House Weighs Bill to Make Gun Permits Valid Across State Lines

[livewire]

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.

Sure it has... just not for a very, very long time. I think we would get there eventually, but not any time soon.

And if you think about it, if this bill is passed into law, it would be a good start toward that goal. If one state who normally wouldn't allow "shall issue" permitting (I'm looking at you California) suddenly has to allow any other state permittee to carry, it has a very good chance of moving toward that. Once more and more of these states move to "shall issue", then there starts to be less and less point to having a permit at all.

Sure, I would prefer SCOTUS to take care of things. It would really be simple for them to declare that in order to conform with the 2nd Amendment, you either need a shall-issue permit, or allow carry without a permit. And of course, my beloved Article 4, Section 1 could apply (in the same ruling) , because after all, the 2nd Amendment applies to the citizens of every state.

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[jem102]

Please call/write/e-mail (preferably all three) your legislators and urge them in the strongest terms possible to vote NO on this issue if you are not in agreement with it! For those that believe this to be ill conceived legislation as I do, stop typing here for just a few minutes and send an e-mail if nothing else, we will be here when you return.

[Hopyard]

Please call/write/e-mail (preferably all three) your legislators and urge them in the strongest terms possible to vote NO on this issue if you are not in agreement with it! For those that believe this to be ill conceived legislation as I do, stop typing here for just a few minutes and send an e-mail if nothing else, we will be here when you return.

JEM, don't you ever travel? Why in the world would you want a no vote on this--- I know its been discussed here but it makes no sense.

In practical terms if you ever travel between states, this law means you don't have to do a ton of homework on who recognizes your permit. You don't have to worry about accidentally crossing some boundary on an interstate highway and suddenly being illegal.

I'll give you a personal example. A drive along I 81 through Virginia into PA. You can be legal in VA, not legal in WV, not sure if you ever enter Maryland unless you are really familiar with where that highway lies, and then legal in PA. It is a totally insane way to do things and anything which improves the matter is to all of our benefit.

This bill could be had now. It could as Livewire pointed out be a wedge toward "constitutional carry." It could be an inducement for states that don't issue licenses to go to shall issue.

But all of that aside, this bill would make life much easier for those who travel. What is so sane and wonderful about the fact that my state recognizes Washington State but I can't carry in Washington State?

How does fighting this bill which would change that bit of idiocy fix a dang thing? Getting a no vote on this accomplishes nothing but keeping the status quo; no movement forward. No movement forward means in practical terms a step backward. Donkeys will fly before there is movement by the states on a voluntary basis. Washington State has had years to reciprocate TX's honoring of their license, and they haven't done it. And they likely won't. We can look at many pairs of states where there are similar absurdities.

It is way past time to fix the problem.

[TX expat]

JEM, don't you ever travel? Why in the world would you want a no vote on this--- I know its been discussed here but it makes no sense.

Just because you don't identify or agree with the problems and possible issues doesn't mean it makes no sense. Doing the wrong thing just for the sake of doing something isn't really that great of an idea.

[Doghandler]

I'm with Hopyard on this. As a supporting member of both the NRA and the Iowa Firearms Coalition I support their pro stance on this Bill.

I didn't sign up with either to fight for a new Utopia, but rather to get things straightened out.

[jem102]

JEM, don't you ever travel? Why in the world would you want a no vote on this--- I know its been discussed here but it makes no sense.

In practical terms if you ever travel between states, this law means you don't have to do a ton of homework on who recognizes your permit. You don't have to worry about accidentally crossing some boundary on an interstate highway and suddenly being illegal.

I'll give you a personal example. A drive along I 81 through Virginia into PA. You can be legal in VA, not legal in WV, not sure if you ever enter Maryland unless you are really familiar with where that highway lies, and then legal in PA. It is a totally insane way to do things and anything which improves the matter is to all of our benefit.

This bill could be had now. It could as Livewire pointed out be a wedge toward "constitutional carry." It could be an inducement for states that don't issue licenses to go to shall issue.

But all of that aside, this bill would make life much easier for those who travel. What is so sane and wonderful about the fact that my state recognizes Washington State but I can't carry in Washington State?

How does fighting this bill which would change that bit of idiocy fix a dang thing? Getting a no vote on this accomplishes nothing but keeping the status quo; no movement forward. No movement forward means in practical terms a step backward. Donkeys will fly before there is movement by the states on a voluntary basis. Washington State has had years to reciprocate TX's honoring of their license, and they haven't done it. And they likely won't. We can look at many pairs of states where there are similar absurdities.

It is way past time to fix the problem.

This is running in what...half a dozen places on the forum? I have stated my opinions several times and you have read them the same as I have read yours, at the least, several times so no need to ruminate them again. As I have read all this "I" believe the nays out way the yeas. If those folks believe in their stance they should back it up and "I" have encouraged them to do so for what "I", and hopefully they, see as the proper course of action through the legislative process. Welcome to America its how it works.

Why yes I do travel. Some years quite a bit and by coincidence up I-81 at least three times a year if not six to central PA. My permit is valid in VA, WV and PA. The stretch of I-81 that traverses MD between WV and PA takes eleven minutes at one mile per hour under the speed limit and we can each make our own choice as to operative condition while crossing.

In fact my permit is honored by 37 states and I believe WI will soon be 38.
You say "how can this be?" I say "by writing letters, sending e-mails and making regular calls to my state legislators "telling them", respectfully, what I expect, what I want and why with a brief but concise reason. I strongly support my state firearms association which is quite active, powerful and respected by the state legislature. That, to me, is how it's done there are no "lasting" short cuts...I have spent no small amount of my own funds in this pursuit and by the end of 2012 we should be over 40 states honoring our permits. This works..."I" have been a part of it and seen it accomplished!

As to the "non believing states" there are three of the what, six or seven, I must visit infrequently on business. These are always group adventures with superiors and peers to other business units with a strict no weapons in premises policy for 2-3 days so to be "found out" would be dismissal from a job that pays too well to leave other than of my own accord. In less words "I couldn't care less" about those states.
You can't really/possibly believe that should this pass "You or I" will receive an "Oh, please excuse me sir for stopping you I did not realize you had a firearms permit from South Dakota, thank you for visiting us and have a great day" from the LEO's of Chicago, NYC or Jersey City!

By the way my permit is honored in Washington state as well as the 36 others.

Folks as I have stated through all the various threads on this subject "I" do not want the Fed's involved in this and the fact that there are states out there with 30 plus agreements demonstrates beyond a doubt it can and is being accomplished. There is no fast easy way around it by a Federal shortcut, override, mandate or whatever you want to call it...that, "I" believe, will backfire rearing it's ugly head ultimately as more gun control. If you believe the same I urge you to call, write and/or e-mail your Federal legislators with a simple "Thanks, but no thanks." This is a states rights issue.

[Hopyard]

In less words "I couldn't care less" about those states.
You can't really/possibly believe that should this pass "You or I" will receive an "Oh, please excuse me sir for stopping you I did not realize you had a firearms permit from South Dakota, thank you for visiting us and have a great day" from the LEO's of Chicago, NYC or Jersey City!

Maybe not, but you'd have the law on your side. Meanwhile I don't know that they are disobeying LEOSA, so there's a chance they'd obey this.

As for I-81, I'm not as fortunate as you are. My license won't help me in WV, and I can't even begin to figure out where the Maryland part is. Why the heck should any of us risk our freedom on such a screwy arrangement when there is a fairly straight forward fix?

As doghandler suggested in post #185, I'm uninterested in establishing some new utopia. I just want to go about my business without unnecessary gotchyas along the way.

Oh btw Jem-- how do you handle that 11 minutes in Maryland? Do you break the law and just stay armed? Do you stop somewhere before the border and lock it up? How the heck do you know where to stop and lock it away? I know my Garmin doesn't show that state line. Nor my Google maps on my iPhone. By the time you see the "welcome to" sign you are screwed. I almost have to lock it up in Roanoke and keep it there till Harrisburg. Ridiculous.

[jem102]

[QUOTE=Pistology;2037687]

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.

The woman had incredible insight! I find Atlas Shrugged more poignant every day!

[jem102]

Oh btw Jem-- how do you handle that 11 minutes in Maryland? Do you break the law and just stay armed? Do you stop somewhere before the border and lock it up? How the heck do you know where to stop and lock it away? I know my Garmin doesn't show that state line. Nor my Google maps on my iPhone. By the time you see the "welcome to" sign you are screwed. I almost have to lock it up in Roanoke and keep it there till Harrisburg. Ridiculous.

It is against forum rules to discuss and/or ask about deliberately breaking the the law as I interpret rule #10. So my statement "and we can each make our own choice as to operative condition while crossing."
As you approach the end of WV north bound you will see on your left a rest stop for south bound traffic. Shortly after you are on a long bridge/overpass slightly uphill. MD is on the other side of the bridge for all practical intent and purpose and you can't see the, pardon the phrase, "Welcome to MD" until you are on top of it. There is no place to stop on the bridge so your operative condition must be decided by the time you pass the south bound rest area as there is a mile or two where you can still pull over safely. IIRC that section of MD is posted 60 MPH so at 58-59 MPH it takes just under 11 minutes to cross. At the 12 minute mark you are across the Mason/Dixon onto PA turf one mile after that is State Line Road exit and one more mile brings you to the first PA north bound rest area. A good place to stop and assess one's operational readiness if one should so desire and crack open the thermos for a hot java. About 14 minutes in all.

[oakchas]

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.

The woman had incredible insight! I find Atlas Shrugged more poignant every day!

Greenspan was a "Randian." An honest to goodness member of "The Collective" = Ayn's own little inner circle... and he nearly crushed the economy... I don't care for Randian theory so much anymore...

[oakchas]

And more on the topic of the thread, the anti's have a voice in the matter:


post-gazette editorial

[rgbiker]

As usual, another article full of bunk from the Pittsburgh Post-gazette.... and from Mark Glaze, director of Mayors Against Illegal Guns:

Pennsylvania happens to have rigorous requirements," Mr. Glaze said. "This would compel the state to let those people who don't qualify still carry guns on their person, in their cars and communities.

Pennsylvania has no mandatory License To Carry (LTC) weapon training program and does recognize CCW permits from 25 states.

[jem102]

Greenspan was a "Randian." An honest to goodness member of "The Collective" = Ayn's own little inner circle... and he nearly crushed the economy... I don't care for Randian theory so much anymore...

It's the same as all the issues we discuss here you take what has merit. I find astounding value and clarity in some of her writings, in others her non American upbringing shows an overt cynicism for "our way" but I don't throw the baby out with the bath water.
I was not aware of Greenspan's close connection to her but never heard him espouse anything related to her.

[Pistology]

Albeit a hassle, good, practical advice on crossing the state line between WV and PA via MD, jem102.

I'm with Hopyard on this. As a supporting member of both the NRA and the Iowa Firearms Coalition I support their pro stance on this Bill.

I didn't sign up with either to fight for a new Utopia, but rather to get things straightened out.

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.

Same old "Utopia" as recognized in 1776 with ammendments ratified in 1791 to guarantee natural rights and to which Congress members swear an oath.

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

Not their finest hours are they?

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

The world is not enough. Without getting too politically OT, our national debt and recurring shutdown crisis is evidence that Congress' movers and shakers are failing to "make [their] way in the world that exists". Principles and ideas - or lack thereof - are manifest and have consequences.

You settle for the world, and I'll sleep better with my principles.

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.

All that glistens is not gold.

Greenspan was a "Randian." An honest to goodness member of "The Collective" = Ayn's own little inner circle... and he nearly crushed the economy... I don't care for Randian theory so much anymore...

It is true that Greenspan was a Randian protege and has candidly admitted mistakes. But for he - even in concert with Bush - to "nearly crush the economy" isn't realistic.

Amid a financial crisis rooted in mortgage lending, Mr. Greenspan said he had been wrong to think banks' ability to assess risk and their self-interest would protect them from excesses. But the former Fed chairman, who kept short-term interest rates at 1% for a year earlier this decade, said no one could have predicted the collapse of the housing boom and the financial disaster that followed. - WSJ - OCTOBER 24, 2008.

It's cruel irony that Congress is accusing Greenspan of failing to prevent "irresponsible lending practices" while Congress mismanages our economy such that our biggest expenditure is interest on our debt, don't you think?

Compare the shame that we are leaving our posterity with the shining victory the founders left to theirs.

Let's see the forest, be responsible, oppose HR 822, and abolish prohibitions of our natural rights - as the founders demonstrated for us, their posterity - and not wallow in legal compromise that we have the right to rise above.

[Hopyard]

And more on the topic of the thread, the anti's have a voice in the matter:


post-gazette editorial

Yeah, amazing. Antis and our participants on the same side of the issue against the interests of the vast
numbers of CHL holders who just want to be able to go about their business without undue legal risk.