Defensive Carry banner
Status
Not open for further replies.

National Reciprocity Action Needed

10K views 160 replies 51 participants last post by  JD 
#1 ·
H.B. 822, the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011, was introduced on 2/18 by Rep Stearns (FL-6). To date it has only one co-sponsor, Rep Shuler (NC-11). There has been a lot of give and take on the forums about national reciprocity. If you are on the side that would like to see this bill move forward, it is time for action. As one pro-gun congressional aide said, "...contact everyone you can, and encourage them to write/call/email their rep to sign on to the bill as a cosponsor." Numbers are important.

To find your representative's latest phone number, address, and email you can use this page: Member Web Site Listing (by State) - United States House of Representatives, 112th Congress, 1st Session All you have to write or say is "Please co-sponsor H.B. 822, the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011, introduced on 2/18/11 by Rep. Stearns." If you write, send the letter to your representative's local office if there is one, with a copy to his or her Washington office. If you call or e-mail, contact both the local and Washington offices if you can.

If you live in the states of AR, AZ, CA, FL, IA, IN, NC, NY, OH, PA, SC, TX, UT, VA, or WI you have representatives on the House Committee on the Judiciary, where this bill has been sent. Most bills die in committee.

For committee members it is not as important for you to live in a district of a representative in your state who is on the committee. The basic message is "Please see that H. B. 822, the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011, introduced on 2/18/11 by Rep. Stearns, gets voted out of the Judiciary committee." A web page where you can get these reps information is Committee Members

After you call/write/email your rep, let's spread this information around and see what happens...
 
See less See more
#124 ·
Don't forget the states/counties that do NOT require a permit to carry. How many people would register for the new "National Permit" and now be on that database?

AGAIN... the states are Soverign and agreed to a Federal Government for COMMERCE and COMMON DEFENSE.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_Control_Act_of_1968
The The Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA or GCA68), Pub.L. 90-618, 82 Stat. 1213, enacted October 22, 1968 by president Lyndon Johnson, is a federal law in the United States that broadly regulates the firearms industry and firearms owners. It primarily focuses on regulating INTERSTATE COMMERCE in firearms by generally prohibiting interstate firearms transfers except among licensed manufacturers, dealers and importers.

If the FEDERAL Government had CONTROL over the STATES, it would have enacted a registration of each firearm to each person instead of just regulating the sale among BUSINESSES.
 
#132 ·
Don't forget the states/counties that do NOT require a permit to carry. How many people would register for the new "National Permit" and now be on that database?
This is not a 'national permit' bill. The LEOSA is a 'national permit', but this bill is just a 'you have to recognize any other state permit' mandate. As of this time, there is not centralized database. Of course, that would be trivial to add, so watch what this is like after the amendment process is done.

As far as the permit-less states, the only one that doesn't maintain a permit system specifically for reciprocity agreements is VT, who never had a permit to begin with. They either need to add one (no, I'm not advocating that), or there needs to be a provision for them. Most likely, they'd just get a UT, FL, or AZ permit, assuming an out of state permit would qualify for this new requirement. It might not.
 
#125 ·
I do not beleive the Feds have a list, at least not from all states.
They didnt..until they had NICS.

Until then any dealer kept the 4473 Form on his premises. Although the ATF could demand to see them at any time, they rarely did outside of an audit.

Now, every dealer has to go through NICS. Now, every single transaction is recorded somewhere.

Dont bother telling me that the laws says it cant be held because of this or that. Every law in this nation has been abused at one time or another and if it hasnt already, at some point in time it will. Really, how hard would it be to pass a law that said it was OK to put every transaction on a record somewhere? The camel has his nose in the tent already. It wont be long until he is sleeping in it.
 
#126 ·
They didnt..until they had NICS.

Until then any dealer kept the 4473 Form on his premises. Although the ATF could demand to see them at any time, they rarely did outside of an audit.

Now, every dealer has to go through NICS. Now, every single transaction is recorded somewhere.

Dont bother telling me that the laws says it cant be held because of this or that. Every law in this nation has been abused at one time or another and if it hasnt already, at some point in time it will. Really, how hard would it be to pass a law that said it was OK to put every transaction on a record somewhere? The camel has his nose in the tent already. It wont be long until he is sleeping in it.
Then its time to make nice to the camel.

Look, the camel has had its nose in the tent since shortly after the civil war. Its had its nose in the tent since the 1930s, and again the 1960s, and again the 1980s. Treat the camel right and make nice. Or else. No nose tweaking. O.K.?
 
#127 ·
The background check has nothing to do with registering a firearm and you don't submit the serial number of the firearm during a NCIS check.
The ATF tracks firearms from the time it gets a serial number and until it is sold at an FFL, but not when it's sold to you or me. At that point the FFL is required to keep the record (your name, address, firearm serial# etc.) for 7 years.
 
#128 ·
NICs tracks the name, the date, the address ,the firearm, whether it be handgun,rifle or shotgun. It doesn't track the serial number, that is true.

It doesn't really need to does it? Its gets all the info it needs. It is in fact a registration of the purchase, not the gun.

I am quite sure that some people are OK with this arrangement because they haven't thought it through. Its all hunky dory until the wrong people get the info. When the government trys to screw your eyeballs out of your head, it wont tell you that it's gonna do it. It makes you think that they are doing it for your own good.

Such is the case here. We are doing NICS to make sure the wrong people don't get the guns. Yeah right. Like the wrong people go through dealers.

The government could care less about the wrong people. They only care who is getting what.It may be years or decades before they do something with the info...but the info is there.
 
#133 ·
NICs tracks the name, the date, the address ,the firearm, whether it be handgun,rifle or shotgun. It doesn't track the serial number, that is true.

It doesn't really need to does it? Its gets all the info it needs. It is in fact a registration of the purchase, not the gun.
It's so trivial to correlate this information that the idea that it's not being done is almost laughable. Just look at the commercial marketing databases. Have you ever looked at the junk mail you get? You buy a new suit from a store in Texas, and I guarantee that in six months' time, you'll be getting mailers from a dozen clothiers and tailors across the country to your home address.


Such is the case here. We are doing NICS to make sure the wrong people don't get the guns. Yeah right. Like the wrong people go through dealers.
The 'wrong people' are notoriously hard to regulate. The 'right people' are quite easy by comparison.
 
#129 ·
Then its time to make nice to the camel.
There is the fundamental difference between me and you.

You would "make nice" to an stinking animal in your tent that took up most of the space in it.

I would remove it...one way or the other because it dosent belong there.
 
#130 ·
The ATF now has an electronic version of the 4473, and I downloaded it just to try it out a while ago. I am not a dealer so I wasn't able to fully try it out, but I got to the point where it asked me to enter the serial number of the firearm. I know the manual 4473 form also asks for this, but this copy is not sent to the ATF. I wouldn't be surprised if the e-4473 sends all that info to a database when it does the background check... I would not use e-4473 myself until I was assured the serial# was NOT sent to the ATF.

ATF Online - Applications - eForm 4473
 
#134 ·
YES, the FFL must keep A record of their sale(S), BUT once the person owns the gun (depending on what STATE he/she lives in because EACH STATE'S laws are different) the gun owner can sell the firearm without a bill of sale or even asking if the person buying it is a U.S. citizen.

In Arizona you do NOT need a permit to open carry, you do NOT need a permit to conceal carry, you do NOT need to make a "bill of sale" or see someones ID when selling any firearm.

Google the PHOENIX BACKPAGE, then click on SPORTING GOODS, and look at the HUGE amount of guns for sale on there. The federal government would certainly put restrictions on those buyer/sellers if it could, but it can't because they cannot tell the State of Arizona to do it.

I know it has been mentioned that the federal government MANY times makes the states comply with things like the police cars must be white and blue or the way highways are built, etc., BUT they do this by withholding $$$$$$$$. They tell the state(s) that if they comply with the FED they will receive a certain amount of money to subsidize the state for that activity. BUT THEY CANNOT ORDER THE STATE(S) TO TAKE THE MONEY AND COMPLY WITH THE REQUEST.

The Florida Governor just turned down $$$$$ for a "High Speed Rail" system that the feds wanted built to "create Jobs". Only thing is that Florida would have been stuck with high maintenance costs, so he said NO because he CAN.

If they can end up ordering a state to accept a gun permit from another state they can order it to accept obamacare and order it to do anything else it wants because precedent will have been set.

I still say NO.
 
#135 ·
If they can end up ordering a state to accept a gun permit from another state they can order it to accept obamacare and order it to do anything else it wants because precedent will have been set.

I still say NO.
In point of fact there are many things states must comply with, not just to get money. E.g., and yes this a bit esoteric an example, but it illustrates the point. A state run college/university must abide by a wide array of Federal laws and there are substantial fines for not complying. All manner of Federal regulatory action is enforced through administrative fines and the fines accrue both to the individual who violates the regulation and the institution.

The proposed new law we are discussing does not however in any way create a new permitting system or a national permitting system. It operates with precisely the same legal framework that both LEOSA and FOPA operate. And yes, it is the Feds telling the states what they must do, even if they don't get money to do it, and it gets enforced with rare exception by the goodwill of the states and absent that, through the court system. Now, does NY and to a lesser extent NJ get creative and picky about what they see as the paramters of the protection of these laws? Sure. But that doesn't mean Uncle lacks the authority to make them stick.
 
#137 ·
Support HR 822!
Write your rep[resentative!


Letter from US Rep Nugent:


Dear (DrBob}
Thank you for taking the time to contact me with your thoughts on H.R. 822. The Second Amendment to the Constitution states that the right to keep and bear arms "shall not be infringed." This is a right that our Founders thoughtfully crafted to guarantee this great nation's citizens the right to protect their families and property.

As you know, on February 18, 2011, Representative Cliff Stearns (R-FL) introduced H.R. 822, the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011. This legislation would amend United States Code to provide a national standard in accordance with which non-residents of a state may carry concealed firearms in that state if they are properly licensed in their home state. Essentially, this legislation would help to alleviate the concerns of those who possess conceal and carry permits in Florida while traveling across state lines.

The House Committee on the Judiciary's Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security is currently considering H.R. 822. While I am not a member of this subcommittee, I am proud to be a cosponsor of this piece of legislation and will certainly encourage my colleagues to support it should it come to the house floor for a vote.

As the father of three grown sons currently serving in the United States Military, some of my fondest memories of raising my boys were teaching them about how to be responsible gun owners. They have taken these life lessons with them through adulthood, and my hope is that one day they will have the same conversation with their own children.

Again, thank you for taking the time to contact me regarding your thoughts regarding the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011. In the future, I invite you to visit my website at Welcome to Congressman Richard Nugent | Congressman Richard Nugent. There, you can track specific pieces of gun-related legislation and sign up for my newsletter, "the SITREP." Modeled after the "situation reports" I used in the military and as Sheriff, the SITREP is a "just-the-facts" update I send you about everything that's going on in Congress that week.

Sincerely,
Richard Nugent
Member of Congress
 
#141 ·
Just so we know what we are arguing about.

Here is the full text of the bill:
To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a national standard in accordance with which nonresidents of a State may carry concealed firearms in the State.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

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

A BILL

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

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ‘‘National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011’’.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
The Congress finds the following:
(1) The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States protects the fundamental right of an individual to keep and bear arms, including for purposes of individual self-defense.
(2) The Supreme Court of the United States has recognized this right in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller, and in the case of McDonald v. City of Chicago, has recognized that the right is protected against State infringement by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
(3) The Congress has the power to pass legislation to protect against infringement of all rights protected under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
(4) The right to bear arms includes the right to carry arms for self-defense and the defense of others.
(5) The Congress has enacted legislation of national scope authorizing the carrying of concealed firearms by qualified active and retired law enforcement officers.
(6) Forty-eight States provide by statute for the issuance to individuals of permits to carry concealed firearms, or allow the carrying of concealed
firearms for lawful purposes without the need for a permit.
(7) The overwhelming majority of individuals who exercise the right to carry firearms in their own States and other States have proven to be law-abiding, and such carrying has been demonstrated to provide crime prevention or crime resistance benefits for the licensees and for others.
(8) The Congress finds that preventing the lawful carrying of firearms by individuals who are traveling outside their home State interferes with the constitutional right of interstate travel, and harms interstate commerce.
(9) Among the purposes of this Act is the protection of the rights, privileges, and immunities guaranteed to a citizen of the United States by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
(10) The Congress, therefore, should provide for national recognition, in States that issue to their own citizens licenses or permits to carry concealed handguns, of other State permits or licenses to carry concealed handguns.

SEC. 3. RECIPROCITY FOR THE CARRYING OF CERTAIN CONCEALED FIREARMS.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 926C the following:
‘‘§ 926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms‘‘
(a) Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof, related to the carrying or transportation of firearms, a person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, and who is carrying a government-issued photographic identification document and a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of a State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm, may carry a concealed handgun (other than a machinegun or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, in any State, other than the State of residence of the person, that—
‘‘(1) has a statute that allows residents of the State to obtain licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms; or
‘‘(2) does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms by residents of the State for lawful purposes.
‘‘(b) A person carrying a concealed handgun under this section shall be permitted to carry a handgun subject to the same conditions or limitations that apply to residents of the State who have permits issued by the State or are otherwise lawfully allowed to do so by the State.
‘‘(c) In a State that allows the issuing authority for licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms to impose restrictions on the carrying of firearms by individual holders of such licenses or permits, a firearm shall be carried according to the same terms authorized by an unrestricted
license or permit issued to a resident of the State.
‘‘(d) Nothing in this section shall be construed to preempt any provision of State law with respect to the issuance of licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms.’’.

(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections for such chapter is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 926C the following:
‘‘926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms.’’.

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

(d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by this section shall take effect 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
 
#142 ·
I'm sorry but, even after reading the bill, and researching it further, I still prefer not to have the Federal Government involved in reciprocity, or any aspect of regulating the carrying of arms at all. I simply do not trust the federal Government one little bit.
 
#143 ·
If I'm reading that bill correctly, it wouldn't allow us to carry in IL (or WI?) because neither of those states issues permits. If it were passed it would improve the situation everywhere but WI and IL, but it's not as good as a SCOTUS decision that subjects the second amendment to strict scrutiny like the first amendment - but that decision isn't going to happen - so I'd take this law if it passes, and gets signed, which I think is about as likely as winning the lottery jackpot twice in the same week.

Fitch
 
#144 ·
Fitch - You are reading it correctly. Unless WI and IL enact a carry law, they will not have to honor permits from other jurisdictions. Given the right case, SCOTUS may do the right thing, then again ...
 
#146 ·
If this bill passes and becomes law, it would seem that out-of-staters would be able to carry here in Jersey, while residents cannot.
(NJ is a 'may issue' state that issues to NO ONE, except the most connected.)
I don't know what our state would do in response...open things up or find a way to skirt the new law.
I'm betting on the latter. But it would sure put pressure on our fearless leaders.
Here's to hope and change.
 
#147 ·
Call me old fashioned but I see this as another attempt to further erode states rights. While I believe the intentions behind it are good It is dangerous to have the feds involved. The individual states and their citizens should decide their own policies.

Michael
 
#148 ·
I would agree if the 2A did not already cover this. The states have all agreed to the 2A, either when they ratified it or when they accepted it as a part of statehood. This is not a states right issue, but a personal rights issue. Those states that simply ignore the 2A and don't allow their citizens to protect themselves are acting unconstitutionally and treating their citizens as subjects.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Brass63
#149 ·
It didn't take that long for the wording in this ridiculous bill to scare the H E Double Hockey Sticks out of me;

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


Once it becomes a "US Code", who is going to regulate and legislate it?

It isn't going to be your local Loyal order of Water Buffalo's , that's for sure.


NO Thanks!

Next up is this troubling bit of lingo;

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



If Congress has the "Power to pass legislation to protect against infringement" , you can bet somewhere along the line, some funny-boy in Congress will get the notion, that they have the "Power to pass legislation to un-protect against infringement"

Again , NO Thanks!


And further down the slippery-slope, we have this;

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



^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Isn't that so special!???
They are finally so concerned about us couple million in this country that carry, that they REALLLLY have our interests at heart!!
WoW!!



And now, as we traverse further down the Yellow Brick Road, this;


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



Here we go again, Congress, providing for something.
Where on this 3rd. rock have you ever seen Congress provide for something, and then let that something REGULATE ITSELF???

Again I say, NAY NAY!




Sorry, but its too close to the edge of the Orwellian Abyss for me.





H. L. Mencken:
A good politician under democracy is quite as unthinkable as an honest burglar.


Nikita Krushchev:
Politicians are the same all over. They promise to build a bridge even where there is no river.
 
#151 ·
1. "Hop - I have been saying that the 2A should simply be applied to the states from the beginning of the prior thread on this issue. This is not a new revelation. I think it was post 19 of the prior thread."

I would prefer my state to regulate my HCP because Tennessee did incorporate the 2dA in our state constitution, and in fact expanded firearms rights for a state citizen. I have an HCP and did not have any kind of a hassle getting my permit. I buy handguns without a real struggle and I buy ammo in WALMART. The Feds are not going to improve on that, they will most likely mess it up.
 
#154 ·
Just so I am sure I properly understand you let me ask if I have this right. Are you saying that you believe that having to get training, get fingerprinted and pay some fee, then wait for some period of time to get your HCP is an improvement on simply applying the 2A? If you simply apply the 2A, you don't have to get training, don't have to get fingerprinted, don't have to pay fees and don't have to wait for a piece of paper/plastic to say you get to exercize your 2A rights. I am having a problem seeing how the current situation is preferable to simply applying the 2A.
 
#152 ·
No government at any level has the authority to deprive you of your rights.
Unless you broke the law in some way.
So, they write so many laws that at some point in time, you will break a law without even knowing it, thus giving them justification for depriving you of your rights if they so choose to do so.
 
#153 ·
Laws passed by Congress and signed by a prez are presumptively constitutional. We have plenty of law firms willing to take on almost any issue, and plenty of Federal Judges willing to hear almost any case provided the complaining plaintiff has standing--however tenuous. The Dept. of Education has been around a few decades and so far there has not been a challenge which passed the scrutiny of the folks who get to make those decisions. Therefore, it is constitutional, and our opinion one way or the other is quite irrelevant.
Your statement is quite right, so long as Congress and the courts stay in the boundries that were established by the governed, i.e., the Consitution. When the government unilaterally expands its mission without the consent of the governed, it is embarking on a tyrannical mission. It may take a while for it to devolve into tranny, but that is where it is headed once the mission is expanded without a commission from the governed. Once the confines established for the government in the constitution are exceeded, any laws they pass are, by definition, unconstitutional regardless of whether any agent of that government acknowledges it or not.

The nature of government is to expand its scope, power and size. This is the nature of all governments and it is why the Founders put strict limits on the federal government. It is up to the states and the people to keep the government within its mission. Just because the education department exists, and the agents of the federal goverment have allowed it to contiune to exist does not make it a constitutional entity. Since you have not answered my query of where, in the enumerated powers clause, the feds gain the authority to do anything with education, I will answer it. IT IS NOT THERE. The feds have no authority to act on education - period. Shame on us, we the people, and the states for allowing these abuses of power to continue.

[Just so folks know, K and I have had a friendly discussion of this issue via PM. We don't agree. I'm right, he's wrong. I'm sure he'll post the opposing view here any moment. :) ]
We have been having such conversations. We both feel the other is misguided. Instead of simply declaring that I am right, I will let you, the reader, make up your own mind on this.

We need not wade through the history of the Marshall court in 1804 to decide this matter. There have been 103 Congresses since, about 43 Presidents since, 10-20 K Federal Judges since, and maybe 150 SC Justices since. Marshall's decision still stands. That's the law and that's the way it is.
If Congress passed a law and the SCOTUS confirmed the constitutionality of the law that all males (except Congressmen, members of SCOTUS and the President) must be castrated and their women had to be members of a federal harem to serve members of Congress, SCOTUS and the President. Would you sit back and say, well, Congress and the SCOTUS said it, so it must be constitutional - I guess I will get in line? Of course you would not! You would say, "hey, who gave you the authority to make such a clearly unconstitutional law. I don't recognize your authority to do this and will not submit." Marshall's actions were just as constitutional as my ridiculous hypothetical above, however, because they served to increase the power and size of the federal government, no federal agency would complain. The states and people should have put a stop to this in 1804-1805, alas, they did not. Because no action was taken, the precedent stood and was expanded over time. That may be the way it is, but it is not the way it should be. The states are beginning to understand their power. It will be interesting to see what they do with that knowledge. Hopefully they will put the federal genie back in its bottle.
 
  • Like
Reactions: oneshot and HotGuns
#155 ·
"No government at any level has the authority to deprive you of your rights."

Authority no, but power, most assuredly they do have . They have the power to arrest you, to torture you and to send you where nobody will ever find you. And they have done just that to American citizens. They have the power to deprive you of everything you own and every freedom you thought you had. Any and all Federal Governments (Central National power base) in existence have this power and does exercise it. When you reach the central (Federal) level, authority is not the key word, power is the rule. I am not an anarchist, but I am realistic enough to realize that any power we can exercise as private citizens is only at the local (city, county and state) levels. We don't really pick who runs on the national level, these are picked at auction by very wealthy and very powerful interests. I will continue to fight for "states rights" because I know that is the only level that I can hope to keep my individual rights protected.

We lost all control or protection at federal level just after George Washington stepped down as President. It isn't something new or invented by Bill Clinton, George W, Bush or Obama. It got away from us just after we became a country.
 
  • Like
Reactions: oneshot
#156 ·
Hop - I have been saying that the 2A should simply be applied to the states from the beginning of the prior thread on this issue. This is not a new revelation. I think it was post 19 of the prior thread.

The problem is that while the states may be willing to ignore peoples rights, .
Yes, that is the problem, and here comes Uncle (Congress) with a perfectly reasonable bill which will hold the state's feet to the fire on national carry to a very large extent, and all of you state's rights folks pop up to knock the bill. Sure, the problem will go away if and when the states decide to stop ignoring their own constitutions and the US constitution, but in the meantime, let Uncle whack them a bit with this bill and thus uphold 2a.

It IS Uncle's business to promote the rights in 2A against state interference. This bill does that. I don't find that objectionable at all. As pointed out earlier by others, it involves no new taxes, no new hiring, no new Agency creation. Some litigation might arise at some point, but that will be because place like NY NJ and IL will try to circumvent the letter of the Federal law to uphold their own ideas of limited gun rights.

Again, it is the states which endanger gun owners, and most everyone else's right, far more so than Uncle.

Uncle mostly leaves me alone. I can't say that for either our State government or our local government. Locally, they have code for everything. They claim they want to attract business but make it impossible (almost) for a small business person to open up because you need so many permits and have to meet so many codes that you spend your investment dollar on dealing with city hall instead of creating your business.
 
#159 · (Edited)
Hop - you are kidding yourself if you think another law will solve the problem. What we need is enforcement not another law that will be ignored just like the 2A. If they can enforce this new law, they can enforce what we already have. Frankly, I doubt they have the will to enforce either.
 
#158 · (Edited)
FOR K, and any one else interested: Rulings of the Marshall Court

Oh, and he was what many conservatives today like to think of themselves as; a federalist.

Again, "one nation indivisible" or we are doomed.
Hop - the term federalist today means exactly the opposite as it did in Marshall's day. Frankly the use of the term made more sense back then, but they are different animals.

ETA - I just got home and had the time to read the linked data. Any treatise that proports to be the "Important Rulings of the Marshall Court" and does not deal with Marbury -v- Madison (1803), is obviously limited in scope. Admittedly, this states 1810s - 1820s, but many important rulings of the Marshall court preceded that time. Marshall was an unabashed federalist and used the court to further the federalist (storng federal government) cause somewhat like a bully pulpit.
 
#160 ·
It'll fall to the Federal courts to enforce this. I would agree that sometimes the Federal courts try to water down laws they don't like. But it's better than allowing NY,NJ,and CA to enforce their own brand of CCW.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Top