National Reciprocity Action Needed - Page 3

National Reciprocity Action Needed

This is a discussion on National Reciprocity Action Needed within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Pass on this, not so much as this law as for the precedent! !0 years down the road a Prog Tranzi wants a "Common Sense" ...

Page 3 of 11 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 161
Like Tree43Likes

Thread: National Reciprocity Action Needed

  1. #31
    Member Array jmiked's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    SE AZ Border County
    Posts
    218
    Pass on this, not so much as this law as for the precedent! !0 years down the road a Prog Tranzi wants a "Common Sense" amendment to regularize CCW. You know of course that that would be built on a MA or CA model!

    No Thanks I will pass on this!
    William Wallace
    Do not stand between Me and Mine!!


  2. #32
    Senior Member
    Array Armydad's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    554
    I think that the premise is good but it is still a violation of the 2A. What part of shall not be infringed do they not understand. I think that long term this could be a sheep in wolfs clothing. The more that we let the Feds "regulate" the more we lose our rights.
    oneshot likes this.

  3. #33
    Member Array ken45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    183
    Quote Originally Posted by sixsccw View Post
    Hopyard - maybe I'm looking too far ahead.
    But look at the way it is now - Jersey is a "may-issue-but-don't-even-THINK-about-asking" state. Been that way forever. While PA is the "send-the-money-Monday-CCW-by-Friday" state. How can we introduce 822 in a country where states like this coexist? It just seems like a TON of standarization has to occur before this bill can be considered.
    And that is exactly what worries many of us. The "standardization" will be at a high and difficult level. We would actually lose ground rather than gain anything.

    Ken

  4. #34
    Distinguished Member Array Fitch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    So. Central PA
    Posts
    1,950
    The proposed law as written looks pretty good to me. It could be better if it got rid of the 1,000 foot school radius, but it doesn't add any requirements to us, just tells the states they have to honor our permits as if they were theirs. The enforcement is real easy, it would happen when individuals filed suit for non-compliance by a state. And it means I wouldn't have to leave my G26 home when I visit my daughter and sister in NY.

    I'm in favor of it as written.

    Fitch
    “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety), by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” by H. L. Mencken

  5. #35
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    12,462
    Quote Originally Posted by sixsccw View Post
    Hopyard - maybe I'm looking too far ahead.
    But look at the way it is now - Jersey is a "may-issue-but-don't-even-THINK-about-asking" state. Been that way forever. While PA is the "send-the-money-Monday-CCW-by-Friday" state. How can we introduce 822 in a country where states like this coexist? It just seems like a TON of standarization has to occur before this bill can be considered.
    How can we not? All the law means is that NJ would have to recognize the PA LTCF . CWP. If their residents get jealous, they'll get on their own legislature and push for shall issue.

    When this is voted on in Congress (if it gets out of committee which I doubt), sure, NJ and IL and maybe NY will try to amend it and argue against it, but they are in the minority. They are the ones who presently are ignoring 2A and pretending Heller and McD don't exist. They would be told to do nothing they shouldn't already be doing.

  6. #36
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    12,462
    Quote Originally Posted by Armydad View Post
    I think that the premise is good but it is still a violation of the 2A. What part of shall not be infringed do they not understand. I think that long term this could be a sheep in wolfs clothing. The more that we let the Feds "regulate" the more we lose our rights.
    How is a law that expands gun owner rights be a violation of 2A? Are you willing to wait for that Utopian day when all states have constitutional carry. I'm not, because it won't happen.

  7. #37
    Senior Member Array wjh2657's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Lafayette, Tennessee
    Posts
    1,168
    Amazing. The same people who have been bitching about the "Feds" telling the states what kind of guns we can own( Feds stay out of my state gun laws bunch) are now screaming they want the Feds to tell the states where and when we can carry our guns (Feds stick noses in state laws bunch). You want the Feds to regulate firearms or you don't. No gray areas. If they can regulate carry permit recognition they later can regulate carry permit issue. It's called precedence and it will bite us in the rear if we let it pass.

    Me, I live in Tennessee. I left Chicago over 20 Years ago and I don't intend to go back. I would rather have Tennessee laws than Illinois laws. FEDS GO HOME!
    oneshot likes this.
    Retired Marine, Retired School Teacher, Independent voter, Goldwater Conservative.

  8. #38
    VIP Member Array TedBeau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Bay City
    Posts
    2,304
    Quote Originally Posted by azchevy View Post
    Name one thing the government regulates that is working? border control? war on drugs? social security? USPS?
    I do take exception to those that gripe about the Postal Service.
    Where else can you get a letter delivered coast to coast in about a week, for $0.44?
    Sure Fed Ex and UPS can do it, but it cost over $5.00. Thats 11 times more!

    If I give you a letter to a friend in California and 44 cents would you be willing to hand carry it there for me? I don't think so!
    The 44 cent postage stamp is the absolute best deal in the world!

    As far as the National Reciprocy law, I think it's a good idea. Why should I have to apply for 3 or 4 different state permits, even though I am not a resident of those states?

  9. #39
    VIP Member
    Array ksholder's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    4,132
    Quote Originally Posted by TedBeau View Post
    I do take exception to those that gripe about the Postal Service.
    Where else can you get a letter delivered coast to coast in about a week, for $0.44?
    Scan it and e-mail it. Oh, wait, that is both faster and less expensive. :)
    "I've noticed that everyone that is pro-abortion has already been born." - Ronald Reagan

    "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.

  10. #40
    Ex Member Array azchevy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Oceanfront Property
    Posts
    3,850
    Quote Originally Posted by TedBeau View Post
    I do take exception to those that gripe about the Postal Service.
    Where else can you get a letter delivered coast to coast in about a week, for $0.44?
    Sure Fed Ex and UPS can do it, but it cost over $5.00. Thats 11 times more!

    If I give you a letter to a friend in California and 44 cents would you be willing to hand carry it there for me? I don't think so!
    The 44 cent postage stamp is the absolute best deal in the world!

    As far as the National Reciprocy law, I think it's a good idea. Why should I have to apply for 3 or 4 different state permits, even though I am not a resident of those states?
    I havent used the USPS in years

  11. #41
    Senior Member Array wjh2657's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Lafayette, Tennessee
    Posts
    1,168
    I live in Tennessee. My HCP is good to go in 38 states by state-to-state reciprocity agreements. The states it is not good in either do not issue permits or do not have the same standards for issue ( state law/safety classes and Marksmanship qualification) so Tennessee won't enter into agreement with them.

    The only neighboring state I am restricted in is Illinois and they wouldn't honor a HCP if the National Guard troops were occupying the capitol! They never are going to allow ordinary citizens to carry concealed handguns (at least not in Chicago and its environs), regardless of what the USSC says. The Federal Government can't afford the embarrassment of a Federal takeover so the laws and decisions are just so much paper, leaving Chicago to do its own thing. Springfield will follow, so it will reflect throughout the state..

    I think the state Attorney Generals need to conclave and come up with mutual standards and reciprocal agreements.

    Again, leave the Federal Government out of it.
    Retired Marine, Retired School Teacher, Independent voter, Goldwater Conservative.

  12. #42
    Senior Member Array press1280's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    WV
    Posts
    750
    Quote Originally Posted by Armydad View Post
    I think that the premise is good but it is still a violation of the 2A. What part of shall not be infringed do they not understand. I think that long term this could be a sheep in wolfs clothing. The more that we let the Feds "regulate" the more we lose our rights.
    If you're arguing there shouldn't be permits needed at all, then I can agree. But, assuming permits are constitutional, then in reality, the Feds are within their power. You shouldn't have states making agreements with some and not others. It would be like having special trading status between states;it's not supposed to happen.
    There is a question in that a small number of states will absolutely oppose this,unlike the driver's license compact, which all states agreed upon. But the idea is still the same.
    "The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree..."
    Nunn v. State GA 1848

  13. #43
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    12,462
    Quote Originally Posted by press1280 View Post
    If you're arguing there shouldn't be permits needed at all, then I can agree. But, assuming permits are constitutional, then in reality, the Feds are within their power. You shouldn't have states making agreements with some and not others. It would be like having special trading status between states;it's not supposed to happen.
    There is a question in that a small number of states will absolutely oppose this,unlike the driver's license compact, which all states agreed upon. But the idea is still the same.
    Permits are clearly constitutional. Heller did not in anyway indicate that the supremes objected to permitting. To the contrary actually, DC was allowed to keep an onerous permitting system.

    So, if permitting is constitutional, we do indeed need national reciprocity because nationwide "constitutional carry" ain't gonna happen.

    There are really only a few states which would be "adversely" affected by this new rule, either because they don't issue permits or because they are excessively stingy with their issuance or don't require permits at all.

    In one camp NY IL Maryland, WI, in the other AZ, AK, Vermont? Even if I left a couple out of each camp, they barely total 10 affected states.

    EIGHTY PERCENT would have no problem with this proposed law. The states that don't require permits could still issue them, as AZ does, so that their folks could travel.

    It really makes no sense when you think about it that people have to get out of state licenses or that sometimes they can use an out of state license instead of their own state's license. These things defy common sense and don't have to be.

  14. #44
    VIP Member Array Eagleks's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    8,071
    I don't want the Fedl Govt involved in any way. It's like the commerce clause, really it's only for this ONE things, now look at how far they've taken it. I don't want any Fedl Law where people like Feinstein, Bloomberg, Pelosi, etc. could modify it, amend it, change it, or add to it. And, they would. And since they had taken it over from the states, the States have lost their control or rights in regard to it. IT may take longer, but it is getting there with the states, and I'm for doing it that way.

    EPA ... was "we're just going to ensure safe drinking water" . ..... now look at the EPA, and it enacts new regulations that never even see Congress.
    ATF .... was set up to collect taxes on alcohol. That was "IT".... then in the 1950's it was expanded to "tobacco" , and the 1968 Gun Control Act.... and we all know where that has ended up , don't we.

    There is no such thing in the Fedl Govt that stays with .... "it's just this ONE thing and that's all it will ever be". You know eventually it would get into issuing the permits, deciding who got the permits, etc. and so on..... and god forbid, they would probably use NY, Calif, DC or Chicago as the template and we'ld all lose out as a result.
    oneshot likes this.
    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."

  15. #45
    Senior Member Array press1280's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    WV
    Posts
    750
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    Permits are clearly constitutional. Heller did not in anyway indicate that the supremes objected to permitting. To the contrary actually, DC was allowed to keep an onerous permitting system.

    So, if permitting is constitutional, we do indeed need national reciprocity because nationwide "constitutional carry" ain't gonna happen.

    There are really only a few states which would be "adversely" affected by this new rule, either because they don't issue permits or because they are excessively stingy with their issuance or don't require permits at all.

    In one camp NY IL Maryland, WI, in the other AZ, AK, Vermont? Even if I left a couple out of each camp, they barely total 10 affected states.

    EIGHTY PERCENT would have no problem with this proposed law. The states that don't require permits could still issue them, as AZ does, so that their folks could travel.

    It really makes no sense when you think about it that people have to get out of state licenses or that sometimes they can use an out of state license instead of their own state's license. These things defy common sense and don't have to be.
    I agree except with one clarification-Heller didn't necessarily say that requiring permits were OK, it's just Heller didn't ask to overturn the permit requirement as long as it wasn't an arbitrary process.
    I think folks are getting a knee jerk reaction to this proposed law, which doesn't regulate anything. It's more or less a defense that can be invoked in court. It doesn't set up a new Federal agency, nor does it require funding, unlike the ATF and EPA.
    "The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree..."
    Nunn v. State GA 1848

Page 3 of 11 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast

Remove Ads

Sponsored 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. National Reciprocity part Deux
    By swinokur in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 84
    Last Post: February 27th, 2011, 01:12 PM
  2. CSPAN LIVE VID of the US Senate on National Reciprocity
    By dlclarkii in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 57
    Last Post: July 23rd, 2009, 02:31 AM
  3. National Right-To-Carry Reciprocity Bill Introduced
    By alelks in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: January 25th, 2009, 12:27 AM
  4. SC: H. 3212 action needed by Senate (Reciprocity bill)
    By SCGunGuy in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: May 29th, 2008, 10:10 PM
  5. National Reciprocity for Concealed Carry
    By ArmedAviator in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: April 16th, 2008, 12:25 PM

Search tags for this page

2011 national ccw carry
,
activism nationwide reciprocity 2011
,
check gun serial number
,
dod police concealed carry texas 2011
,
hb 822 congress
,
hb 822 national
,

hb 822 right to carry

,
hb822 discussion
,
medical ohio reciprocity tennessee criteria or standards -emergency
,

national reciprocity

,

national reciprocity 2011

,
national reciprocity bill 2011
,
national reciprocity bill 2011 vote date
,
national reciprocity not necessary
,
why is reciprocity needed
Click on a term to search for related topics.