House Weighs Bill to Make Gun Permits Valid Across State Lines - Page 14

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 Hopyard Yeah, amazing. Antis and our participants on the same side of the issue against the interests of the vast numbers of ...

Page 14 of 18 FirstFirst ... 4101112131415161718 LastLast
Results 196 to 210 of 257
Like Tree81Likes

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

  1. #196
    VIP Member
    Array TX expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kansas City
    Posts
    4,066
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    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.
    Heh. Well that sort of reasoning may work for your purposes but I could care less what "the Antis" think, what the NRA thinks and what anyone else thinks. I make my own decisions based on what I think. And my thought almost always comes after I've spent a significant amount of time considering the whole sum of an issue. Just because some anti-gun groups oppose something, that doesn't mean I should support it. Neither do I subscribe to the whole "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" philosophy. I realize their agenda isn't one I support; but my opposition to this particular idea, while completely different in principle, happens to align with theirs. So what. I have no illusions about the NRA either. They are in the business of making money. What they say is good today, they will use tomorrow to further their own agenda. If this were to pass into law and a year later the Fed started dropping new conditional laws on concealed carry, the NRA would fire up their "Evil Washington is out to take away your rights" machine and use it to take in more money. Just like virtually every politician, what they do today is quickly forgotten when it no longer suits their purposes. I support the NRA because their purpose is generally a good one, but I most certainly don't take what they say, or support, as gospel and blindly accept it.

    I don't agree with your "undue legal risk" assessment either. I believe this bill will do little, if anything, to ease that. If you are carrying from one state to the next, you will still need to fully understand the conditions of carry of that state, because you will subjected to prosecution under those laws, if you happen to violate any. So the CCW holder will still need to understand where they can and cannot carry. What sort of 'duty to inform' laws they may be subject to, as well as any and all other state regulations regarding CCW. So yeah, I guess you won't have to stop somewhere before you hit the WV border but you had better fully understand what you need to do if you get pulled over by the WV state troopers, or go into a bar for a bite to eat. Every state has their own set of laws that you absolutely must understand, because you are subject to those laws regardless of "national reciprocity" or not.


  2. #197
    VIP Member Array Civil_Response's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Minnesota, USA
    Posts
    2,558
    I don't see how anyone who supports gun rights could be against this unless you didn't read the bill.

  3. #198
    Ex Member Array azchevy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Oceanfront Property
    Posts
    3,850
    Quote Originally Posted by Thunder71 View Post
    I don't see how anyone who supports gun rights could be against this unless you didn't read the bill.
    I am completely happy with my state managing it and I don't want the feds involved. I just refuse to spend my tourist dollars in states that will not allow me to defend myself. No issue for me. 37 other states get my money.
    Stubborn and thephanatik like this.

  4. #199
    VIP Member
    Array TX expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kansas City
    Posts
    4,066
    Quote Originally Posted by Thunder71 View Post
    I don't see how anyone who supports gun rights could be against this unless you didn't read the bill.
    That's an easy one; I've read The Constitution (as well as HR 822).

  5. #200
    Member Array mrjam2jab's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Levittown, PA
    Posts
    427
    Now city officials are advocating canceling the reciprocity agreement with Florida.

    That's funny right there. The thing is..Philly actually THINKS they have that authority.

  6. #201
    Ex Member Array azchevy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Oceanfront Property
    Posts
    3,850
    Quote Originally Posted by TX expat View Post
    That's an easy one; I've read The Constitution (as well as HR 822).
    Like I have said before, the supreme court has made decisions on this before...

    1897 Robertson v. Baldwin: State laws restricting concealed weapons do not infringe upon the right to bear arms protected by the Federal Second Amendment.

    2008 District of Columbia v. Heller: Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues ... The majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues

    So the argument about the Constitution and such is moot and I can see states like CA and NY suing the feds under this premise.
    Hopyard likes this.

  7. #202
    VIP Member
    Array TX expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kansas City
    Posts
    4,066
    Quote Originally Posted by azchevy View Post
    Like I have said before, the supreme court has made decisions on this before...

    1897 Robertson v. Baldwin: State laws restricting concealed weapons do not infringe upon the right to bear arms protected by the Federal Second Amendment.

    2008 District of Columbia v. Heller: Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues ... The majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues

    So the argument about the Constitution and such is moot and I can see states like CA and NY suing the feds under this premise.
    Hmmm? Yeah, I understand that; what I'm saying is Congress does not have the Constitutional power to enforce HR 822 onto the states. The tests of our 2A rights is an entirely different matter.

  8. #203
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    12,081
    Quote Originally Posted by azchevy View Post
    I am completely happy with my state managing it and I don't want the feds involved. I just refuse to spend my tourist dollars in states that will not allow me to defend myself. No issue for me. 37 other states get my money.
    OK, so its summer time at your "oceanfront" property and time to cool off. You decide to drive to Vermont, a constitutional carry state as yours. You have plenty of time of a nice leisurely trip. You'll be good in NM, TX, Arkansas, MO, TN, VI. Now whatchya gonna do. How the heck do you think you can get to Vermont?

    Gonna fly instead. Oops. Gotta change planes in Newark, NJ. Or maybe fly to Logan in Boston and rent a car to drive to your destination. Ooops. Gotchya again.

    Don't think that you are immune because 37 states are good for you. That leaves 13 which aren't, and those 13 tend to be where there are major travel hubs and major intersections of the interstate highway system.

    As you have already pointed out, the supremes have spoken on the constitutional issue. That is precisely why we need national reciprocity; because that viewpoint of the supremes isn't going to change.

    I'm 68. I'll be feeding the worms long before the kind of changes some wish for take place--if they ever do.

    Meanwhile, in my remaining years I'd like to get around. I like being armed when I stop for gas and food. I like being armed in a motel with a bazillion folks I know nothing about. Not being able to go armed isn't a deal killer for me. I'll still travel. But, I recently related here an incident which almost got bad during my last trip. You just never know when trouble will find you.

    The objections voiced here tend to turn on two issues: fear of future additional restrictions and state's rights.

    Well, the first one applies regardless. Who's to say what Uncle or any state will do next legislative session.

    The state's rights issue vanishes now that 2A is unambiguously incorporated.

    The other objection raised has been that you will still need to know the local law. True, but that is pretty well limited to an issue such as notification (you can always notify to be sure if you are unsure), and restricted places. We all know where the restricted places tend to be: bars, court houses, government owned bldgs., schools. Except maybe for the restrooms @ state operated rest stops in OK, that isn't an issue for travelers on the interstate system.

    see post 197 for the summary.
    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

  9. #204
    Ex Member Array azchevy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Oceanfront Property
    Posts
    3,850
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    OK, so its summer time at your "oceanfront" property and time to cool off. You decide to drive to Vermont, a constitutional carry state as yours. You have plenty of time of a nice leisurely trip. You'll be good in NM, TX, Arkansas, MO, TN, VI. Now whatchya gonna do. How the heck do you think you can get to Vermont?

    Gonna fly instead. Oops. Gotta change planes in Newark, NJ. Or maybe fly to Logan in Boston and rent a car to drive to your destination. Ooops. Gotchya again.

    Don't think that you are immune because 37 states are good for you. That leaves 13 which aren't, and those 13 tend to be where there are major travel hubs and major intersections of the interstate highway system.

    As you have already pointed out, the supremes have spoken on the constitutional issue. That is precisely why we need national reciprocity; because that viewpoint of the supremes isn't going to change.

    I'm 68. I'll be feeding the worms long before the kind of changes some wish for take place--if they ever do.

    Meanwhile, in my remaining years I'd like to get around. I like being armed when I stop for gas and food. I like being armed in a motel with a bazillion folks I know nothing about. Not being able to go armed isn't a deal killer for me. I'll still travel. But, I recently related here an incident which almost got bad during my last trip. You just never know when trouble will find you.

    The objections voiced here tend to turn on two issues: fear of future additional restrictions and state's rights.

    Well, the first one applies regardless. Who's to say what Uncle or any state will do next legislative session.

    The state's rights issue vanishes now that 2A is unambiguously incorporated.

    The other objection raised has been that you will still need to know the local law. True, but that is pretty well limited to an issue such as notification (you can always notify to be sure if you are unsure), and restricted places. We all know where the restricted places tend to be: bars, court houses, government owned bldgs., schools. Except maybe for the restrooms @ state operated rest stops in OK, that isn't an issue for travelers on the interstate system.

    see post 197 for the summary.
    I understand your point but I would just travel to Colorado instead of Vermont. Colorado has the same type of weather, is a lot more scenic, and doesn't have half as many bugs and yankees

  10. #205
    Distinguished Member Array noway2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    1,950
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard
    The objections voiced here tend to turn on two issues: fear of future additional restrictions and state's rights. Well, the first one applies regardless. Who's to say what Uncle or any state will do next legislative session. The state's rights issue vanishes now that 2A is unambiguously incorporated.
    I would choose whether or not to support a bill based upon the content of that bill rather than on FUD of what the future might bring. Personally, I don't see how national reciprocity will come about unless it is through federal action and maybe I am being cynical. On the other hand, my state, NC as of Dec 1, will accept all other states permits. This was included in some recent legislation to extend the proverbial olive branch of national reciprocity rather than the "I'll show you mine, if you show me yours game" that is presently played.

    At the risk of showing ignorance, would someone please explain what the 2A is "unambiguously incorporated" means? It isn't a constitutional term I have heard of until this thread.

  11. #206
    VIP Member
    Array TX expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kansas City
    Posts
    4,066
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    State's rights vanishes now that interstate travel and commerce is ambiguously incorporated.
    There, I fixed your statement for you...

    Isn't it somewhat interesting that the only place the bill actually defines the individual rights that are being violated, they choose to right the wrong of "(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."...

    Sure they mention our 2A rights. Then they basically agree that the 2A rights mentioned in their finding are all subject to the each state's laws and interpretation. Nowhere in that carefully crafted wording do they come close to incorporating the Second Amendment into anything.

    Take care what you ask for here because CA, NY, IL and others could use this law to further prove that current laws expressly permit them to choose how much of the Second Amendment they are bound to.
    Pistology likes this.

  12. #207
    VIP Member Array livewire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    2,054
    Quote Originally Posted by azchevy View Post
    I understand your point but I would just travel to Colorado instead of Vermont. Colorado has the same type of weather, is a lot more scenic, and doesn't have half as many bugs and yankees

    How nice for you. I can't carry in Colorado because my state doesn't recognize CO's permit, and CO doesn't do recognition, only reciprocity. And they only honor resident permits for the states they do have reciprocity with. So even your example fails for others.

    Neither of us can carry in California, what happens if you have a reason to go there?

  13. #208
    Ex Member Array azchevy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Oceanfront Property
    Posts
    3,850
    Quote Originally Posted by livewire9880 View Post
    How nice for you. I can't carry in Colorado because my state doesn't recognize CO's permit, and CO doesn't do recognition, only reciprocity. And they only honor resident permits for the states they do have reciprocity with. So even your example fails for others.

    Neither of us can carry in California, what happens if you have a reason to go there?
    I can see California from here, and I don't go there. No sweat off my back. I move to a location that fits my lifestyle and passions. I don't live somewhere because I have to.

  14. #209
    VIP Member Array livewire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    2,054
    Quote Originally Posted by azchevy View Post
    I can see California from here, and I don't go there. No sweat off my back. I move to a location that fits my lifestyle and passions. I don't live somewhere because I have to.
    Go...not live. Obviously if you were living there, you would be applying for a resident permit there.

  15. #210
    Ex Member Array azchevy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Oceanfront Property
    Posts
    3,850
    Quote Originally Posted by livewire9880 View Post
    Go...not live. Obviously if you were living there, you would be applying for a resident permit there.
    There is no reason for me to visit california. Seriously.

Sponsored 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.