National Reciprocity part Deux - Page 2

National Reciprocity part Deux

This is a discussion on National Reciprocity part Deux within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; I am totally against a federal conceal carry law. Let me ask it this way...... once it's established, the States are out of it and ...

Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 85
  1. #16
    VIP Member Array Eagleks's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    7,785
    I am totally against a federal conceal carry law.

    Let me ask it this way...... once it's established, the States are out of it and you've just passed the States' rights to the Fedl Govt. Now, do you want to let Sen Nancy Pelosi to be able to add amendments and/or then come in and modify or even repeal that law ? Or, anything else she might want to do with it ? Or , the Nancy Pelosi 10 yrs from now ?

    I don't. Leave the States alone.
    I don't make jokes. I just watch the government and report the facts. --- Will Rogers ---
    Chief Justice John Roberts : "I don't see how you can read Heller and not take away from it the notion that the Second Amendment...was extremely important to the framers in their view of what liberty meant."


  2. #17
    Senior Member Array dV8r's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    813
    I agree with this 100% ;)


    Quote Originally Posted by Eagleks View Post
    I am totally against a federal conceal carry law.

    Let me ask it this way...... once it's established, the States are out of it and you've just passed the States' rights to the Fedl Govt. Now, do you want to let Sen Nancy Pelosi to be able to add amendments and/or then come in and modify or even repeal that law ? Or, anything else she might want to do with it ? Or , the Nancy Pelosi 10 yrs from now ?

    I don't. Leave the States alone.
    LEARN something today so you can TEACH something tomorrow.
    Dominus Vobiscum <))>(
    Where is the wisdom that we have lost in knowledge?" T.S. Elliot

  3. #18
    VIP Member Array paramedic70002's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Franklin, VA
    Posts
    5,135
    Notice this law does not apply to you if you bought the gun in the same state it was made. In other words, you buy a Glock in GA and you live in GA. The gun has not passed through interstate commerce, which seems to be the vehicle they are using to justify the bill.
    "Each worker carried his sword strapped to his side." Nehemiah 4:18

    Guns Save Lives. Paramedics Save Lives. But...
    Paramedics With Guns Scare People!

  4. #19
    VIP Member
    Array ksholder's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    3,938
    I am as pro states rights as it gets, but I see this one as the Feds, in a soft way and not fully, reminding the states that this is what they agreed to when they signed the constitution (or accepted statehood) and enacting a new law to partially make them live up to this. From that perspective, I am all for this. HOWEVER, like many other initiatives, once the camel's nose is under the tent, all sorts of unintended consequences can result. Is this another power grab by the feds? I think not, but it could pave the way for just such actions. From that perspective, I am against this.
    It's the Land of Opportunity, not the Land of Entitlements - Vote America!!!

    "When governments fear the people there is liberty. When the people fear the government there is tyranny." Thomas Jefferson

    You are only paranoid until you are right - then you are a visionary.

  5. #20
    Distinguished Member Array 21bubba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    ky.
    Posts
    1,890
    Quote Originally Posted by Eagleks View Post
    I am totally against a federal conceal carry law.

    Let me ask it this way...... once it's established, the States are out of it and you've just passed the States' rights to the Fedl Govt. Now, do you want to let Sen Nancy Pelosi to be able to add amendments and/or then come in and modify or even repeal that law ? Or, anything else she might want to do with it ? Or , the Nancy Pelosi 10 yrs from now ?

    I don't. Leave the States alone.
    Exactly!

  6. #21
    Ex Member Array azchevy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Oceanfront Property
    Posts
    3,850
    Quote Originally Posted by sentioch View Post
    You've got it completely backwards my friend...

    The 2nd amendment of the constitution of the united states of america clearly states:



    As it stands, states have taken it upon themselves to REVOKE this right from citizens. It is not different than if states had passed a law saying that you need a permit and a background check in order to be allowed to make "free speech."

    So no, it's not "giving the federal government the power to make laws that apply in every state"....that was a power that the federal govt had since the day the country was founded. Rather it is recognizing that states have already violated federal law by passing contradictory laws that overstep their boundaries to take away our basic constitutional rights...and trying to set the matter right.
    You have it backwards. Since the turn of the last century there have been firearm laws. Even the heller decision affirmed that there can be reasonable restrictions, so face the facts..... do you REALLY want the federal government to control this aspect? Or leave it to the states?

  7. #22
    Senior Member Array C Bennett's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    1,035
    IMO you will NEVER have any kind of nationwide reciprocity....states are just too different and want their own controls on how their people in state carry and even in some cases qualify to carry...it (IMO) will NEVER be just uniform...closest thing you will probably have is being a LE officer under LEOSA. Now id love a Civillian equivalent but I just cant see it happening....it would generate money...to have a Federal nationwide type of CC "credential" but I just dont see it happening no matter how cool it would be.

  8. #23
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,662
    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyKen View Post
    I think you may have missed the part I underinws below:



    I believe any permit that will allow you to carry in your home state will do.

    Ken
    I see what you are saying, but I think it needs some re-writing by an English teacher. That is one very awkward paragraph and I think it leaves the door open to some misinterpretation.

    Anyway, I think we must have a law like this one because the present situation is insanely tricky to rely on for travel. At least this would seem to solve the problem of needing multiple non-resident permits, needing to lookup reciprocity and recognition by multiple jurisdictions before travel, and so forth.

  9. #24
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,662
    Quote Originally Posted by paramedic70002 View Post
    Notice this law does not apply to you if you bought the gun in the same state it was made. In other words, you buy a Glock in GA and you live in GA. The gun has not passed through interstate commerce, which seems to be the vehicle they are using to justify the bill.
    Maybe, but probably enough metal and plastic parts moved interstate to solve that problem.

    I'd prefer one drafted in much simpler language but will take this as heads above what we are doing now.

  10. #25
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,662
    Quote Originally Posted by ksholder View Post
    I am as pro states rights as it gets, but I see this one as the Feds, in a soft way and not fully, reminding the states that this is what they agreed to when they signed the constitution (or accepted statehood) and enacting a new law to partially make them live up to this. From that perspective, I am all for this. HOWEVER, like many other initiatives, once the camel's nose is under the tent, all sorts of unintended consequences can result. Is this another power grab by the feds? I think not, but it could pave the way for just such actions. From that perspective, I am against this.
    I agree with the first part above K, but not the stuff about power grab. If LEOSA is OK, this should be OK too.

    I know there are huge numbers of folks who want to return to a "states rights" universe, but it won't happen, can't happen, and shouldn't happen. We are one nation and we need pretty much one set of laws or the rough equivalent, otherwise no one ever knows what they can or can't do as they move about the country.

    Look how insane things are now. I can buy a shotgun in my state, or the neighboring states, but I can't buy one on the east coast, CT, though they would sell to someone from another state except mine.

    I can buy one here and drive it there or ship it to myself but I can't go into a store and buy one there.

    It makes no sense, and it is screwy because we have 50 states making 50 sets of laws. A little more national unity and use of model laws and standardized laws across states would help everyone. It doesn't have to come from Congress necessarily, the states can do a lot of it themselves and do already, but Congress has a role in making "one out of many."

  11. #26
    VIP Member Array dukalmighty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    texas
    Posts
    15,179
    From what I read,states and cities that have may issue permits would now have to honor anybodys CHL would be good,Bloomberg's gonna need a "Depends" if this thing passes
    "Outside of the killings, Washington has one of the lowest crime rates in the country,"
    --Mayor Marion Barry, Washington , DC .

  12. #27
    Member Array jwarren's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    TN
    Posts
    341
    Quote Originally Posted by C Bennett View Post
    IMO you will NEVER have any kind of nationwide reciprocity....states are just too different and want their own controls on how their people in state carry and even in some cases qualify to carry...it (IMO) will NEVER be just uniform...closest thing you will probably have is being a LE officer under LEOSA. Now id love a Civillian equivalent but I just cant see it happening....it would generate money...to have a Federal nationwide type of CC "credential" but I just dont see it happening no matter how cool it would be.
    X 2 As much as I would like to see, I just can't see it happening here.

    As evidence of that, just look at the diverse opinions on this thread as to the detail in the bill.

  13. #28
    VIP Member
    Array ksholder's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    3,938
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    I agree with the first part above K, but not the stuff about power grab. If LEOSA is OK, this should be OK too.

    I know there are huge numbers of folks who want to return to a "states rights" universe, but it won't happen, can't happen, and shouldn't happen. We are one nation and we need pretty much one set of laws or the rough equivalent, otherwise no one ever knows what they can or can't do as they move about the country.

    Look how insane things are now. I can buy a shotgun in my state, or the neighboring states, but I can't buy one on the east coast, CT, though they would sell to someone from another state except mine.

    I can buy one here and drive it there or ship it to myself but I can't go into a store and buy one there.

    It makes no sense, and it is screwy because we have 50 states making 50 sets of laws. A little more national unity and use of model laws and standardized laws across states would help everyone. It doesn't have to come from Congress necessarily, the states can do a lot of it themselves and do already, but Congress has a role in making "one out of many."
    Hop - I hear what you are saying, but the Constitution specifically lays out a limited federal government with a few enumerated powers. All other powers are reserved for the people or the states. Having the feds control everything may or may not be your cup of tea, but either way, it is, with the current Constitution, unconstitutional.

    I hear what you are saying about your shotgun issue. This may clear up if the feds got out of the regulation business and let the states do as they wish - it may not too. I really don't see why anybody in Austin cares where you buy your shotty, but you are right, it is the current law that you can only buy in TX or neighboring states.
    It's the Land of Opportunity, not the Land of Entitlements - Vote America!!!

    "When governments fear the people there is liberty. When the people fear the government there is tyranny." Thomas Jefferson

    You are only paranoid until you are right - then you are a visionary.

  14. #29
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,662
    Quote Originally Posted by ksholder View Post
    Hop - I hear what you are saying, but the Constitution specifically lays out a limited federal government with a few enumerated powers. All other powers are reserved for the people or the states. Having the feds control everything may or may not be your cup of tea, but either way, it is, with the current Constitution, unconstitutional.

    I hear what you are saying about your shotgun issue. This may clear up if the feds got out of the regulation business and let the states do as they wish - it may not too. I really don't see why anybody in Austin cares where you buy your shotty, but you are right, it is the current law that you can only buy in TX or neighboring states.
    K, first, my problem regarding the gun purchase isn't due to anything the Feds have done. Its not a state's right v Fed issue. The Feds couldn't care less if a CT ffl sold me a gun. So, I'll just deal with why Austin cares; money for the retail dealers and collection of state sales taxes I suppose.

    But even that doesn't really explain it. Because I can buy the gun in CT and have it shipped to TX ffl to ffl; I just can't legally take possession in CT unless I change residency. I can buy in Texas and ship to myself in CT. I can have a CT ffl hold a package for me (I talked to one already) but I can't purchase there from an ffl. It seems that even though CT law and the Feds couldn't care less, and even though it would be legal for me to own and possess there, I can't buy one there. (Unless I change residency.) Again, senseless if not insane.

    There are a bazillion goofy individual state laws like this one about buying shotguns out of state, and not just about guns. Our country needs to start getting some uniformity or we really can't call ourselves one country or be one country. See! That's what the problem is with perpetuating state's rights on forward into the 21st century and beyond. The 10th is in need of amendment so that we are in reality, "one nation indivisible."

    Again, uniformity could be improved if the dang states would do more to work with each other. They can handle lots with model laws and interstate compacts and agreements.

  15. #30
    VIP Member Array TedBeau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Bay City
    Posts
    2,269
    Quote Originally Posted by fastk9dad View Post
    Hrmm, if something like this passed, I wonder what happens to the states that don't issue or issue restricted CCWs. Now you'd have out of staters being able to carry but not their own residents. Sounds like a whole new set of lawsuits.
    If I understand it correctly, IF you have a CPL, and travel to another state, your CPL in effect must be trated as if it was from the state your in. IF the state does not issue CPL's then you don't have one there. If the state does not require a CPL to carry then you don't need yours there. If you must inform an LEO there, then you must inform an LEO.

    As far as "May Issue" states, I guess since you got yours, you would have to be considered "Eligble" in the state your in.

    It sounds pretty good to me.

Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Craigslist Dangers - Part Deux
    By Tally XD in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: May 6th, 2010, 10:54 AM
  2. Glockaide Part Deux
    By Danimal in forum Defensive Carry Guns
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: March 8th, 2009, 07:31 PM
  3. Wish me luck (part deux)
    By Concealed_23 in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: March 17th, 2006, 11:25 PM
  4. Warning Part Deux
    By WorldPax in forum New Members Introduce Yourself
    Replies: 53
    Last Post: January 12th, 2006, 11:21 AM
  5. Tell...Don't Tell, Part Deux
    By Tom357 in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: May 1st, 2005, 08:51 PM

Search tags for this page

h.r. 822 national reciprocity fed control

,

how is hr822 doing in washington dc

,

how would national reciprocity law work in california

,

hr 822 concealed carry reciprocity bill introduced co sponsor

,

if national reciprocity bill passes will states remove their concealed carry permits

,

last state to honor driver license reciprosity?

,

leosa is closest thing to national gun permit

,

national reciprocity duty to inform

,

national reciprocity is a state or constitutional issue?

,

national reciprocity law introduced into the house

,

national right to carry reciprocity 822 problem

,

s&w .40 120004

,

what happened to hr822 in committee

,

what happened with hr 822

Click on a term to search for related topics.

» Log in

User Name:

Password:

Not a member yet?
Register Now!

» DefensiveCarry Sponsors