Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.

 
  
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-10-2011, 10:01   #41
uhlawpup
Gentle Soul
 
uhlawpup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Houston
Posts: 5,522
Send a message via Yahoo to uhlawpup
Quote:
Originally Posted by vram74 View Post
How about instead of this we get a law spelling out and reaffirming the 2nd amendment as a right, the complete nullification of any Local/State/Federal law that restricts the 2nd amendment and a permanent ban on the possibility of it ever being brought up again in the future?
The permanent ban itself would be unconstitutional, and unwise. Things can change...greatly.
__________________
uhlawpup - deep in the heart of Downtown Houston

CRUX SANCTA SIT MIHI LUX
NUNQUAM DRACO SIT MIHI DUX
uhlawpup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2011, 10:03   #42
uhlawpup
Gentle Soul
 
uhlawpup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Houston
Posts: 5,522
Send a message via Yahoo to uhlawpup
I'm still on the fence about this one, too. The vast difference in the requirements from state to state to obtain a permit makes this problematic for me, as does the federalist intrusion. Then, again, there must be some way of achieving the goal of universal carry without endangering the fragile framework of laws and the balance that we have among rights, duties, and necessities.
__________________
uhlawpup - deep in the heart of Downtown Houston

CRUX SANCTA SIT MIHI LUX
NUNQUAM DRACO SIT MIHI DUX
uhlawpup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2011, 10:12   #43
BailRecoveryAgent
Rude Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,066
I would be fine with abiding by the states laws that you're visiting, like carrying 10 rounders in states that prohibit anything over that, I just think that eventually we would see some federal restrictions that would result in the loss of some freedoms in order to gain one.

Like I said in my first post in this thread, I don't want to have to abide by restrictive gun laws in my home state just so I can carry in another no more than once or MAYBE twice a year.
BailRecoveryAgent is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2011, 16:00   #44
snubfan
Giant Member
 
snubfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Omaha
Posts: 1,842
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oso View Post
I think the whole point has been missed. The bill is for Reciprocity of CCW licenses. This means that the states have to recognize the CCW license as valid, not the issuing states laws. A state like New York could still limit your possession of "high"capacity magazines and where and how you can carry. I personally think it would become a logistic nightmare and anti-gun states would make it miserable enough that even valid CCW carries would be afraid to carry in that state.
So if I have a permit from a "shall issue" state, does a "may issue" state (like New York) have to accept my permit and allow me to carry even though they deny most of their own citizens that right?







.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
snubfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2011, 16:25   #45
glock30user
Senior Member
 
glock30user's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: U.S.A
Posts: 316
To all of those who mentioned drivers licenses or marriage licenses, a marriage is a religious union which has been around forever…even before the US, so that is a moot point because they have always been recognized and don’t always need a govt. issued permit to be recognized. As for drivers lisc. the federal govt does all kinds of crazy things that don’t make sense…and that is the best I’ve got.
__________________
No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
Thomas Jefferson
glock30user is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2011, 16:30   #46
glock30user
Senior Member
 
glock30user's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: U.S.A
Posts: 316
Tenth Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
The federal govt. can’t tell one state to recognize a CCW permit from another because it is unconstitutional just like obamacare. I would love to carry in any state but that doesn't make it right by the constitution. When the fed govt. starts regulating it never stops and will overstep its bounds very soon. Look at income taxes - not equally applied to all the people - violation of the constitution, but generally accepted as ok.
__________________
No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
Thomas Jefferson
glock30user is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2011, 16:41   #47
Donn57
Just me
 
Donn57's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Sunny Florida
Posts: 1,066


History has shown us that a federal law that has anything to do with guns or gun ownership is likely to turn out badly for gun owners.
Donn57 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2011, 16:47   #48
StarfoxHowl
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: The middle of Nowhere, Afghanistan.
Posts: 565
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Machinist View Post
That was my immediate thought, but then again, states don't have a right to strip the lawful among us of our right to carry concealed.
I don't recall that there ever was a separate 'right to carry concealed'. If there is, could you enlighten me?
StarfoxHowl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2011, 17:04   #49
kensteele
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Leawood, KS
Posts: 7,866
Quote:
Originally Posted by Donn57 View Post
History has shown us that a federal law that has anything to do with guns or gun ownership is likely to turn out badly for gun owners.
You mean like National Parks Carry?
kensteele is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2011, 17:10   #50
glock30user
Senior Member
 
glock30user's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: U.S.A
Posts: 316
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toorop View Post
So is FOPA and LEOSA.
Should we repeal those laws as well?
In short YES!
__________________
No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
Thomas Jefferson
glock30user is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2011, 17:23   #51
RottnJP
Lifetime Membership
Senior Member
 
RottnJP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: CT
Posts: 1,997
I have mixed feelings on it too. I the one hand, I want it, and think that it is, at least based on my reading, permissible based on "full faith and credit."

"Article IV
Section 1.

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

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

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

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

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

But here's the kicker, and ultimately why I *think* (right now, anyway) I'd vote for national reciprocity... The Fed can already pass legislation trampling on the RtKBA and using the Federal coffers to get compliance from those who are willing to let themselves be bribed... It's really just us, the good guys we can elect, and the NRA's lobbying power, that prevent that from happening already. So I guess we might as well get something good out of it while we can.
__________________
Outpost Member #69.14159

Last edited by RottnJP; 05-10-2011 at 17:24..
RottnJP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2011, 17:26   #52
RottnJP
Lifetime Membership
Senior Member
 
RottnJP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: CT
Posts: 1,997
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Armstrong View Post
I think we have that now as a result of the Heller and the McDonald cases.
Dave, did you miss your Wheaties this morning? You know as well as I do that a court case is nothing but a precedent. There's no law until the legislative branch makes one.
__________________
Outpost Member #69.14159

Last edited by RottnJP; 05-10-2011 at 17:26..
RottnJP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2011, 17:37   #53
Oso
Senior Member
 
Oso's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Sturgis Michigan
Posts: 790
Yep, that is what national reciprocity would mean.

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







.
Oso is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2011, 18:20   #54
David Armstrong
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Lake Charles, LA
Posts: 11,125
Quote:
Originally Posted by RottnJP View Post
Dave, did you miss your Wheaties this morning? You know as well as I do that a court case is nothing but a precedent. There's no law until the legislative branch makes one.
Don't think I said anything about the court case being a law. Heller and McDonald spelled out and affirmed the 2nd amendment as a right, which was the core of the statement. But FWIW, case law certainly is law. It is not statutory law, but it is considered a form of law none the less.
David Armstrong is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2011, 19:15   #55
RottnJP
Lifetime Membership
Senior Member
 
RottnJP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: CT
Posts: 1,997
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Armstrong View Post
Don't think I said anything about the court case being a law. Heller and McDonald spelled out and affirmed the 2nd amendment as a right, which was the core of the statement. But FWIW, case law certainly is law. It is not statutory law, but it is considered a form of law none the less.
O.K., yeah, I guess it depends on the semantics of "law." From a practical standpoint, "case law" = "precedent." If I get picked up in D.C. with a pistol in my car, I can talk about Heller all I want, I'm still spending the night (at least) in jail.

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

That's the valid comparison with national reciprocity- The law doesn't say I can do it, so referencing the Heller case is not relevant to the legality of carrying across state lines.
__________________
Outpost Member #69.14159
RottnJP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2011, 20:50   #56
codecowboy
NRA Life Member
 
codecowboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,120
Quote:
Originally Posted by glock30user View Post
As much as I would enjoy being to carry anywhere…it is a violation of states rights.
Agreed. That is exactly what is bothering me.
__________________
---CodeCowboy
NRA Certified Pistol Instructor
"Sure they think we're nuts. But remember every great oak tree started out as a couple of nuts who stood their ground."
codecowboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2011, 07:52   #57
J_Rico
Senior Member
 
J_Rico's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,615
Like many, I have mixed feelings about this. I would love to see such reciprocity, but imposition by the Feds seems a violation of state's rights. IMO state's rights are the more important of these two issues.

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

After all, if New York enacted a law tomorrow requiring a one hour delay for broadcast news and a 1 day delay for print media, to allow censorship of the news, what would be the reaction? Would people condemn this attack on the 1A or stand up for New York's state rights?
__________________
"To educate a man in mind and not in morals is to educate a menace to society."

Theodore Roosevelt

Last edited by J_Rico; 05-11-2011 at 08:24..
J_Rico is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2011, 09:19   #58
David Armstrong
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Lake Charles, LA
Posts: 11,125
Quote:
Originally Posted by RottnJP View Post
O.K., yeah, I guess it depends on the semantics of "law." From a practical standpoint, "case law" = "precedent." If I get picked up in D.C. with a pistol in my car, I can talk about Heller all I want, I'm still spending the night (at least) in jail.
True, as regards Heller specifically. If, however, there is case law that says the police cannot do that, then you probably get to avoid that even if there is a statute prohibiting it.
Quote:
If the only statutory laws in place don't permit what I'm doing, the law isn't on my side, and it won't be until (a) the statutory law is changed or (b) the judiciary strikes it down.
Yes, both have the same practical effect and are considered law.
Quote:
That's the valid comparison with national reciprocity- The law doesn't say I can do it, so referencing the Heller case is not relevant to the legality of carrying across state lines.
Perhaps, but again, the statement did not address carrying across state lines, the statement specifically referenced "How about instead of this we get a law spelling out and reaffirming the 2nd amendment as a right," which Heller and McDonald certainly did.
David Armstrong is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2011, 05:40   #59
Donn57
Just me
 
Donn57's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Sunny Florida
Posts: 1,066


Quote:
Originally Posted by kensteele View Post
You mean like National Parks Carry?
Even a blind squirrel finds a nut now and again.

Last edited by Donn57; 05-12-2011 at 05:44..
Donn57 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2011, 09:28   #60
Gunnut 45/454
Senior Member
 
Gunnut 45/454's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 14,050
snubfan
I agree 100%! National Constitutional carry is all thats needed! Get the government out of it at all levels!
__________________
Gunnut45/454-One shot one kill!
Gunnut 45/454 is offline   Reply With Quote

 
  
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 13:13.




Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 1,092
280 Members
812 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,672
Aug 11, 2014 at 2:31