House Weighs Bill to Make Gun Permits Valid Across State Lines - Page 11

House Weighs Bill to Make Gun Permits Valid Across State Lines

This is a discussion on House Weighs Bill to Make Gun Permits Valid Across State Lines within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Let the states decide, too many issues, opportunities for Feds to have their fingers on my guns....

Page 11 of 18 FirstFirst ... 789101112131415 ... LastLast
Results 151 to 165 of 257
Like Tree81Likes

Thread: House Weighs Bill to Make Gun Permits Valid Across State Lines

  1. #151
    mel
    mel is offline
    Member Array mel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    254
    Let the states decide, too many issues, opportunities for Feds to have their fingers on my guns.


  2. #152
    Member Array Doubledown's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    301
    Sorry if this has been brought up but I started to blur it all together on page 6 so decided to skip to the end.

    Currently the federal position is that people have the right to keep and bear arms. It is one of the rights specifically spelled out in the constitution, even if most in DC don't know what that is. So in a strict interpretation if you own a gun you can carry it OC or CC because it is your right provided by the ultimate federal provision. The problem actually became States infringing on that right. By passing all of the limitations, rules, etc. and nobody fighting them they became case law and an accepted part of our lives. I have seen comparisons to drivers licenses, pilots licenses, and even gay marriage and how the federal government smoothed out the process and reciprocity issues. That is the job of the fed's because those are privileges not guaranteed rights in the Constitution. Heck marriage licenses are really only a way for the State to make money and keep track of you, it is a religious ceremony that the state has no actual direct interest in except to charge you a fee (whole different issue requiring its own thread). As you can see I live in WI where we are just now "willing to allow our streets to run red with the blood of children caught in the cross fire". There is only one State left and slowly we are moving back. I think that eventually there will be rulings that allow national CC/OC under the Second Amendment. While States are allowed to regulate within their own boarders and pass laws that are more strict than Federal law they are not allowed to overrule the Constitution. The issue is that it has been allowed for so long that it is "normal" and will not change quickly. With the extreme polarization and even violence associated with modern politics (again see teachers union smashing windows to get into the WI capitol and threatening families of legislators that disagree with them) I don't see a quick solution but eventually the pendulum swings back. I just hope my kids are alive to see the day it does, since I am pretty sure I won't.
    mrjam2jab and noway2 like this.

  3. #153
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,662
    Quote Originally Posted by mel View Post
    Let the states decide, too many issues, opportunities for Feds to have their fingers on my guns.
    Except that this does not work out in a practical way. We end up having to carry multiple licenses and still can't have nation wide acceptance. Leave it to the states HAS NOT WORKED.
    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

  4. #154
    Senior Moderator
    Array HotGuns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,913
    Leave it to the states HAS NOT WORKED.
    actually...it's not too bad. My state CHL is good in 37 other states.
    I would rather stand against the cannons of the wicked than against the prayers of the righteous.


    AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
    Like custom guns and stuff? Check this out...
    http://bobbailey1959.wordpress.com/

  5. #155
    VIP Member Array livewire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    2,052
    Quote Originally Posted by HotGuns View Post
    actually...it's not too bad. My state CHL is good in 37 other states.
    I can always tell who doesn't have a state near them who doesn't recognize their permits

  6. #156
    Senior Member Array sdprof's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Near the Black Hills of SD
    Posts
    1,035
    Currently the federal position is that people have the right to keep and bear arms.
    Except, of course, on most any federal property. In many ways, the federal gov. is the biggest infringer.

    OK, parks have been opened up to CC, but not the buildings associated with them, in most cases. Can't have my gun when I vist the local Air Base.

    In any case, I would like HR 822 to pass, as it would end permit collecting game. It might cause some states to see that their requirements are overly burdensome and don't really have benefit.
    Hopyard likes this.
    ~~~~~
    The only common sense gun legislation was written about 224 years ago.

    I carry always not because I go places trouble is likely, but because trouble has a habit of not staying in its assigned zone.

  7. #157
    VIP Member Array livewire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    2,052
    Quote Originally Posted by sdprof View Post
    Except, of course, on most any federal property. In many ways, the federal gov. is the biggest infringer.

    OK, parks have been opened up to CC, but not the buildings associated with them, in most cases. Can't have my gun when I vist the local Air Base.

    In any case, I would like HR 822 to pass, as it would end permit collecting game. It might cause some states to see that their requirements are overly burdensome and don't really have benefit.
    Isn't it interesting, how the position changes...

    States: "The 2nd Amendment doesn't apply to us, just the Federal government. The 10th Amendment says so!"

    Feds: "The 2nd Amendment.... um... so you can't carry guns on Federal property or Federal buildings, this is a States issue"

  8. #158
    Member Array paching's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Kissimmee, Florida
    Posts
    407
    Quote Originally Posted by zacii View Post
    That's a good idea; charge a fee to exercise the right to bear arms.

    It's not like they don't already. The majority of states that allow cc impose licensing fees and most of us have paid them...you think the feds wouldn't?
    Why?? Because at the last second, the Police are minutes away.

  9. #159
    Distinguished Member Array noway2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    1,885
    I agree with Hopyard, leaving it to the states hasn't worked. It is a patchwork quilt of agreements that is impossible to keep straight. With the number of people with CC permits growing, at what appears to be an exponential rate, at some point this issue will hit critical mass. I, myself, don't see any real solution to the problem, except enforcement of uniformity by the feds. This is, or should have been, a constitutional issue, in fact one that is even pretty clear in its meaning, and it was allowed to go to the states and the courts which have tried to legislate it out of existence(*). When the day of national reciprocity happens, states like IL, and municipalities like NYC, may (and I think should) find themselves being drug along with the rest, kicking and screaming if necessary. One of the impediments to the current reciprocity system is that some states claim that other state's training and or rules are stringent enough. Clearly, some minimal common denominator or set of standards must be found.

    While I can understand and appreciate the thought that if the feds get involved that it will become nothing but a cluster that has no resemblance to the original intent, such arguments amount to FUD (fear uncertainty and doubt). I, personally, wonder about the idea of an optional federal license that is valid in all states, issued in parallel with the existing system. For those who travel a lot and are negatively impacted by the current system, it would be worth the added costs and expenses. For those, like myself, whose state has decent reciprocity (currently at 34 states) most of which are in the areas that I am likely to go (there are a number of states that I have only been to once in my life and those were on work related trips anyway). Such as system could be much like a background check system for frequent air travelers that lets you reduce the screening requirements at air ports.

    (*)To add another similarity, think sales taxes. Online purchases are exempt from sales tax due to their interstate commerce nature which is regulated by the fed. Many states have tried to legislate this away by declaring that you owe usage tax and need to declare your purchases and pay tax on them (yeah right, sure). This is also an area where reciprocity type agreements won't work as there are simply too many distinct rates and regulations, at various levels of govt. It would be impossible for but all of the largest organizations to even keep up with the requirements.

  10. #160
    VIP Member Array Sticks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    3,411
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    I just don't understand the opposition here to a sensible bill which will make life easier for most of us when we travel.
    Right there, you answered your own question.

    Anything "Sensible" coming out of the Federal level, should be treated as a contract with the Devil.

    Anything that "makes life easier" is not only against Federal policy, but also should be treated as above.

    Both in the same sentence or context... [shudder]

    Don't get me wrong, I really do want National Reciprocity, in the same manner ones drivers license is treated, but I have no idea how to get there without a career politician or 100 screwing us in the end. The ought to just add it to the Drivers License enforcements, hand it all over to the DMV (Department of Revenue in CO) and be done with it. No more Anti Sheriffs or other individual county heads in Shall issue states still finding ways to bind it up for the average Joe/Jane. One department at the state level, have your paperwork in order, done deal.
    Sticks

    Grasseater // Grass~eat~er noun, often attributive \ˈgras-ē-tər\
    A person who is incapable of independent thought; a person who is herd animal-like in behavior; one who cannot distinguish between right and wrong; a foolish person.
    See also Sheep

  11. #161
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,662
    Quote Originally Posted by Sticks View Post
    Right there, you answered your own question.

    Anything "Sensible" coming out of the Federal level, should be treated as a contract with the Devil.
    It seems to me rather sad that so many people think like this. It is illogical. Why would you condemn something sensible as a contract with the devil? Since when is our government to be equated with the devil?
    That's a dang unpatriotic thing to be saying. I don't think you meant it that way, but that's what you wrote means.
    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

  12. #162
    VIP Member Array Civil_Response's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Minnesota, USA
    Posts
    2,554
    Hmmm, I was thinking the devil didn't deserve the harsh reference.

  13. #163
    VIP Member Array oakchas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    7,414
    Quote Originally Posted by noway2 View Post
    . . . When the day of national reciprocity happens, states like IL, and municipalities like NYC, may (and I think should) find themselves being drug along with the rest, kicking and screaming if necessary. . . .
    If you read the law as proposed, IL would not have to honor the reciprocity at all, (I misread it the first time, too) IL DOES NOT issue carry permits, period. As to the city of NY, you would still have to abide by the municipal laws if they are allowed by the state they're in. So, no carry in NYC either if I read correctly this time.


    Quote Originally Posted by noway2 View Post
    (*)To add another similarity, think sales taxes. Online purchases are exempt from sales tax due to their interstate commerce nature which is regulated by the fed. Many states have tried to legislate this away by declaring that you owe usage tax and need to declare your purchases and pay tax on them (yeah right, sure). This is also an area where reciprocity type agreements won't work as there are simply too many distinct rates and regulations, at various levels of govt. It would be impossible for but all of the largest organizations to even keep up with the requirements.
    Online sales are taxed at the rate of your resident state (and even county, for those with local option sales taxes) by most of the major online retailers now... and have been for some time.

    I supported this bill initially, but I have come to realize that this new national version of reciprocity is fraught with Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt... for good reason. So I guess I'd just as soon go back to the first federal reciprocity "act."

    It was good enough, back in the day, probably just as good now:

    "A well regulated Militia,
    being necessary to the security of a free State,
    the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,
    shall not be infringed."

    Yeah, that's the one, I vote for THAT one!
    Rats!
    It could be worse!
    I suppose

  14. #164
    Senior Member Array rmilchman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    790
    Quote Originally Posted by oakchas View Post
    If you read the law as proposed, IL would not have to honor the reciprocity at all, (I misread it the first time, too) IL DOES NOT issue carry permits, period. As to the city of NY, you would still have to abide by the municipal laws if they are allowed by the state they're in. So, no carry in NYC either if I read correctly this time.
    Since NYC does issue permits (granted rarely / never) I think you would be able to carry in the city.

  15. #165
    Senior Member Array Chad Rogers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Metro DC
    Posts
    958
    It's all irrelevant. This bill would never pass the Senate, much less Obama's veto.

Page 11 of 18 FirstFirst ... 789101112131415 ... 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
  •  

Search tags for this page

bill allowing concealed carry across state lines

,

bodyguard 380

,
can i now carry over state lines ltc
,
carry guns through state lines
,

concealed carry

,

defensive carry

,
did the bill pass to carry guns across state lines
,
federal carry across state lines
,
feds seek to control concealed weapons
,

gun permits valid across state lines

,
house gun permit bill
,

house weighs bill to make gun permits valid across state lines

,

kimber solo carry

,
new york state hollow points gun permit
,
state vs federal government issues
Click on a term to search for related topics.

» Log in

User Name:

Password:

Not a member yet?
Register Now!

» DefensiveCarry Sponsors