81Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksLet the states decide, too many issues, opportunities for Feds to have their fingers on my guns.
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....
Array
Let the states decide, too many issues, opportunities for Feds to have their fingers on my guns.
Array
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.
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.Originally Posted by mel
"Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war."
John Adams. Second President of the United States.
actually...it's not too bad. My state CHL is good in 37 other states.Leave it to the states HAS NOT WORKED.
It is better to live one day as a lion, than a thousand years as a lamb...
AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
Maker of cool things to shoot
I can always tell who doesn't have a state near them who doesn't recognize their permits
Array
Except, of course, on most any federal property. In many ways, the federal gov. is the biggest infringer.Currently the federal position is that people have the right to keep and bear arms.
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"
Array
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?That's a good idea; charge a fee to exercise the right to bear arms.
Why?? Because at the last second, the Police are minutes away.
Array
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.
Array
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.
On hiatus.
Hit my limit for speculation, the sky is falling, and gun owners fighting amongst themselves.
UNITED WE STAND, DIVIDED WE FALL!
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.
"Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war."
John Adams. Second President of the United States.
Array
Hmmm, I was thinking the devil didn't deserve the harsh reference.
Disclaimer:
My opinion shouldn't be taken seriously due to the fact that I've been shooting guns for over 30 years and have only recently been active on gun forums, where all the real world knowledge apparently is.
Array
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.
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!
Read:
The Gift of Fear by Gavin De Becker
In The Gravest Extreme by Massad Ayoob
The Harbinger by Jonathan Cahn
From every encounter or scenario; yours, someone else's, real, or not...
LEARN SOMETHING FROM IT
Array
Since NYC does issue permits (granted rarely / never) I think you would be able to carry in the city.
Array
It's all irrelevant. This bill would never pass the Senate, much less Obama's veto.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
