House Weighs Bill to Make Gun Permits Valid Across State Lines - Page 12

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; Originally Posted by Chad Rogers It's all irrelevant. This bill would never pass the Senate, much less Obama's veto. Try it. Why doesn't The House ...

Page 12 of 18 FirstFirst ... 28910111213141516 ... LastLast
Results 166 to 180 of 257
Like Tree81Likes

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

  1. #166
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,718
    Quote Originally Posted by Chad Rogers View Post
    It's all irrelevant. This bill would never pass the Senate, much less Obama's veto.
    Try it. Why doesn't The House pass the dang thing and dare the Senate to not pass it? Why don't they try
    the dang bill and see what the prez does?

    I think they (the majority) have been leading you all along. There could well be plenty of votes to pass this bill and maybe even override a veto. And (yes we aren't suppose to talk politics, and far be it from me to advise the side I tend to disagree with) passing it would be a wedge issue.

    I think we are being played with. I think a whole bunch of folks who campaign on gun owner rights platforms don't mean a word of it.
    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


  2. #167
    VIP Member Array Sticks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    3,439
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    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.
    I would hope that is sarcasm. How many "Sensible" gun laws do we have on the books now? How are those working out for us?

    Federal import bans, restrictions on types of firearms imported, AWB (thank the gods for a sunset clause), and so on.
    jem102 likes this.
    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

  3. #168
    VIP Member
    Array TX expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kansas City
    Posts
    3,849
    On the surface this bill seems like a good thing for the CCW holder. I personally believe that it will end up being used to further "control" firearms and weaken our Second Amendment rights. Here is why I believe that.

    First off, this absolutely a state issue, not a Federal Government issue. If the Fed wants to really do something to support the Second Amendment, they should start with coming down on the city and state laws that regulate our Second Amendment rights away to the point of voiding them altogether. Chicago, New York and a small host of other places basically thumb their nose at 2A and the Federal Government has never taken them to task over it. That is where the Fed should start since it is the Federal Government's responsibility to ensure that the states don't try to supersede our rights under The Constitution (The ruling of the US Supreme Court in Miranda vs. Arizona, for example). I would support the Federal Government issuing that sort of legislation; one where its purpose was to remove state prohibitions on firearms period. That isn't what this legislation is doing at all though. If the Fed is willing to allow each state to make its own legislation on CCW permits, then it should be left to each state absolutely.

    Secondly, I believe this seemingly "good" legislation will open the door for Federal regulation and oversight on curriculum and training. Once ever state is forced to accept other permits, they will, somewhat rightfully, have a legal cause to go after the Federal Government to ensure the safety of their citizens. The Fed, not wanting to be on the hook for the liability, will then have free reign to enact "standards" for CCW permits to provide some guarantee that the CCW holder has an acceptable level of training for safety purposes. Once that happens, this "good idea" won't seem so good anymore.

    Thirdly, our Federal Government never allows for common sense laws when over regulation and massive legal complications will work too. Don't think for one minute that this will end with some piece of legislation that simply says everybody must honor everyone else's permit. Period. There will be a whole host of things that absolutely must be addressed, simply for the sake of thoroughness.

    And lastly, (and I'm not trying to devolve into politics any more than I have to, but...) it's a lot harder to states to fight things like national healthcare mandates and other things that the Federal Government has no business pushing onto the states, when we encourage and allow the Federal Government to chip away the sovereignty of the states simply because it's something we happen to agree with (this time). You can't cry foul when you don't like it, but applaud it when you do. It's important for the states to maintain autonomy and retain the authority to dictate the laws that fall within its borders.
    HotGuns likes this.

  4. #169
    Distinguished Member Array noway2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    1,899
    Quote Originally Posted by TX expat
    it's a lot harder to states to fight things like national healthcare mandates and other things that the Federal Government has no business pushing onto the states, when we encourage and allow the Federal Government to chip away the sovereignty of the states simply because it's something we happen to agree with (this time)
    While I agree with your statement, part of the problem is that some states are violating the constitution. Either the citizens of that state need to stand up against it or it is up to the fed to enforce the constitution. Neither of which currently seems to be happening. I also think we would all be better off with some degree of uniformity in gun law. I also disagree with the proposed legislation allowing sates like IL to ban carry. I also think that MAY issue states need to be addressed because the MAY issue often times imposes restrictions that unless you are the in the correct group/class/creed, etc that your constitutional rights are abridged by the govt.

    As far as whether or not a pro 2A bill would get signed, try it and see. I have seen some bad legislation that nobody thought would get approved go through with little to no protest. Sometimes it is a matter of picking your battles. If any president (thinking of the future too) were to veto pro-gun legislation, it would certainly be an affront to many people whom they need the support of.
    Last edited by noway2; September 24th, 2011 at 11:17 AM. Reason: typo

  5. #170
    VIP Member
    Array TX expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kansas City
    Posts
    3,849
    Quote Originally Posted by noway2 View Post
    While I agree with your statement, part of the problem is that some states are violating the constitution. Either the citizens of that state need to stand up against it or it is up to the fed to enforce the constitution. Neither of which currently seems to be happening. I also think we would all be better off with some degree of uniformity in gun law. I also disagree with the proposed legislation allowing sates like IL to ban carry. I also think that MAY issue states need to be addressed because the MAY issue often times imposes restrictions that unless you are the in the correct group/class/creed, etc that your constitutional rights are abridged by the govt.
    I totally agree, if the Federal Government wants to "enforce" our 2A rights, it absolutely needs to start with addressing city and state laws that currently infringe, or all out prohibit, legal ownership of firearms. The whole "IF you allow CCW, THEN you must do (insert variable here)" type of legislation isn't doing anything to address the core of our 2A rights. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that it might make some states actually reconsider having CCW permits at all, if they are then going to be forced by the Federal Government to accept every other CCW permit just as they do their own.

    From a "rights" perspective the whole thing is bad. New York and Chicago can go on prohibiting legal gun ownership and the ability to carry for self defense purposes, but if you happen to allow your citizens to carry firearms, then you are going to have the Federal Government imposing its will upon you as to who else can do so as well.

  6. #171
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,718
    Well with the attitudes expressed here we'll being having the same discussion ad nauseum 3 decades from now. At some point we've got to be willing to dip our toe in the water.

    What I see in many of the posts here is a huge amount of fear and distrust driving an unwillingness to allow for distinctly beneficial change.

    Come on, do you who oppose this bill really think your state is going to stop doing CHL issuance because they are instructed by the Feds to recognize all lawfully issued permits? That's not going to happen. Not even in NY and NJ. The far more likely outcome is that IL will join IA and WI.

    From the day I started following this board years ago, we have always had a minority of very vocal people who take positions which are counter to what is good for most gun owners and most CHL permit holders. They take these positions for reasons of ideology--one notable fellow now banned here insisted that 2A would never be incorporated and so therefore only the state could deal with this subject. Well, 2A is now incorporated. It is the business of The Federal government to protect our rights against the interests of the states, and it is especially the business of the national government to act where interstate commerce (travel) is involved.

    The proposed bill does not impose any new licensing. No one is talking about a Federal CHL. The proposed bill does not impose any new fees. The proposed bill puts no new restrictions on license holders. It does absolutely nothing that would harm the interest of the ordinary CHL holder. It promotes the interests of those who wish remain armed while traveling throughout the country.

    That Uncle has chosen to forbid license holders from entering Federal buildings while armed isn't much of an argument against this bill. Almost every state which issues permits (and probably a couple with unlicensed constitutional carry) have limits on where you can go while armed. Are you guys serious that this is a reason to not have national reciprocity, or national recognition of issued permits?

    Its amazing how some folks try so hard to help foster gun owner rights that they make all the wrong moves and end up opposing our own interests.
    Doghandler likes this.
    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

  7. #172
    VIP Member Array livewire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    2,052
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    Well with the attitudes expressed here we'll being having the same discussion ad nauseum 3 decades from now. At some point we've got to be willing to dip our toe in the water.

    What I see in many of the posts here is a huge amount of fear and distrust driving an unwillingness to allow for distinctly beneficial change.
    Well... you have to admit that the Fed does have a history of backhanded doublecrossing in the name of "benefits". Even the catchphrases "Common-sense gun law" and "while respecting the 2nd Amendment rights" that get tossed around by gun-grabbing organizations and politicians make me cringe.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    Come on, do you who oppose this bill really think your state is going to stop doing CHL issuance because they are instructed by the Feds to recognize all lawfully issued permits? That's not going to happen. Not even in NY and NJ. The far more likely outcome is that IL will join IA and WI.
    I think they would try, but it's a lot harder to repeal carry laws than it is to pass them in the first place, even in 'gun control' states. Especially with the more recent SCOTUS rulings in favor of ownership rights.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    From the day I started following this board years ago, we have always had a minority of very vocal people who take positions which are counter to what is good for most gun owners and most CHL permit holders. They take these positions for reasons of ideology--one notable fellow now banned here insisted that 2A would never be incorporated and so therefore only the state could deal with this subject. Well, 2A is now incorporated. It is the business of The Federal government to protect our rights against the interests of the states, and it is especially the business of the national government to act where interstate commerce (travel) is involved.
    Unfortunately, I think that if this passes, it will be in spite of the very people it's designed to protect (those of us who own guns, have CCW permits, and travel)

    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    The proposed bill does not impose any new licensing. No one is talking about a Federal CHL. The proposed bill does not impose any new fees. The proposed bill puts no new restrictions on license holders. It does absolutely nothing that would harm the interest of the ordinary CHL holder. It promotes the interests of those who wish remain armed while traveling throughout the country.
    This is the point that really needs to be driven home... a lot of people are comparing this to LEOSA, which has a lot of Federally mandated conditions. If you look at the bill compared to the LEOSA bill that got signed into law, it's a lot shorter. Not to mention a lot easier to read, which goes a long way to insuring nothing is 'snuck in' to the final bill... some of this stuff reads like coded CIA documents, but this one is fairly straightforward and easy to interpret.

    I would like to see the word "resident" thrown in there though, I think that will be one of the biggest arguments against the bill by Legislators from restrictive states. "If we deny a resident of our state, they can just go get a Arizona permit and we can't prohibit them from carrying here, this violates our rights, yada yada yada"

    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    That Uncle has chosen to forbid license holders from entering Federal buildings while armed isn't much of an argument against this bill. Almost every state which issues permits (and probably a couple with unlicensed constitutional carry) have limits on where you can go while armed. Are you guys serious that this is a reason to not have national reciprocity, or national recognition of issued permits?
    I believe that this is a great example of the Federal government thumbing their nose at the Constitution, it's a problem, it needs to stop, and it's completely irrelevant to the debate on this bill.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    Its amazing how some folks try so hard to help foster gun owner rights that they make all the wrong moves and end up opposing our own interests.
    Yep.

  8. #173
    Senior Member Array sdprof's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Near the Black Hills of SD
    Posts
    1,078
    Quote Originally Posted by livewire9880 View Post
    I would like to see the word "resident" thrown in there though, I think that will be one of the biggest arguments against the bill by Legislators from restrictive states. "If we deny a resident of our state, they can just go get a Arizona permit and we can't prohibit them from carrying here, this violates our rights, yada yada yada"
    Yes, Pennsylvania's bugaboo, the Florida loophole. Well, some states have it in their laws that residents of the state may only carry with their state's permit. South Dakota, for example. Is that so awful?
    ~~~~~
    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.

  9. #174
    Ex Member Array rgbiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    153
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    Its amazing how some folks try so hard to help foster gun owner rights that they make all the wrong moves and end up opposing our own interests.
    As a Texan, your own "interests" should be keyed toward legislation repealing that 1870 Texas law against open carry in public.

    It's about time Texas gun owners get their own house in order.

  10. #175
    Member Array mrjam2jab's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Levittown, PA
    Posts
    427
    Quote Originally Posted by livewire9880 View Post
    I would like to see the word "resident" thrown in there though, I think that will be one of the biggest arguments against the bill by Legislators from restrictive states. "If we deny a resident of our state, they can just go get a Arizona permit and we can't prohibit them from carrying here, this violates our rights, yada yada yada"

    That resident restriction IS in the bill.

    (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--
    You will need a home state permit to carry in your home state.

  11. #176
    VIP Member Array livewire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    2,052
    Quote Originally Posted by mrjam2jab View Post
    That resident restriction IS in the bill.



    You will need a home state permit to carry in your home state.
    I missed that part, or it's been added since the original.


    Quote Originally Posted by sdprof View Post
    Yes, Pennsylvania's bugaboo, the Florida loophole. Well, some states have it in their laws that residents of the state may only carry with their state's permit. South Dakota, for example. Is that so awful?
    WA is the same way, you can carry here on a Utah, Florida, or any other number of nonresident permits unless you live here. Without the provision that mrjam2jab pointed out, this law would override that restriction.
    Last edited by livewire; September 24th, 2011 at 08:41 PM. Reason: Merged, fixed citation reference

  12. #177
    VIP Member
    Array Pistology's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    South Coast LA Cty
    Posts
    2,124
    Most of the fanfare prologue doesn't jibe with the substantial portion of the bill:

    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.
    Versus

    Sec. 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.
    On the one hand, the bill glorifies our Constitution and its protections of our freedoms, then, on the other, says that this bill is subordinate to laws of the state that prohibit carry by residents of the state for lawful purposes. Shee. Might as well wait for Gura to bring the right case to SCOTUS.

    I know the intent of the bill isn't to remove prohibitions in states but to force states that issue permits to recognize all other states' permits. And I'm not so afraid of the bill as a gateway to psych hospitals for dissenters. But it is rather unworthy as an act of congress, eh? For all of its hyberpole, it's a bit premature like allowing freedmen to travel through all states -- except those that don't prohibit slavery. Let's address the deeper problem of prohibition before passing a congressional act that tiptoes around it.
    Americans understood the right of self-preservation as permitting a citizen to repel force by force
    when the intervention of society... may be too late to prevent an injury.
    -Blackstone’s Commentaries 145–146, n. 42 (1803) in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

  13. #178
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,718
    Quote Originally Posted by Pistology View Post
    Let's address the deeper problem of prohibition before passing a congressional act that tiptoes around it.
    Truth be told it is this proposed bill or nothing.

    We aren't going to get to "the deeper problem," because that actually is not where the vast majority of the people want to go. It is not where the Supreme Court wants to go (they have had the chance), and going there won't get a toe hold in Congress. Take what we can get. Take the improvements which are possible instead of a big fat nothing at all.
    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

  14. #179
    VIP Member
    Array Pistology's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    South Coast LA Cty
    Posts
    2,124
    The National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011 is bad law because Congress doesn't have a legitimate position to legislate national carry while states are in violation of 2A, a guarantee. It just isn't justice. "An injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere".

    It doesn't matter where "people want to go". Don't stick your finger in the political wind to consider how far you are willing to abandon 2A. Compromise with evil is not improvement.

    Ayn Rand says:
    The partial victory of an unjust claim, encourages the claimant to try further; the partial defeat of a just claim, discourages and paralyzes the victim.
    SCOTUS hasn't had a case in which bearing is the res judica - the thing being decided. .
    jem102 likes this.
    Americans understood the right of self-preservation as permitting a citizen to repel force by force
    when the intervention of society... may be too late to prevent an injury.
    -Blackstone’s Commentaries 145–146, n. 42 (1803) in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

  15. #180
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,718
    Quote Originally Posted by Pistology View Post
    The National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011 is bad law because Congress doesn't have a legitimate position to legislate national carry while states are in violation of 2A, a guarantee. It just isn't justice. "An injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere".

    It doesn't matter where "people want to go". Don't stick your finger in the political wind to consider how far you are willing to abandon 2A. Compromise with evil is not improvement.

    Ayn Rand says:

    SCOTUS hasn't had a case in which bearing is the res judica - the thing being decided. .
    Yeah yeah, keep on arguing against our best interests and your own best interests as a gun owner. Stick to an impossible ideology of Constitutional Carry which never actually and truly existed on this continent.

    That will get us somewhere fast. And it does matter where the people want to go, because in reality The Supremes read the political tea leaves and always have.

    We all need to make our way in the world that exists, not the one we imagine should exist.

    The proposed law would be helpful to many of us. It has no downside. It proposes no new fee. It proposes no new Federal license. It limits the ability of states to trample on our rights.

    It has lots of sponsors and enough votes to go through The House. Its past time for Congress folks to stop playing games and git on with it.
    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

Page 12 of 18 FirstFirst ... 28910111213141516 ... 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
,

concealed carry

,

defensive carry

,
did the bill pass to carry guns across state lines
,
federal carry across state lines
,

gun permits valid across state lines

,
house gun permit bill
,

house weighs bill to make gun permits valid across state lines

,

kimber solo carry

,
state vs federal government issues
Click on a term to search for related topics.