhere decent without crossing the state line first. imagine if the mere possession of a weapon, even if unloaded, made you a hardcore felon to lose your mo gun rights possibly forever. personally, i don't think you are in any position to talk about permits negatively.

if you had wrote this decades ago, sadly i might believe you. come up to speed, it's 2012. we can fight this. the liberals don't own congress and the courts. lol

Lockback
03-17-2012, 14:27
If you want full reciprocity, or at least as much as this bill would actually provide, then pressure your state congress to recognize all state permits. If your state honors all permits, then write to the congress members of states that don't honor your permit and let them know that your tourism dollars will not be coming to that state until they allow for the same reciprocity that your state honors.

@ kensteele

That's a two way street. You'll enjoy it until the Fed comes in and starts taking over the process and puts restrictions on everyone; because that's exactly what the Federal Government does; Gun Control Act of 1968 and The Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act are two that have taken place in my lifetime.


My feelings exactly.
When the Federal Gubmint gets involved, everything does to hell in a handbasket.
Keep things at the local level. I fear an Attorney General/ATF/President with enough power to interfere on this.

kensteele
03-17-2012, 14:52
I must have missed this part earlier so I'll comment now:

The problem is I have a right to possess my handgun and I have a right to keep my handgun and use it for self-protection. That right is guaranteed by the Constitution. I applied to my state and it applies to all states, including NY state.

I shouldn't have to write to NY and beg them to let me protect myself when I am there. I shouldn't have to write to NY and threaten to withhold "tourist dollars" if they don't recognise my rights in NY. I have a right to go to NY. I have a right to pass thru NY without being harassed. Sure I have to abide by NY laws while I am there but NY laws cannot be unconstitutional. If they are, I'm not going to NY to ask for change, I'm going to Washington. NY has had long enough to change and it is apparent they won't change and the bill will force them to change.

again, the whole problem is some states won't play ball. and that's ok if we're all ok with a divided america. i'm not ok with that. the very fact that you mentioned "tourist dollars" indicates that you understand the role that congress plays in interstate commerce. same applies to all other types of "dollars" not just tourist dollars. congress definitely has a right to clear away such roadblocks.

It's funny how everyone keeps saying the liberals will figure out how not to honour this bill when it becomes law and that the gun owners won't be able to figure out how to beat back the liberals if this bill becomes law with it's sneaky caveats. I'm really sick of some who keep bragging that the liberals are smarter than us. They aren't. When you start believing that we are actually smarter, you won't be so afraid to get the real work done.

it's way too easy to sit back and say we don't want this. and then turn around and complain when the laws don't go our way? admit it, the audits and the studies are just an excuses, even if those go away you still wouldn't support this bill, correct?

i agree with what you said about those other bills. i personally think you'll know it, it will be clear, when something sinister is being shoved down your throat. you'll know it when major anti-gun leglislation is abound. this isn't it.

TX expat
03-17-2012, 14:59
1. Um, no. I support the Constitution. The fact that certain states and cities place unconstitutional laws on the books is absolutely nothing I support. I don't live there though, nor would I, so it's up to the residents of those states and cities to vote people out or in, in order to get the laws of that area changed. It's not up to me and the Federal Government obviously isn't going to step up and do their job. Sorry if you can't go to NYC with your pistol. Be smart and just don't go there. Spend your money elsewhere where our freedoms haven't been legislated away. Plenty of things to see and do elsewhere... My wife loves Chicago. You have any idea how much grief I get because I won't step foot in that state? I understand that standing your ground is inconvenient but a lot of folks have given their life so I would have the opportunity to live under the freedoms of our Constitution. I think the grief I have to live with is a small sacrifice compared to theirs.

2. Yeah, acutally it does have something to do with F&F. You keep coming back to how there is no Federal agenda and Fast and Furious pretty much pisses on that campfire. Sure there is an agenda. F&F was without a doubt a setup for that agenda. You act like the Fed is some benign, or maybe even benevolent, entity that has no motive. Plenty of people have been, and continue to be, bought off by believing that we shouldn't question and scrutinize everything that our government does.

3. I'm not going to sue anyone... I'm just one dumb guy sitting around typing away on a computer. I don't have any chance of suing anyone over this or any other Federal law. I just hope it fails. As to your hypothetical scenario, I don't really want to imagine it, but if I had to I would also imagine myself moving somewhere else where I didn't have to deal with all that BS. As far as sharing the freedoms I enjoy here in MO, I'd be happy to. All they have to do is either vote their wishes in or they can just move here or some other state where the Constitutional freedoms that they should be able to enjoy haven't been legislated away... Look, I feel for all those folks but that doesn't make this legal. I agree everyone (who hasn't forfeited them) should be afforded the rights set forth in the Bill of Rights. I believe the Federal Government isn't doing its job because it allows NY, NJ, IL, CA and a few others, to restrict or effective reduce the rights guaranteed to the people of the United States under the Second Amendment. I agree it sucks... But what you are glorifying sucks even more because as crappy as it is to see a state or a city get away with violating the Second Amendment, it's even worse to allow our Federal Government an inroad to start doing the same; especially when that inroad is a violation of the powers given to the Federal Government by the Constitution in the first place. When the Fed flexes its Constitutional muscle and tells the states to abide by the Bill of Rights, then I'll stand up and give a rousing ovation for them; and I guarantee you I won't give a flying rats ass if there is a D or an R or an I after their name. Until then, I'm keeping my seat because that isn't ever going to happen.

TX expat
03-17-2012, 15:46
I must have missed this part earlier so I'll comment now:

The problem is I have a right to possess my handgun and I have a right to keep my handgun and use it for self-protection. That right is guaranteed by the Constitution. I applied to my state and it applies to all states, including NY state.

I agree, so go there and carry, and if you get arrested sue the state on Constitutional grounds; I'll cheer you on. The Federal Government isn't going to come to your rescue though, so I hope you've got some deep pockets.

I shouldn't have to write to NY and beg them to let me protect myself when I am there. I shouldn't have to write to NY and threaten to withhold "tourist dollars" if they don't recognise my rights in NY. I have a right to go to NY. I have a right to pass thru NY without being harassed. Sure I have to abide by NY laws while I am there but NY laws cannot be unconstitutional. If they are, I'm not going to NY to ask for change, I'm going to Washington. NY has had long enough to change and it is apparent they won't change and the bill will force them to change.

Well if doing all that is just too much trouble, then I guess sitting back and letting someone else fight your battle must work well enough for you, so taking what's offered is probably the best you can hope for. You also have the right to go to Illinois too but this great piece of legislation that you are so fond of won't do a darn thing for you there. I guess it's a good thing that you are more interested in going to NY.

again, the whole problem is some states won't play ball. and that's ok if we're all ok with a divided america. i'm not ok with that. the very fact that you mentioned "tourist dollars" indicates that you understand the role that congress plays in interstate commerce. same applies to all other types of "dollars" not just tourist dollars. congress definitely has a right to clear away such roadblocks.

Hate to break it to you but you'll still have a divided America since they aren't addressing your Constitutional rights. They have pretty clear legal authority under the Second Amendment, but they choose to ignore it.

It's funny how everyone keeps saying the liberals will figure out how not to honour this bill when it becomes law and that the gun owners won't be able to figure out how to beat back the liberals if this bill becomes law with it's sneaky caveats. I'm really sick of some who keep bragging that the liberals are smarter than us. They aren't. When you start believing that we are actually smarter, you won't be so afraid to get the real work done.

I haven't said anything about liberals being smarter; and my mistrust of this bill has nothing to do with who likes it or who doesn't, or who the sitting president is if/when it crosses his desk. I don't hold any political dogma as sacred and I have an equal distrust from both parties because I don't follow either one blindly or wholeheartedly.

it's way too easy to sit back and say we don't want this. and then turn around and complain when the laws don't go our way? admit it, the audits and the studies are just an excuses, even if those go away you still wouldn't support this bill, correct?

I'd say, apparently for you anyway, it's way too easy to ignore the pitfalls because you're being baited with something you'd like to have. The audits aren't an excuse for me to dislike this bill, they are a reason to dislike this bill. You're right though, I'd dislike it even if they weren't in there because it'd still be outside the Federal Government's Constitutional authority to enact legislation like this.

i agree with what you said about those other bills. i personally think you'll know it, it will be clear, when something sinister is being shoved down your throat. you'll know it when major anti-gun leglislation is abound. this isn't it.


Personally I think it's pretty clear that it is sinister. Just because it tastes good, that doesn't mean that the poison is any less lethal. Seriously this is how politics work. They get stuff enacted one of two ways (at least for any major changes): 1. They leap on the coattails of a crisis and get laws passes while public sentiment is on their side. The AWB and the Homeland Security Act are good examples, or 2. They fabricate a crisis or condition and play that against their legislation. Obamacare and Fast and Furious are examples of that. Once they start studying and auditing permits, they'll find some reason why they have to limit this or change that. They'll already have their foot in the door because the National Reciprocity Law gave it to them. Then they just have to play to the fears that they will create and just like that, your state's laws are now driven by oversight by Federal laws.

steveksux
03-17-2012, 16:24
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).I see nothing wrong with sec 4. If other states are required to recognize other states permits, they need the ability to determine if the permit is still valid, or was a counterfeit right off the bat. Seems pretty logical.

Randy

steveksux
03-17-2012, 17:27
Why would we have to worry about CA?Agreed. Seems the bill requires any state that issues permits to recognize other's permits. CA issues permits, they have to recognize mine. Mission accomplished.

It's amazing to me that IL has no provisions whatsoever for any sort of permit system. Always thought the rumor was the well connected in Chicago could carry. Is there a legal basis for that, or do they just look the other way? Only LEO and politicians allowed to carry, without needing permits?

Randy

redbaron007
03-17-2012, 20:27
A. No, I'm no lawyer, and I'm not sure what you are asking about. Those sections I quoted are directly from the bill text as it stands in Congress now.

B. You won't vote anything down unless you happen to actually be a member of Congress and assuming that Congress won't pass something that the majority of Americans are against is fairly unrealistic. Most Americans were against Obama's healthcare reform but it passed... And all politicians know that the majority of Americans have very short memories and will go with the latest pitch that comes across the TV rather than remembering what someone did three years ago.

C. This bill doesn't allow the opposite of anything. All I'm saying is that could allow the Federal Government an inroad into state carry permits because that's exactly what it is doing by getting involved with them in the first place. States have successfully navigated all sorts of reciprocity with other states without the Federal Government creating Federal law to cover it.

D. Why does the Fed GAO need those studies and audits at all? What purpose does it serve to have the Federal Government study out of state permits and the ability of LE to validate permits on a national level?

E. I don't study what the NRA approves of or disapproves of, and it really doesn't matter to me. Your "if they try it, we'll vote it down' ideology is the same as theirs. I just don't agree with taking something simply because of the shortsighted gain and allowing a larger problem an opportunity to get a hook in.

The bottom line is the Federal Government has no business forcing this sort of thing onto the states. Period. The only way it's even within their Constitutional framework is if they are enforcing the Second Amendment, which they are not. In fact, if you look at the original text of the bill and the current text of the bill, you'll see that all of the "Constitutional" mentions have been deleted. If the Federal Government wants to start actually enforcing the Second Amendment, then I'll be the first in line to support it. When they stop allowing certain states to circumvent the Bill of Rights with State and City statutes, I'll applaud till my hands are sore. That's not what this does and I think it's shortsighted to assume that once you give the Federal Government a little power over state permits that they won't then seek further power over them.

Great comments...I agree!

I had a long answer typed out and then I lost it. So I'll keep it brief:

Oh well, I guess this will have to be one of those situations where a few people will have to do the heavy lifting for the rest of eveyone else. If this bill passes, you'll be the first one to take advantage of the benefits and when your theories never materialise, you'll reap the rewards from someone's else hard no thanks to you, nothing new there. Like any other bill, I don't expect 100% pro-gun owners support. I just expect it to pass. This is not a popularity contest.

Still at it Ken? :supergrin: We will still disagree on this bill.

I'll add my .02 to this. Who is to say that when the bill goes to vote that there will not be a flurry of tag ons to it?

If you trust the current government of these United States of America, You are a sucker.

There were several ammendments attempted to be added to it. The NRA claimed THEY prevented them from being attached. After what the NRA did to the MO OC bill; I don't trust them with this one now.

Personally I think it's pretty clear that it is sinister. Just because it tastes good, that doesn't mean that the poison is any less lethal. Seriously this is how politics work. They get stuff enacted one of two ways (at least for any major changes): 1. They leap on the coattails of a crisis and get laws passes while public sentiment is on their side. The AWB and the Homeland Security Act are good examples, or 2. They fabricate a crisis or condition and play that against their legislation. Obamacare and Fast and Furious are examples of that. Once they start studying and auditing permits, they'll find some reason why they have to limit this or change that. They'll already have their foot in the door because the National Reciprocity Law gave it to them. Then they just have to play to the fears that they will create and just like that, your state's laws are now driven by oversight by Federal laws.

Thx TX epat! :thumbsup:


:wavey:

red

EAJuggalo
03-17-2012, 20:44
It's amazing to me that IL has no provisions whatsoever for any sort of permit system. Always thought the rumor was the well connected in Chicago could carry. Is there a legal basis for that, or do they just look the other way? Only LEO and politicians allowed to carry, without needing permits?

Randy

The well connected have the ability to register their handguns so they can legally possess them. They were told in '86 before the City stopped accepting handgun registrations and there have been a couple instances since where one of them forgets to renew their registration and Daley has a one day amnesty that is only announced to the public after it's happened.

MilitantBEEMER
03-17-2012, 21:04
1. Um, no. I support the Constitution. The fact that certain states and cities place unconstitutional laws on the books is absolutely nothing I support. I don't live there though, nor would I, so it's up to the residents of those states and cities to vote people out or in, in order to get the laws of that area changed. It's not up to me and the Federal Government obviously isn't going to step up and do their job. Sorry if you can't go to NYC with your pistol. Be smart and just don't go there. Spend your money elsewhere where our freedoms haven't been legislated away. Plenty of things to see and do elsewhere... My wife loves Chicago. You have any idea how much grief I get because I won't step foot in that state? I understand that standing your ground is inconvenient but a lot of folks have given their life so I would have the opportunity to live under the freedoms of our Constitution. I think the grief I have to live with is a small sacrifice compared to theirs.

2. Yeah, acutally it does have something to do with F&F. You keep coming back to how there is no Federal agenda and Fast and Furious pretty much pisses on that campfire. Sure there is an agenda. F&F was without a doubt a setup for that agenda. You act like the Fed is some benign, or maybe even benevolent, entity that has no motive. Plenty of people have been, and continue to be, bought off by believing that we shouldn't question and scrutinize everything that our government does.

3. I'm not going to sue anyone... I'm just one dumb guy sitting around typing away on a computer. I don't have any chance of suing anyone over this or any other Federal law. I just hope it fails. As to your hypothetical scenario, I don't really want to imagine it, but if I had to I would also imagine myself moving somewhere else where I didn't have to deal with all that BS. As far as sharing the freedoms I enjoy here in MO, I'd be happy to. All they have to do is either vote their wishes in or they can just move here or some other state where the Constitutional freedoms that they should be able to enjoy haven't been legislated away... Look, I feel for all those folks but that doesn't make this legal. I agree everyone (who hasn't forfeited them) should be afforded the rights set forth in the Bill of Rights. I believe the Federal Government isn't doing its job because it allows NY, NJ, IL, CA and a few others, to restrict or effective reduce the rights guaranteed to the people of the United States under the Second Amendment. I agree it sucks... But what you are glorifying sucks even more because as crappy as it is to see a state or a city get away with violating the Second Amendment, it's even worse to allow our Federal Government an inroad to start doing the same; especially when that inroad is a violation of the powers given to the Federal Government by the Constitution in the first place. When the Fed flexes its Constitutional muscle and tells the states to abide by the Bill of Rights, then I'll stand up and give a rousing ovation for them; and I guarantee you I won't give a flying rats ass if there is a D or an R or an I after their name. Until then, I'm keeping my seat because that isn't ever going to happen.

I agree with this wholeheartedly. I CHOOSE where I live and where I WONT live based on the individual state laws. If IL, NY and CA want to shove there Anti 2A down there citizens throats, I will choose not to be a citizen of there state.

On one hand many that are in support of this bill, I imagine are against the Federal Government violateing States Rights by forcing a Government Mandated Health Care Scam down there throats. To me this bill is no different, regardless of the short term gain it MAY afford us 2A supporters

teweekley
03-18-2012, 10:11
From what is said in this post, it does sound good. However, both of these Senators are Democrats. Democrats are notorious anti-gun; so this leads me to believe there is a hidden agenda that is not being disclosed at this time. This isn't the first "sneaky" thing the Dems and Obama have tried, with the final effort being anti-gun. Has anyone checked with the NRA-ILA about this bill? Also check with your state Governor.

Joe Manchin used to be the governor of West Virginia before Senator Byrd passed. He has done a lot for my state in regards to the 2nd amendment. He passed legislation that gave us the castle law and protects citizens from civil suits in a self defense shooting.

Warp
03-18-2012, 10:46
I still do NOT want the federal legislature involved with this. Not at all.

If the federal government is to get involved it needs to be the Supreme Court ruling on the Constitutionality of existing statutes.

TankerMax
03-18-2012, 11:11
Warp actually gets it.

We already have a law protecting our right to own and carry guns. It's called the 2nd Amendment. It's the law of the land.

We don't need another law, we need the current law enforced.

My .02

kensteele
03-18-2012, 11:30
Well, if the bill gets defeated, you can thanks the liberals and the democrats and the Brady bunch for helping you realise your selfish desires. This bill is not about how it helps you, it's about how it helps out the folks that are victims today. That's why I use the word selfish, you gain nothing from the bill so you dig to make up reasons why you oppose it. Irrational reasons wiht no legal basis; just your gut feeling. If you are not a victim today, IMO you have no standing to try to block this.

I don't want the federal govt involved in gun permits and running state gun permit either. but I'm not going to fabricate a reason why it is going to happen thru this bill and then attach it to this bill just so I can be against it. How selfish is that? Blocking gun progress in the name of helping the gun rights movement somewhere down the line.

Give it up with the second amendment talk, you're not going to get any of that anytime soon. We need help now. I've siding with the NRA, the republicans, and the GOP and I'm supporting this bill. How about you?

TankerMax
03-18-2012, 11:49
The second amendment foundation has been suing and winning in the courts to protect and restore our right to keep and bear arms. They were the ones who won in DC. They are the ones who won against Maryland's law which said you had to give a reason for wanting to get a permit to carry. They are the ones who are winning the fight against Chicago and Illinois laws.

Join or donate to the second amendment foundation at SAF.org. The fight is on. We are winning and gaining momentum. We don't need this law we need wins before the supreme court.

jerzeydevil77
03-18-2012, 14:13
The second amendment foundation has been suing and winning in the courts to protect and restore our right to keep and bear arms. They were the ones who won in DC. They are the ones who won against Maryland's law which said you had to give a reason for wanting to get a permit to carry. They are the ones who are winning the fight against Chicago and Illinois laws.

Join or donate to the second amendment foundation at SAF.org. The fight is on. We are winning and gaining momentum. We don't need this law we need wins before the supreme court.

Hope they come and help us in NJ SOON!

ColdSteelNail
03-18-2012, 16:36
Don't just blame the Democrats. It was George Bush who banned the import of assault rifles in 1989. Ronald Reagan signed the Mulford Act in 1967 in California prohibiting carrying a handgun on ones person, car or any public street. In 1991 Reagan also supported the Brady bill. N.Y. Republican Governor George Pataki signed a law mandating trigger locks, background checks at gun shows, ballistic fingerprinting of all guns sold within the state, raised the age to 21 to buy a handgun and banned assault rifles.

Warp
03-18-2012, 16:47
Don't just blame the Democrats. It was George Bush who banned the import of assault rifles in 1989. Ronald Reagan signed the Mulford Act in 1967

As I don't live in California (not that many GT members do, relative to population) the Mulford Act does not, and never did, restrict me.

Mike from Texas
03-18-2012, 16:57
I am not for this bill. I think it works fine just like it is. I do not want the feds involved in cc. They will just screw it up like they do everything else these days.

Don't cry if you currently don't live in a free state, move to one that is.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

kensteele
03-18-2012, 17:17
I am not for this bill. I think it works fine just like it is. I do not want the feds involved in cc. They will just screw it up like they do everything else these days.

Don't cry if you currently don't live in a free state, move to one that is.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

TX is not all that free. Try to OC there see how "free" it is.

kensteele
03-18-2012, 17:22
As I don't live in California (not that many GT members do, relative to population) the Mulford Act does not, and never did, restrict me.

selfish :whistling:

if I can't benefit it, i don't want it.

common theme in this thread.

The point of the post is the Republicans are screwing you, open your eyes. I'm still asking the question that folks are refusing to answer, who by name in Congress is supporting this bill for a federal takeover of permits? C'mon is it really that hard to call these people out by their names? Chambliss? Isakson? Have you written them to express your disapproval of this bill?

folks in NJ need help, any suggestions?

steveksux
03-18-2012, 17:35
It effectively underscores that "full faith and credit" applies to handgun carry permits. Hard to argue with that. I've heard of that somewhere.

Randy

Warp
03-18-2012, 17:38
selfish :whistling:

if I can't benefit it, i don't want it.

common theme in this thread.

The point of the post is the Republicans are screwing you, open your eyes. I'm still asking the question that folks are refusing to answer, who by name in Congress is supporting this bill for a federal takeover of permits? C'mon is it really that hard to call these people out by their names? Chambliss? Isakson? Have you written them to express your disapproval of this bill?

folks in NJ need help, any suggestions?

Whoa, where did that come from?

Somebody said something about not blaming only Democrats and mentioned a law signed into effect in California over 40 years ago that, near as I can tell, doesn't even have a modern day affect. Forgive me if I am not impressed by some R having signed some bill into effect in Kali over 40 years ago when he was a Kali politician .

kensteele
03-18-2012, 17:50
^Yeah, sorry it wasn't meant entirely for you, but it only underscores some of the larger thinking that has shown across this forum lately and my frustration. This whole notion of selfishness. How can we stand by and do nothing when innocent people in other states becomes criminals for doing the same thing we are doing? How can we stand by when people in other states have bad laws passed onto them and we respond by saying "move"? How can see given money to the SAF and NRA but not support them in their efforts to make every gun owner in every state free? Warp your post was the one that came out and said not me, everyone else was afraid to say it but you can tell....if you don't benefit from national reciprocity (i.e. you live in the middle of a huge state nowhwere close to a state line or you are surrounded by friendly gun states, or you have no desire to visit a state with unfriendly gun laws or I was born in KS, raised in KS, will die in KS, screw everybody else)....if you can't find personal gain in the law then you could care less about that law. Which is fine but don't defeat it out of fear.

We can't chart our gun freedom course individually. We have to do it as a team. Pick your team. Is it the NRA? Is it the GOP leadership? Is it your State? Is it the Constitution? I don't know about you but I care when tourists get arrested for having a gun in a hotel room. I don't say too bad so sad, you got caught up in your stupidity.

JK-linux
03-18-2012, 17:56
Read this thread again from beginning to end. Sorry, still not interested in FedGov getting involved in auditing state CCW processes.

kensteele
03-18-2012, 18:37
....Sorry, still not interested in FedGov getting involved in auditing state CCW processes.

They already do that.

TankerMax
03-18-2012, 18:42
The reason I joined the SAF and the NRA is because I can't do anything to help someone in NY or NJ from here in WA. But I lend my voice as a numerated entity. I count myself in the mass of gun owners who say we stand together.

There are approximately 60 million gun owners in the US, but there are only 4 million members of the NRA. That means 5 out of 6 gun owners don't carry their weight in the fight to preserve our rights. Ask yourself, are you a member? Do you lend your name to the cause? Do you give your money so they can use it to the benefit of the general gun owning population?

The SAF stands for/with the innocent gun owner who is persecuted by the gun grabbers. Do you count yourself among their members? Do you help pay for the legal fights they wage in the courts that will eventually benefit the residents of states with unfriendly gun laws?

If your answer to the above is yes then you are a player. You don't stand on the sidelines watching. You may not be a superstar, but you understand the team also needs role players. You do your part.

If you answered no. Ask yourself one more question. Who will you blame for not doing more if eventually, like Canadians, Americans lose their right to keep and bear arms.

I0WA
03-18-2012, 18:45
All we have to do is look at history. History proves that when the Fed Government gets more power handed to them, it always gets expanded and then later abused. I don't want them doing anything other than enforcing contitutional carry in all 50.

Sent from my Evo Shift -Tapatalk

JK-linux
03-18-2012, 19:00
They already do that.

Just because FedGov is already doing something, doesn't mean it is by default necessary nor does it mean it is a good thing. And if it's being done already, then why include it in the bill at all? Just for fun?

cowboy1964
03-18-2012, 19:10
The NRA sure is a bunch of idiots for supporting this.

kensteele
03-18-2012, 19:32
Just because FedGov is already doing something, doesn't mean it is by default necessary nor does it mean it is a good thing. And if it's being done already, then why include it in the bill at all? Just for fun?

Perhaps not but since they are already doing it, shows that an audit doesn't amount to a takeover. All I am saying is don't use "there's an audit in there" as an excuse. Find out what the audit is all about and then make the call. Don't just see the word "federal" and then go sour on this; honestly I don't think it can be accomplished state to state, that's impossible.

Damn shame people don't trust their own government to even collect a win when it is handed to them. And then they'll be the first to use it over and over repeatedly when it amounts to nothing close to what they were thinking, that's what bugs me: "But you can't arrest me NYC officer because my federal government passed a [reciprocity] law that protect me; I have rights!" :rofl:

I am a member of the NRA and I support their efforts on this bill. We'll do this with or without you. It's quite normal not to have everyone on board. The previous poster is correct, very few people do the heavy lifting on behalf of everyone else. If you're too yellow to support this bill because you're too scared to take a small risk or you're a "historian" and you know what's best for the country based on your personal views and biased interpretation and you're asking the other half to swing in the wind until you are good and ready to act; you'll pass on this until something a little bit better comes along, something that's all nice and tidy wrapped with a bow, you're comfortable with things just the way they are for now; "no I'll pass, my own situation is good...." :tongueout:

Get in the game or get out. :steamed:

:)

TX expat
03-18-2012, 20:02
LOL. Ken, your entire argument for this bill has turned into the same fabricated crisis BS that the politicians use. We have to support it or we're being selfish. Or paranoid. Or Yellow. Or whatever. You need to start using your brain instead of your heart because your emotional pleas don't really inspire.

It's a bad piece of legislation. It's an illegal piece of legislation. You may care more about carrying a gun in NYC than you do about watching your federal government take illegal actions against the states, but sorry, I don't. It would seem you might be the one being selfish since you seem to be willing to accept such a small, and probably temporary, payoff in exchange for letting the Federal Government have their pound of flesh with our concealed licenses.... It's not fear that causes me to dislike this bill; it's the history our government has of taking the power away from the people and securing it for itself.

It's funny that you'd bring up our friends in NJ as needing help. Those poor folks are probably going to be the first to end up suffering since so many of them use out of state permits because NJ has some fairly restrictive "may issue" laws regarding their own. I'm sure they'll line up to thank you when the Federal Government mandates that out of state permits will no longer be valid because their audit found that they can't be tracked effectively (or some other nonsense). Nice job securing their freedoms...

You are so blinded by what you want, you fail to see the significant and very possible serious problems with this piece of legislation. You seem to want it so badly that you'll brush off or invalidate all the arguments, which have real historical basis, for the very real downsides to this. If it doesn't fit your idea of what's "right" then you resort to name calling or tossing emotional rhetoric around. You seem to be the only one who is so wrapped up in the politics of it, that you fail to accept that maybe the Republican party may just have this one wrong. Maybe the NRA has it wrong. You think they actually care if they get it wrong? Hardly. It gives them a reason to keep their job. Someone has to fight to right the wrongs and put the government back in check...

Taterhead
03-18-2012, 21:11
There is absolutely no way that I want the federal government to have a say in concealed carry laws - unless it is court system ruling on the constitutionality of state and local restrictions. This National Reciprocity rule - even if benevolently written now - will be the first step toward a shift in power and control to Washington, DC. Just like everything else.

An audit to determine the effectiveness of a state's ability determine the validity of permits? This requires another bureaucratic hierarchy. The bureaucracy will have findings. Findings lead to rules. Rules curtail liberty. And on it goes. Suddenly National Reciprocity will require states and applicants to adhere to an ever-expanding set of mandates in order for state permits to meet federal standards. Liberty and rules have an inverse relationship.

papa
03-18-2012, 21:20
please work to pass the right to carry the national ccw that is in the senate now.

kensteele
03-18-2012, 21:36
LOL. Ken, your entire argument for this bill has turned into the same fabricated crisis BS that the politicians use. We have to support it or we're being selfish. Or paranoid. Or Yellow. Or whatever. You need to start using your brain instead of your heart because your emotional pleas don't really inspire.

Which politicials are you referring to? Name some names, I'd like to know who you think it fabricating crisis BS. Are you talking about Senator Blunt? Is he votiing for this BS and shoving this down your throat?



It's a bad piece of legislation. It's an illegal piece of legislation. You may care more about carrying a gun in NYC than you do about watching your federal government take illegal actions against the states, but sorry, I don't. It would seem you might be the one being selfish since you seem to be willing to accept such a small, and probably temporary, payoff in exchange for letting the Federal Government have their pound of flesh with our concealed licenses.... It's not fear that causes me to dislike this bill; it's the history our government has of taking the power away from the people and securing it for itself.

No it's not perfect. We don't have time to wait for the perfect piece of legislation that isn't ever coming.


It's funny that you'd bring up our friends in NJ as needing help. Those poor folks are probably going to be the first to end up suffering since so many of them use out of state permits because NJ has some fairly restrictive "may issue" laws regarding their own. I'm sure they'll line up to thank you when the Federal Government mandates that out of state permits will no longer be valid because their audit found that they can't be tracked effectively (or some other nonsense). Nice job securing their freedoms...

There is nothing in this legislation that says the federal govt will decide whom they can issue permits to. It's up to the states. Only the state can decide whom they issue a Driver's License to and only the state can decide whom they issue a Gun Permit to, regardless of an audit. When they go to implement some strange new gun law based on an audit, I'll block it, the NRA will block it, my Congressman will block; don't you worry about it (since you don't seem to know how Government runs). I understand your concern though. Tell me who exactly you think it going to implement new guns laws based on an audit, the GOP house? The President? Fill in the holes in your theory with some facts.


You are so blinded by what you want, you fail to see the significant and very possible serious problems with this piece of legislation. You seem to want it so badly that you'll brush off or invalidate all the arguments, which have real historical basis, for the very real downsides to this. If it doesn't fit your idea of what's "right" then you resort to name calling or tossing emotional rhetoric around. You seem to be the only one who is so wrapped up in the politics of it, that you fail to accept that maybe the Republican party may just have this one wrong. Maybe the NRA has it wrong. You think they actually care if they get it wrong? Hardly. It gives them a reason to keep their job. Someone has to fight to right the wrongs and put the government back in check...

I am not blinded, I don't yearn for this. The GOP wants this. The NRA wants this. Millions of affected gun owners want this. Just a few people standings in the way. Luckily it goes by the vote and the people will decide. If you think it is illegal legislation if it passes, round up your folks and take it to the Supreme Court and we'll have landmark legislation that says the Federal Government must permanently stay out of the state's business of issuing permits and I'll support that. But I won't support any efforts of trying to squash national reciprocity. That's downright bizarre.

kensteele
03-18-2012, 21:38
An audit to determine the effectiveness of a state's ability determine the validity of permits?

Where are you getting this from, who told you this lie? :cool:

TX expat
03-18-2012, 22:01
Which politicials are you referring to? Name some names, I'd like to know who you think it fabricating crisis BS. Are you talking about Senator Blunt? Is he votiing for this BS and shoving this down your throat?

What politicians am I referring to? I'm talking about politicians in general. They all do it.

No it's not perfect. We don't have time to wait for the perfect piece of legislation that isn't ever coming.

There you go creating a crisis. We must act now! It's essential we take this without thinking about it. Blah blah blah... States have been working on and advancing reciprocity for years and they keep making progress. There is no crisis and there is no immediate reason to accept such a flawed and dangerous piece of legislation.

There is nothing in this legislation that says the federal govt will decide whom they can issue permits to. It's up to the states. Only the state can decide whom they issue a Driver's License to and only the state can decide whom they issue a Gun Permit to, regardless of an audit. When they go to implement some strange new gun law based on an audit, I'll block it, the NRA will block it, my Congressman will block; don't you worry about it (since you don't seem to know how Government runs). I understand your concern though. Tell me who exactly you think it going to implement new guns laws based on an audit, the GOP house? The President? Fill in the holes in your theory with some facts.

Are you so simple that you think if it doesn't come right out and stop you from doing something then it must be OK? You'll stop it. You are cracking me up! You won't be able to stop it. Just like the AWB wasn't stopped. Just like Obamacare wasn't stopped. Just like virtually everything that the Federal Government legislates, it will be darn near impossible to stop it and once they create the 'fear' over all these unchecked permits, they'll have a whole ton of people screaming to get some laws in place to keep those gun permits under control. The only one with holes in their theory is you... You think we should just take the "win" unquestioningly and then fight later. Yeah, when they take your freedoms away, then you start fighting. Brilliant...

I am not blinded, I don't yearn for this. The GOP wants this. The NRA wants this. Millions of affected gun owners want this. Just a few people standings in the way. Luckily it goes by the vote and the people will decide. If you think it is illegal legislation if it passes, round up your folks and take it to the Supreme Court and we'll have landmark legislation that says the Federal Government must permanently stay out of the state's business of issuing permits and I'll support that. But I won't support any efforts of trying to squash national reciprocity. That's downright bizarre.

Just a few people and the Constitution, you mean. I personally think it's pretty sad how some people can cheer stuff like this on. Maybe you should go read the Constitution and make an effort to understand the document that allows you to have your freedoms...

Taterhead
03-18-2012, 22:35
Where are you getting this from, who told you this lie? :cool:

I was referring to sections 3 and 4 of the House resolution. While the Senate bill is reasonably clean, the House has already had a say in the matter, and oversight is clearly part of the flavor. Otherwise there would be no statute calling for the GAO to audit state practices and to report back to Congress within one year. Obviously the purpose being to monitor for additional legislation.

Oversight is clearly part of the deal in the House version. We cannot look at the Senate bill in a vacuum.

EDIT: Great discussion everyone. This is certainly a situation where we all generally want the same outcome. The specific path to take is contentious, but not the ultimate goal.

redbaron007
03-19-2012, 07:14
Just a few people and the Constitution, you mean. I personally think it's pretty sad how some people can cheer stuff like this on. Maybe you should go read the Constitution and make an effort to understand the document that allows you to have your freedoms...

Tx expat; as much as I respect Ken and his discussions; on this particular topic, it appears he doesn't believe the Feds will expand their roll in HR822. Even with the examples you provided of how much the Feds want control, he still doesn't see it.

If this bill passes under the CC; it will remain a privilege, not a right. It must stay under the states rule and reciprocity; however, if the feds want to establish constitutional carry (which they should) lets do it under the 2A, not the CC; Until then, the Feds should stay out.

.......
EDIT: Great discussion everyone. This is certainly a situation where we all generally want the same outcome. The specific path to take is contentious, but not the ultimate goal.

Agree. The end result is the same, but the path to get there is the rough part. :supergrin:


:wavey:

red

TX expat
03-19-2012, 07:38
Tx expat; as much as I respect Ken and his discussions; on this particular topic, it appears he doesn't believe the Feds will expand their roll in HR822. Even with the examples you provided of how much the Feds want control, he still doesn't see it.

If this bill passes under the CC; it will remain a privilege, not a right. It must stay under the states rule and reciprocity; however, if the feds want to establish constitutional carry (which they should) lets do it under the 2A, not the CC; Until then, the Feds should stay out.



Agree. The end result is the same, but the path to get there is the rough part. :supergrin:


:wavey:

red

I agree and I do respect that he shares our passion for our rights, which is exactly why I keep trying to open his point of view some. I find it difficult to look that much history in the face and pretend that isn't there; the 8,000 pound elephant in the room, so to speak.

It is truly a shame that he is willing to set aside the Constitution for the promise of a watered down Second Amendment law that, in all reality, isn't about the Second Amendment at all. Promoting the idea that it's OK to let the fox into the henhouse and fight it after it tries to take a chicken is ridiculous as well as downright dangerous.

Warp
03-19-2012, 08:18
Warp your post was the one that came out and said not me, everyone else was afraid to say it but you can tell....if you don't benefit from national reciprocity (i.e. you live in the middle of a huge state nowhwere close to a state line or you are surrounded by friendly gun states, or you have no desire to visit a state with unfriendly gun laws or I was born in KS, raised in KS, will die in KS, screw everybody else)....if you can't find personal gain in the law then you could care less about that law. Which is fine but don't defeat it out of fear.


Uh...I would gain from a national reciprocity act. I have family in states that do not honor my permit(s). I visit. I travel. Just last year I traveled to states that are shall issue but did not recognize my permit.

I'm not against it because it doesn't "directly benefit me", I am against it because I think it is a bad idea!!

I0WA
03-19-2012, 10:05
Trojan horse. 'Nuff said.

Sent from my Evo Shift -Tapatalk

Bill Lumberg
03-19-2012, 10:08
It's definitely nice to never have to worry about what state I'm in regarding carrying a weapon. If standardiation in qualifications and reporting can be worked out, I'd like to see 50 state permit-holder reciprocity pass. You have to keep in mind that it'd be rough for the federal government to shove this down states throats, which would most likely result in states opting in or opting out of a 50 state reciprocity on a voluntary basis. Which could lead to some states turning no-permit that currently allow limited reciprocity or in-state permittee carry only.

kensteele
03-19-2012, 18:17
Tx expat; as much as I respect Ken and his discussions; on this particular topic, it appears he doesn't believe the Feds will expand their roll in HR822. Even with the examples you provided of how much the Feds want control, he still doesn't see it.

If this bill passes under the CC; it will remain a privilege, not a right. It must stay under the states rule and reciprocity; however, if the feds want to establish constitutional carry (which they should) lets do it under the 2A, not the CC; Until then, the Feds should stay out.



Agree. The end result is the same, but the path to get there is the rough part. :supergrin:


:wavey:

red

I simply don't believe the fed government wants to own gun permits. If they did, you would see something a little different but obvious. Do you think they want to own non-commercial driver's license, too?

kensteele
03-19-2012, 18:22
I agree and I do respect that he shares our passion for our rights, which is exactly why I keep trying to open his point of view some. I find it difficult to look that much history in the face and pretend that isn't there; the 8,000 pound elephant in the room, so to speak.

It is truly a shame that he is willing to set aside the Constitution for the promise of a watered down Second Amendment law that, in all reality, isn't about the Second Amendment at all. Promoting the idea that it's OK to let the fox into the henhouse and fight it after it tries to take a chicken is ridiculous as well as downright dangerous.

Because I don't personally believe this bill hinders our efforts. It doesn't make it harder to reach our goals. What it does is helps. Let's pass it and keep working harder to achieve our goals. You think this bill undermines the 2A effort, have the support go it all wrong, really?

Honestly you think the anti-gun folks have really found a slick method to bait the movement and when we bite, we're finished? A permit reciprocity bill containing government audits and studies? Sorry, I just don't see that, what am I missing?

kensteele
03-19-2012, 18:29
Uh...I would gain from a national reciprocity act. I have family in states that do not honor my permit(s). I visit. I travel. Just last year I traveled to states that are shall issue but did not recognize my permit.

I'm not against it because it doesn't "directly benefit me", I am against it because I think it is a bad idea!!

Understood, but it's not really a gain unless you find value in it. If you're ok to walk around NY without your permit (unsafe), if you don't mind your remote relatives going unarmed for another decade, then you have nothing to gain really.

Again, it's not the best idea this century. I understand if folks think there's a better way. It's the demonization (is that a word?) that I am not understanding.

JK-linux
03-19-2012, 18:44
If you're ok to walk around NY without your permit (unsafe)...

I'm pretty sure this won't let you carry in New York City. New York State maybe, but not NYC. New York State permits are not even honored in NYC from what I've read from New Yorkers on this very forum.

kensteele
03-19-2012, 18:52
I'm pretty sure this won't let you carry in New York City. New York State maybe, but not NYC. New York State permits are not even honored in NYC from what I've read from New Yorkers on this very forum.

I thought it did. Still I used NY as an example, we could be talking about HI or CA or any place where you currently don't have reciprocity. I am not happy that I can't go to San Diego armed to protect myself. If you don't mind going ahead to San Diego and leaving your weapon at home, if that doesn't bother you, I really don't think you get anything of value from National Reciprocity. If your relatives live right next to the freeway and they can't easily leave their driveway to go most places because they have to cross into another prohibit state for several miles so they end up leaving their weapon at home, their permits are useless and you don't see where this bill can help keep them safe, you think they are safe and ok to just leave their weapon at home, I don't see where you find any real value in National Reciprocity. However, thousands of people will find real value in this bill despite the "risks." Tell a person he can't carry to protect his family in CT because the Federal government is going to audit permit databases (not issue rules) in OR and MT.....

Spats McGee
03-19-2012, 19:25
I'm not going to opine at this point as to the legality or constitutionality of any of the National Right To Carry bills. I will opine that it's a bad idea, though. It's an invitation to the feds to begin meddling in, and regulating, state permits. I've spent almost 10 years as an attorney, with ~7 of them in governmental or quasi-governmental work, so I am not entirely ignorant of the processes at work.

The whole idea that the feds are getting involved in directing one state to recognize any license issued by another bothers me, generally.

Here's one of the specific clauses that bothers me:
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).Source: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c112:4:./temp/~c1128xZuWJ:: (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c112:4:./temp/%7Ec1128xZuWJ::) (Emphasis supplied by Spats)

I have seen proponents of various national right to carry bills push the idea that the right to carry bills do not open the door for federal regulation, and that the feds will not use these acts as a springboard for more federal regulation. I disagree. If that were true, most of Section 3 would be wholly unnecessary. If the sole object were to direct all of the state to recognize everyone else's CCLs, why the focus on non-resident permits? Why the request for the basis of denials of non-resident permits? Perhaps more importantly, why the directive for the GAO to examine the effectiveness of laws governing the issuance of non-resident permits on protecting the public safety? If national reciprocity were truly the sole aim, the one and only question that the GAO needs to study is: Which states prohibit concealed carry?

TX expat
03-19-2012, 20:11
Because I don't personally believe this bill hinders our efforts. It doesn't make it harder to reach our goals. What it does is helps. Let's pass it and keep working harder to achieve our goals. You think this bill undermines the 2A effort, have the support go it all wrong, really?

Honestly you think the anti-gun folks have really found a slick method to bait the movement and when we bite, we're finished? A permit reciprocity bill containing government audits and studies? Sorry, I just don't see that, what am I missing?

Buddy, you've been told what you are missing in exhaustive detail. You aren't missing it, you are ignoring it.

Just keep ignoring it for all I care. I've said everything I need to say on this subject.

Warp
03-19-2012, 20:19
Understood, but it's not really a gain unless you find value in it. If you're ok to walk around NY without your permit (unsafe), if you don't mind your remote relatives going unarmed for another decade, then you have nothing to gain really.

Again, it's not the best idea this century. I understand if folks think there's a better way. It's the demonization (is that a word?) that I am not understanding.

Huh? Most of my family live in shall issue states. Doesn't mean they recognize my permits. The last time I visited Iowa and Ohio, both shall issue, my permits were not issued. My relatives who live there, though, certainly could get a permit if they desired!

kensteele
03-19-2012, 20:57
Buddy, you've been told what you are missing in exhaustive detail. You aren't missing it, you are ignoring it.

Just keep ignoring it for all I care. I've said everything I need to say on this subject.

It wasn't a question directly to you, not looking for you to answer. Hoping I could get [from someone else maybe] a rational honest answer, other than "it's bad juju" or "it's spooky" or "I got a bad feeling about this." All I've been told is a bunch of voodoo; I'm looking for some names or some historical precedents or something real. For example the assault weapons ban wasn't the result of some prior sneaky activity that states owned and inadvertantly gave to the federal gvt. The fed govt came in and took it and you guys let it happen under your noses. Now we're supposed to trust you on this bill? LOL

kensteele
03-19-2012, 20:59
Huh? Most of my family live in shall issue states. Doesn't mean they recognize my permits. The last time I visited Iowa and Ohio, both shall issue, my permits were not issued. My relatives who live there, though, certainly could get a permit if they desired!

sure, doesn't apply to you personally. this was just an example. help out the folks who DO have relatives in a bind.

TankerMax
03-19-2012, 23:02
I'll give you an example of the Feds making a law that's sneaky so they can get control of the system. I already know you're gonna say "well that's a bad example because that hasn't happened."

The healthcare bill which is now law. The dems said you could choose to keep your current plan. This law won't cost any extra. We just want a law that provides coverage for those Americans who don't have coverage now.

Then they put in provisions that say your employer can not offer you coverage and instead pay a fine to the government per uncovered employee. With costs rising employers may find it more cost effective to suspend or just do away with employer provided healthcare and pay the fines. Then all these newly uncovered workers are then allowed to enroll in government sponsored healthcare. Thus increasing the control the federal government has on American healthcare.

Please tell me why I'm wrong. That way I have it in writing so I can say I told you so. That is I the supremes don't throw the law out in June.

TX expat
03-20-2012, 07:44
It wasn't a question directly to you, not looking for you to answer. Hoping I could get [from someone else maybe] a rational honest answer, other than "it's bad juju" or "it's spooky" or "I got a bad feeling about this." All I've been told is a bunch of voodoo; I'm looking for some names or some historical precedents or something real. For example the assault weapons ban wasn't the result of some prior sneaky activity that states owned and inadvertantly gave to the federal gvt. The fed govt came in and took it and you guys let it happen under your noses. Now we're supposed to trust you on this bill? LOL

LOL. Not that you ever had any credibility, but it's totally shot now.

kensteele
03-20-2012, 11:59
I'll give you an example of the Feds making a law that's sneaky so they can get control of the system. I already know you're gonna say "well that's a bad example because that hasn't happened."

The healthcare bill which is now law. The dems said you could choose to keep your current plan. This law won't cost any extra. We just want a law that provides coverage for those Americans who don't have coverage now.

Then they put in provisions that say your employer can not offer you coverage and instead pay a fine to the government per uncovered employee. With costs rising employers may find it more cost effective to suspend or just do away with employer provided healthcare and pay the fines. Then all these newly uncovered workers are then allowed to enroll in government sponsored healthcare. Thus increasing the control the federal government has on American healthcare.

Please tell me why I'm wrong. That way I have it in writing so I can say I told you so. That is I the supremes don't throw the law out in June.

Yeah sure I'm not going to argue that nonsense here. This bill for National Reciprocity is akin to Obamacare Federal takeover of healthcare? Are you serious? :rofl:

And you are correct, none of that has ever happened expect in my mind. When and if it does happen, we might talk. :faint:

Any other examples? C'mon there are so many to choose from, after all, this has happened so repeatedly in history. :upeyes:

Warp
03-20-2012, 20:19
For example the assault weapons ban wasn't the result of some prior sneaky activity that states owned and inadvertantly gave to the federal gvt. The fed govt came in and took it and you guys let it happen under your noses. Now we're supposed to trust you on this bill? LOL

Really? You mean that bill that was signed into effect in September of 1994 when I was 10 years old? I let that happen right under my nose?

Real piece of work, ken.

kensteele
03-20-2012, 21:00
Really? You mean that bill that was signed into effect in September of 1994 when I was 10 years old? I let that happen right under my nose?

Real piece of work, ken.

I apologize if you were only 10 there was nothing much you could do. But the other folks who were capable and they fight this hard against a sneaky trojan horse bill with some benefits, I hate to see how hard you fight against a downright takeover with zero benefits (AWB).

NEOH212
03-21-2012, 03:37
1. It's a nice thought.

2. It doesn't stand a cold chance in hell of getting passed any time soon.

redbaron007
03-21-2012, 07:12
I simply don't believe the fed government wants to own gun permits. If they did, you would see something a little different but obvious. Do you think they want to own non-commercial driver's license, too?

Once again, you are looking for the obvious. Politics is not always about the obvious.

As stated before, this National Reciprocity will now be a privilege, not a right. Depending on the party in charge, the agency that will oversee the enforcement of this can make administrative changes, without congressional approval. Depending on who is in charge, they can require additional training, fees over and above the states requirement and ultimately take it over. The welfare system is a great example. Your immediate need for this bill prevents you from seeing the longterm consequences.

As for the non-commercial drivers license, doesn't apply, another straw argument thats not comparable; driving is not a right.


:wavey:

red

c6601a
03-21-2012, 10:45
With costs rising employers may find it more cost effective to suspend or just do away with employer provided healthcare and pay the fines.Ignorance combined with a lack of reasoning ability can be dangerous.

The fines are requires to be the same as insurance premiums. If a company has to spend the same amount of money in fines or insurance premiums, do you really think that they will choose to send it to the government and make the employees unhappy rather than spending exact the same amount on insurance and at the very least not anger the employees?

TankerMax
03-21-2012, 10:55
You may want to read the healthcare law. The fine for the individual who doesn't buy insurance, as well as the employer who doesn't provide it, is much less than the cost of the insurance.

kensteele
03-21-2012, 11:45
Once again, you are looking for the obvious. Politics is not always about the obvious.

As stated before, this National Reciprocity will now be a privilege, not a right. Depending on the party in charge, the agency that will oversee the enforcement of this can make administrative changes, without congressional approval. Depending on who is in charge, they can require additional training, fees over and above the states requirement and ultimately take it over. The welfare system is a great example. Your immediate need for this bill prevents you from seeing the longterm consequences.

As for the non-commercial drivers license, doesn't apply, another straw argument thats not comparable; driving is not a right.


:wavey:

red

When the law passes, each states just simply totals up 49 states on their reciprocity list and everything moves on business as usual. That's it. I think all your other analysis is simply conjecture.

When the federal govt comes along with something else, rebuff them as usual. According to you they will come at you with this "Law" in their hand and I maintain that law is too weak to amount to anything meaningful.

In the meantime, permit holders can protect themselves in 97% of America.

kensteele
03-21-2012, 11:47
You may want to read the healthcare law. The fine for the individual who doesn't buy insurance, as well as the employer who doesn't provide it, is much less than the cost of the insurance.

They havenn't read it. They are repeating what FoxNews told them to say is gonna happen one day. LOL

Even if the fine is $1, they would fabricate a bad news story.

I0WA
03-21-2012, 14:25
They havenn't read it. They are repeating what FoxNews told them to say is gonna happen one day. LOL

Even if the fine is $1, they would fabricate a bad news story.

Doesn't matter how much the fine is. $.01 is too much for something that blatantly violates my liberty.

Sent from my Evo Shift -Tapatalk