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 12-06-2011, 16:05   #101
xmanhockey7
Senior Member
 
xmanhockey7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Kalamazoo, Michigan
Posts: 1,606
Quote:
Originally Posted by maxmanta View Post
Do you really think Obama would sign this into law? I don't.
I don't see Romney doing it either. If we got Newt into office thought I believe he would sign it.
xmanhockey7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2011, 19:08   #102
Old Junes
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragoon44 View Post
Issues like this reveal who really believes in rights and who just wants to get their way regardless of the cost.

The same people that bemoan an overreaching federal Govt. when that Govt. does something they don't like suddenly become ardent Federalists when that same govt. will give them what they want.
I think this is right on the money. I found myself originally favoring this bill and then realized that you can't pick and choose when you want the long arm of the fed govt in your business if you claim to want it out in virtually every other scenario.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine
__________________
"It is better to have a gun and not need one... than to need a gun and not have one." -Unknown
Old Junes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2011, 19:35   #103
kensteele
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Leawood, KS
Posts: 7,866
Quote:
Originally Posted by redbaron007 View Post
When the SCOTUS declares CCWing as part of the 2A, then you are right.
Right now, CCWing is a privilege that states regulate. CCW is not a right at this time. Should it be, yes. However, until then, NY has not infringed on your right. Subsequently, a state should be able to govern their own and the visitors that come in/to it for CCW. It shouldn't be the feds under the CC, but only due in part to the 2A.




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

Again, I don't think NY has a duty to provide me with a CCW when I visit their state. Not asking for one. However, when NY tries to arrest me (a permitted person) for carrying a firearm to protect myself when they do not arrest their own permitted residents for carrying a firearm to protect themselves, I have a problem with that. And you should, too. NY (the government) has no right to pick winners and losers.
kensteele is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2011, 20:23   #104
redbaron007
Lifetime Membership
A Nice Prick!
 
redbaron007's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Southwest Missouri
Posts: 7,101
Quote:
Originally Posted by kensteele View Post
This bill is a step closer to seeing it as a right to self-protection. When you leave the state and you are traveling, your firearm is your right to self-protection, not necessarily CCW. CCW is what states grant to their residents at home. When I'm on the road, my state will disembark at the state line and the Federal govt will hitch a ride with me as I travel across this great country and see that I am protected against the crazy laws out there that would make me a criminal for trying to protect myself. Embrace this bill.

Again, I don't think NY has a duty to provide me with a CCW when I visit their state. Not asking for one. However, when NY tries to arrest me (a permitted person) for carrying a firearm to protect myself when they do not arrest their own permitted residents for carrying a firearm to protect themselves, I have a problem with that. And you should, too. NY (the government) has no right to pick winners and losers.
I don't necessarily disagree with your philosophy. However, it comes back to the a state being able to regulate a privilege, not a constitution right, they offer to their citizens. If they want you to have a permit, and it's there permit, then until, it sucks.



red
__________________
TopGun *357sig* Club - #2632
The 10 Ring #00720

R.I.P. Cajunator® ~ R.I.P. JTull7
R.I.P. Mullah (aka El_Ron1) ~ R.I.P. GioaJack ~ R.I.P. Okie
redbaron007 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2011, 22:32   #105
jeffyjeff
awesome sauce
 
jeffyjeff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 396
Quote:
Originally Posted by redbaron007 View Post
I don't necessarily disagree with your philosophy. However, it comes back to the a state being able to regulate a privilege, not a constitution right, they offer to their citizens. If they want you to have a permit, and it's there permit, then until, it sucks.



red
carrying a gun is a constitutional right, not a privilege for states to regulate.
jeffyjeff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2011, 00:26   #106
kensteele
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Leawood, KS
Posts: 7,866
Quote:
Originally Posted by redbaron007 View Post
I don't necessarily disagree with your philosophy. However, it comes back to the a state being able to regulate a privilege, not a constitution right, they offer to their citizens. If they want you to have a permit, and it's there permit, then until, it sucks.



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

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

If NY reserves certain privileges for it's own residents, that's fine too. But life, liberty, protection, privacy, and a whole bunch of others goodies belong to all American and no way can NY remove those from me just because I'm not a NY resident. I take those with me regardless of what state I am in. This bill seeks to add and clarify the reach of my KS permit and it will immediately trump whatever NY believes is a "privilege" reserved for it's residents only. Frankly, I don't understand why so many people are against this...logically speaking.
kensteele is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2011, 08:56   #107
redbaron007
Lifetime Membership
A Nice Prick!
 
redbaron007's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Southwest Missouri
Posts: 7,101
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffyjeff View Post
carrying a gun is a constitutional right, not a privilege for states to regulate.
Right now, the courts disagree with you. So please CCW your gun in IL and be the test case, if you feel that strong. Philosophically, I agree, but legally your wrong in the majority of states and feds.

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

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

If NY reserves certain privileges for it's own residents, that's fine too. But life, liberty, protection, privacy, and a whole bunch of others goodies belong to all American and no way can NY remove those from me just because I'm not a NY resident. I take those with me regardless of what state I am in. This bill seeks to add and clarify the reach of my KS permit and it will immediately trump whatever NY believes is a "privilege" reserved for it's residents only. Frankly, I don't understand why so many people are against this...logically speaking.
Again, when you enter into another state, you abide by their laws/regs to enjoy their privileges they want to apply to you. CCW is one of those privileges they want to regulate, for their residents and when you come to their state. Once again, until the SCOTUS (or Feds) changes and says CCW is part of the 2A, you really don't have a say in NY, especially since you are not a resident.

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

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

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

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

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



red
__________________
TopGun *357sig* Club - #2632
The 10 Ring #00720

R.I.P. Cajunator® ~ R.I.P. JTull7
R.I.P. Mullah (aka El_Ron1) ~ R.I.P. GioaJack ~ R.I.P. Okie
redbaron007 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2011, 09:01   #108
JuneyBooney
Senior Member
 
JuneyBooney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 17,663
Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Junes View Post
I think this is right on the money. I found myself originally favoring this bill and then realized that you can't pick and choose when you want the long arm of the fed govt in your business if you claim to want it out in virtually every other scenario.


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

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

Cool songs:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

Cool car:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
JuneyBooney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2011, 09:19   #109
HexHead
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 4,818
Quote:
Originally Posted by kensteele View Post
This bill is a step closer to seeing it as a right to self-protection. When you leave the state and you are traveling, your firearm is your right to self-protection, not necessarily CCW. CCW is what states grant to their residents at home. When I'm on the road, my state will disembark at the state line and the Federal govt will hitch a ride with me as I travel across this great country and see that I am protected against the crazy laws out there that would make me a criminal for trying to protect myself. Embrace this bill.

Again, I don't think NY has a duty to provide me with a CCW when I visit their state. Not asking for one. However, when NY tries to arrest me (a permitted person) for carrying a firearm to protect myself when they do not arrest their own permitted residents for carrying a firearm to protect themselves, I have a problem with that. And you should, too. NY (the government) has no right to pick winners and losers.
Excellent!
HexHead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2011, 09:27   #110
HexHead
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 4,818
How is this really any different than the Feds rules for interstate transport?

Quote:
A provision of the federal law known as the Firearms Owners` Protection Act, or FOPA, protects those who are transporting firearms for lawful purposes from local restrictions which would otherwise prohibit passage.
Those of you that oppose the National Reciprocity Act, are you also against FOPA?
HexHead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2011, 09:33   #111
redbaron007
Lifetime Membership
A Nice Prick!
 
redbaron007's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Southwest Missouri
Posts: 7,101
Quote:
Originally Posted by HexHead View Post
How is this really any different than the Feds rules for interstate transport?



Those of you that oppose the National Reciprocity Act, are you also against FOPA?
Not sure....do you have a cite for your quote? I'm not familar with 'FOPA'. It may be apples to oranges in comparison.




red
__________________
TopGun *357sig* Club - #2632
The 10 Ring #00720

R.I.P. Cajunator® ~ R.I.P. JTull7
R.I.P. Mullah (aka El_Ron1) ~ R.I.P. GioaJack ~ R.I.P. Okie

Last edited by redbaron007; 12-07-2011 at 09:33..
redbaron007 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2011, 09:34   #112
HexHead
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 4,818
Quote:
Originally Posted by redbaron007 View Post

Anyway, I think it is a mute point, I have very little doubt it will not pass the senate, if it gets to come up to a vote. IMHO, this is a feel good bill pushed through by the NRA. I support the NRA, but we disagree on this issue.
A similar bill came up in the Senate in 2009, when the Dems had an even stronger grip. Harry Reid, who has an "A" rating from the NRA, let it come up for a vote and it failed to get the 60 vote majority by only two votes.

Why does everyone think it has no shot?
HexHead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2011, 09:34   #113
HexHead
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 4,818
Quote:
Originally Posted by redbaron007 View Post
Not sure....do you have a cite for your quote? I'm not familar with 'FOPA'. It may be apples to oranges in comparison.




red

http://www.nraila.org/gunlaws/federal/read.aspx?id=59
HexHead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2011, 09:40   #114
redbaron007
Lifetime Membership
A Nice Prick!
 
redbaron007's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Southwest Missouri
Posts: 7,101
Quote:
Originally Posted by HexHead View Post
A similar bill came up in the Senate in 2009, when the Dems had an even stronger grip. Harry Reid, who has an "A" rating from the NRA, let it come up for a vote and it failed to get the 60 vote majority by only two votes.

Why does everyone think it has no shot?
Partisan politics.

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



red
__________________
TopGun *357sig* Club - #2632
The 10 Ring #00720

R.I.P. Cajunator® ~ R.I.P. JTull7
R.I.P. Mullah (aka El_Ron1) ~ R.I.P. GioaJack ~ R.I.P. Okie
redbaron007 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2011, 09:41   #115
HexHead
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 4,818
Quote:
Originally Posted by redbaron007 View Post
Partisan politics.

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



red
60 prevents a filibuster.
HexHead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2011, 09:44   #116
bandmasterjf
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,558
Quote:
Originally Posted by redbaron007 View Post
I don't necessarily disagree with your philosophy. However, it comes back to the a state being able to regulate a privilege, not a constitution right, they offer to their citizens. If they want you to have a permit, and it's there permit, then until, it sucks.



red
Do do you think NY should have the ability to not recognize our DL? If they allow a carry permit with thier residents then everyone else should be on a level playing field as their guys. If they allowed no one to carry I could see the argument, but that's not the case.
__________________
Was Jesus really a pacifist?
LUKE 22:36
bandmasterjf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2011, 09:48   #117
Lotiki
All that is man
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Aurora, Co
Posts: 963
Quote:
Originally Posted by HexHead View Post
How do you figure? State's have to recognize other state's drivers and marriage licenses.
Are you sure about that? Google it.
__________________
The Bill of Rights (void where prohibited by law)
Lotiki is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2011, 10:08   #118
HexHead
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 4,818
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lotiki View Post
Are you sure about that? Google it.
How about you tell us what states don't recognize other state's drivers licenses or heterosexual marriage licenses?
HexHead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2011, 12:45   #119
redbaron007
Lifetime Membership
A Nice Prick!
 
redbaron007's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Southwest Missouri
Posts: 7,101
Quote:
Originally Posted by bandmasterjf View Post
Do do you think NY should have the ability to not recognize our DL? If they allow a carry permit with thier residents then everyone else should be on a level playing field as their guys. If they allowed no one to carry I could see the argument, but that's not the case.
Yes, at one time they did. The states worked it out to reciprocate with ALL states. It's not fed mandated.



red
__________________
TopGun *357sig* Club - #2632
The 10 Ring #00720

R.I.P. Cajunator® ~ R.I.P. JTull7
R.I.P. Mullah (aka El_Ron1) ~ R.I.P. GioaJack ~ R.I.P. Okie
redbaron007 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2011, 12:45   #120
redbaron007
Lifetime Membership
A Nice Prick!
 
redbaron007's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Southwest Missouri
Posts: 7,101
Quote:
Originally Posted by HexHead View Post
60 prevents a filibuster.
Does it not also overide a veto?




red
__________________
TopGun *357sig* Club - #2632
The 10 Ring #00720

R.I.P. Cajunator® ~ R.I.P. JTull7
R.I.P. Mullah (aka El_Ron1) ~ R.I.P. GioaJack ~ R.I.P. Okie
redbaron007 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 14:03.




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


Users Currently Online: 1,016
299 Members
717 Guests

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