Revive the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act - Page 5

Revive the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act

This is a discussion on Revive the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Actually I do travel from state to state likely more then you do Hop unless your job takes across the country on a regular basis. ...

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345
Results 61 to 75 of 75
Like Tree65Likes

Thread: Revive the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act

  1. #61
    VIP Member Array Ghost1958's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    6,017
    Actually I do travel from state to state likely more then you do Hop unless your job takes across the country on a regular basis. If I cant carry in a state I do not go there. End of story. Family no family I wont even cross a state where I cannot cc. Thats my choice and my right. If you choose to go thats on you. If you are forced by job etc too then I sympathize that you cannot carry in some states.
    That said the Feds have no right mixing in this at all. Taking a good thing when you can get it only opens the door to getting a series of very bad things later on when dealing with the Feds.


  2. #62
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,663
    Quote Originally Posted by Ghost1958 View Post
    Actually I do travel from state to state likely more then you do Hop unless your job takes across the country on a regular basis. If I cant carry in a state I do not go there. End of story. Family no family I wont even cross a state where I cannot cc. Thats my choice and my right. If you choose to go thats on you. If you are forced by job etc too then I sympathize that you cannot carry in some states.
    That said the Feds have no right mixing in this at all. Taking a good thing when you can get it only opens the door to getting a series of very bad things later on when dealing with the Feds.
    Really? That's what the state's rights folks used to say about segregation. "The Feds have no right."

    The Feds have a right (obligation) under 2A to protect the gun owner. If they get to that via the commerce clause so be it so long as the job gets done. FOPA and LEOSA didn't bring the wrath of Zeus down on our heads and neither would
    national reciprocity.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  3. #63
    VIP Member
    Array TX expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kansas City
    Posts
    3,787
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    Really? That's what the state's rights folks used to say about segregation. "The Feds have no right."

    The Feds have a right (obligation) under 2A to protect the gun owner. If they get to that via the commerce clause so be it so long as the job gets done. FOPA and LEOSA didn't bring the wrath of Zeus down on our heads and neither would
    national reciprocity.
    And when it did, you'd be here to rationalize it like you do with the AWB and mag cap bans. Sorry Hop, you can keep selling, but nobody's buying.
    NRA Life Member

    "I don't believe gun owners have rights." - Sarah Brady

  4. #64
    Member
    Array dling's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    436
    Quote Originally Posted by archer51 View Post
    As far as I'm concerned, it can stay there forever. I DO NOT want the federal government regulating my carry. I can see them requiring mental health screenings with hand picked physicians. They'll make it so difficult it won't be worth the effort to attempt to carry.
    I agree.

  5. #65
    Member Array jrclen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Central Wisconsin
    Posts
    342
    Every time the federal government takes more power upon itself to force the states to do something, it ultimately leads to a loss of liberty. It might be something completely unrelated, but the precedent gives them the power to do even more. I think the push back we are seeing from the states on gun control is the best thing to happen in this country in a long time. And I seriously doubt any pro gun legislation such as national reciprocity is even going to be debated much less passed by congress and signed by the anti gun marxist in charge.
    Shall not be infringed means - shall not be infringed.
    Member - NRA
    John

  6. #66
    Distinguished Member Array noway2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    1,886
    Normally I would and historically I have been a proponent of nationalized reciprocity. I believe that a simple legislative act could be a good thing and benefit a lot of people. However, right now, I see 1/3 of our govt wanting to impose restrictions that I see as being illegal, I see 1/3 of it hemming and hawing on it while seeing which way the winds blow, and 1/3 of it not having weighed in yet. In this environment, and until this issue is settled I don't want to go near this issue.

    I think it also bears mentioning that Hopyard has made some very good points with regards to problems caused by states drawing lines in the sand and declaring their position independent of the fed. Chiefly, in terms of nationalized reciprocity, we could (probably would) see the same sort of thing happening. NY and IL would still refuse to recognize other permits and declare their sovereignty over the issue. The more I think about this, I don't even think having the fed declare a stance on the ban issue being a solution because one side or the other could very well refuse to recognize it.

    With regards to states going no-issue, I don't think that will be the case as long as the states agree to abide by federal authority, as for example IL was just told that they can't be no issue. The question and problem I keep coming back to is state vs federal authority and unfortunately, we can't have it both ways.

  7. #67
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,663
    Quote Originally Posted by noway2 View Post
    Normally I would and historically I have been a proponent of nationalized reciprocity. I believe that a simple legislative act could be a good thing and benefit a lot of people. However, right now, I see 1/3 of our govt wanting to impose restrictions that I see as being illegal, I see 1/3 of it hemming and hawing on it while seeing which way the winds blow, and 1/3 of it not having weighed in yet. In this environment, and until this issue is settled I don't want to go near this issue.

    I think it also bears mentioning that Hopyard has made some very good points with regards to problems caused by states drawing lines in the sand and declaring their position independent of the fed. Chiefly, in terms of nationalized reciprocity, we could (probably would) see the same sort of thing happening. NY and IL would still refuse to recognize other permits and declare their sovereignty over the issue. The more I think about this, I don't even think having the fed declare a stance on the ban issue being a solution because one side or the other could very well refuse to recognize it.

    With regards to states going no-issue, I don't think that will be the case as long as the states agree to abide by federal authority, as for example IL was just told that they can't be no issue. The question and problem I keep coming back to is state vs federal authority and unfortunately, we can't have it both ways.
    I actually sort of agree with everything you just wrote, particularly the point about maybe this is just the wrong time
    to be dealing with it. Wait till emotions cool and things settle down. I don't exactly agree with this part--NY and IL would still refuse to recognize other permits. There could easily be written into the law a requirement that all states honor any validly
    issued permit. That again would be Uncle upholding 2A, for a change.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  8. #68
    VIP Member
    Array OldVet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    S. Florida, north of the Miami mess, south of the Mouse trap
    Posts
    16,468
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    I don't exactly agree with this part--NY and IL would still refuse to recognize other permits. There could easily be written into the law a requirement that all states honor any validly issued permit. That again would be Uncle upholding 2A, for a change.
    This is like walking a greased tightrope. One slipup and it's a disaster. It comes down to states' rights vs Federal rights. It's a double-edged sword. If the Federal gov't forced reciprocy down the states' throats, the individual states, or at least some, would simply pass new laws to make CC practically useless with multiple prohibitions.
    Retired USAF E-8. Lighten up and enjoy life because:
    Paranoia strikes deep, into your heart it will creep. It starts when you're always afraid... "For What It's Worth" Buffalo Springfield

  9. #69
    VIP Member
    Array TX expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kansas City
    Posts
    3,787
    And that's why this whole thing is a bad idea. When the fed starts forcing the issue based on the Second Amendment, then they'll be doing it the right way because it will apply to all states equally. Unless that happens, the fed cannot say "this is a state issue and we're just going to impose a few national legislations on it".

    The federal government is not going to address the whole issue that way, probably ever, so it needs to be left to the states to carry out any reciprocal agreements that they feel works for them.
    NRA Life Member

    "I don't believe gun owners have rights." - Sarah Brady

  10. #70
    Member Array drbald1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    347
    Again, I want to like the idea.

    However, the can of worms is gigantic. I get your frustration, Hop. And usually I'd agree that some movement in the right direction is much better than no movement at all.

    But this could change more than just CCDW licenses. Driver's licenses, marriage documents...all kinds of other stuff seems intricately connected. I'm sort of a systemic thinker anyway, so I can't help but "what if" this a little.

    Maybe too much. But I'm also a "long hello's & short goodbye's" kinda guy, so my inner jury's still out. The discussion here has been pretty good, I think.
    Hopyard likes this.

  11. #71
    Member Array PatAz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Oro Valley, Arizona
    Posts
    150
    When pigs fly.

  12. #72
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,663
    Quote Originally Posted by OldVet View Post
    This is like walking a greased tightrope. One slipup and it's a disaster. It comes down to states' rights vs Federal rights. It's a double-edged sword. If the Federal gov't forced reciprocy down the states' throats, the individual states, or at least some, would simply pass new laws to make CC practically useless with multiple prohibitions.
    Absolutely, but so with every other federal-state issue. Things were designed so that there would always be a 'greased tightrope.'
    Its the same with banking laws, insurance laws, anything you can think of. The tension is deliberate. We all learned that
    in grade school.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  13. #73
    Senior Member Array Lotus222's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    US
    Posts
    1,177
    Out of curiosity, would the members here who like this bill rather see something like this bill pass ...or a nation-wide license-free "constitutional carry"?

    Personally, I would rather see someone who shouldn't have a gun, but does, be prosecuted for committing a crime. I don't like being treated like a criminal if I don't have a laminated 3" sheet of paper in my wallet.
    Bark'n and 9MMare like this.

  14. #74
    Member Array AngryBadger417's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Good ole West Virginia
    Posts
    322
    I would just like to see all 50 states work together and sign a reciprocity agreement that would honor my WV ccw liscense just like they honor my DL. I really don't like the idea of the federal government telling me if I can carry, only because of the anti 2a group that runs it now. The federal government doesn't have to be a bad thing,it could be a great thing. it just usually ends up that way.
    Say 'what' again! I dare you! I double dare you!-Jules Winnfield aka Samuel L Jackson

  15. #75
    Member Array thephanatik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    360
    While I am hesitant to let the federal government get involved in the concealed carry licensing in any form, if a bill like this passed, I don't think any states would be able to go back to "no carry" like a few people have mentioned. In case people forgot, the 7th circuit appeals court recently found Illinois' complete ban on carry unconstitutional and they are being forced to create a concealed carry bill.

    The biggest reason I'm hesitant about letting the federal government get involved is even if they don't "force" certain requirements for concealed carry (8 hours of training, live-fire, etc.), they could pass a bill to withhold funding for various things if the states don't meet their "requirements", much like they did with National Minimum Drinking Age Act. States aren't required to have a 21 year old drinking age, but a state with a drinking age below 21 would receive a ten percent decrease in its annual federal highway apportionment.
    jrclen likes this.
    Your number one Option for Personal Security is a lifelong commitment to avoidance, deterrence, and de-escalation. - Rule #23 in the USMC rules for gunfighting.

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345

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
  •  

Search tags for this page

2013 national right to carry reciprocity act
,
national carry reciprocity 2013
,

national right to carry 2013

,
national right to carry act 2013 progress
,
national right to carry reciprocity act
,

national right to carry reciprocity act 2013

,

national right to carry reciprocity act status

,
national right-to-carry reciprocity act 2013
,
reciprocity-chart for maryland drivers license
,
right to carry reciprocity act 2013
,
sites supporting the nation ccw reciprocity act
,
status of reciprocity act
Click on a term to search for related topics.

» Log in

User Name:

Password:

Not a member yet?
Register Now!

» DefensiveCarry Sponsors