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 No state to state standardization would be needed. And we don't even have that with traffic laws. Thats true we don't, ...

Page 6 of 18 FirstFirst ... 234567891016 ... LastLast
Results 76 to 90 of 257
Like Tree81Likes

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

  1. #76
    Distinguished Member Array Stubborn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Tampa Fl
    Posts
    1,530
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    No state to state standardization would be needed. And we don't even have that with traffic laws.
    Thats true we don't, but motor vehicles are not legal in one state and not another. If you wish to equate gun laws to traffic laws, then we must equate firearms to motor vehicles. If your Ford has 300 horsepower and is legal in Texas but the state of Oklahoma outlawed any vehicle with more than 250 horsepower wouldn't it be akin to no magazine cap laws in Texas and 10 max mag laws in New York?
    Wouldn't you have to plan your trip by going around Oklahoma?
    "The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it".
    Thomas Jefferson

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #77
    VIP Member Array livewire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    2,052
    Quote Originally Posted by Stubborn View Post
    Thats true we don't, but motor vehicles are not legal in one state and not another. If you wish to equate gun laws to traffic laws, then we must equate firearms to motor vehicles. If your Ford has 300 horsepower and is legal in Texas but the state of Oklahoma outlawed any vehicle with more than 250 horsepower wouldn't it be akin to no magazine cap laws in Texas and 10 max mag laws in New York?
    Wouldn't you have to plan your trip by going around Oklahoma?
    Doesn't California have some funny laws defining "Street Legal" vehicles?

    I think I remember a friend of mine getting a ticket for not having the right bumper because it was legal in Nevada (where he lived) and not in California, or something.

  4. #78
    VIP Member Array Hiram25's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Wyoming, DE
    Posts
    11,043
    Should work just like your driver's license, honored by all States!
    CountryGal likes this.
    Hiram25
    You can educate ignorance, you can't fix stupid
    Retired DE Trooper, SA XD40 SC, S&W 2" Airweight
    dukalmighty & Pure Kustom Black Ops Pro "Trooper" Holsters, DE CCDW and LEOSA Permits, Vietnam Vet 68-69 Pleiku

  5. #79
    Distinguished Member Array Stubborn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Tampa Fl
    Posts
    1,530
    Quote Originally Posted by livewire9880 View Post
    I see where you get your nickname from
    Would you prefer me to change it to Wishy-Washy. LOL


    He gave you one example. How about mine? My girlfriend's family is based mostly in Northern California. A bunch of them have moved to Oregon (where I have a nonres permit, which you can't get if you're not in a neighboring state), where I can carry to and through, but once I hit the California state line, I'm not legal anymore.

    Or my other one... I'm supposed to be going to Hawaii in November.

    Sure, I can evade going through most non-ccw states if my destination allows CCW, but what if you have to do business or family things in a non-ccw state?
    If I read and understand the bill correctly, the states that do not issue concealed carry permits would not have to honor another states permit simply upon passage of this bill.
    So that knocks out Illinois and Hawaii.
    "The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it".
    Thomas Jefferson

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

  6. #80
    VIP Member Array livewire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    2,052
    Quote Originally Posted by Stubborn View Post
    If I read and understand the bill correctly, the states that do not issue concealed carry permits would not have to honor another states permit simply upon passage of this bill.
    So that knocks out Illinois and Hawaii.
    Hawaii issues CCW permits. It's a lot like California or New York... you can get a permit if you're famous, rich enough for the right bribes, or politically connected. Illinois is out, for the time being, but they're alone.

  7. #81
    Distinguished Member Array Stubborn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Tampa Fl
    Posts
    1,530
    I just found and copied it from the bill...

    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.
    So a non CCW state will remain a non CCW state regardless of HR 822
    "The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it".
    Thomas Jefferson

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

  8. #82
    VIP Member Array livewire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    2,052
    Quote Originally Posted by Stubborn View Post
    I just found and copied it from the bill...
    Okay... so if I have valid "government issued" identification and a valid concealed carry permit, I can carry to any state that issues concealed carry permits or doesn't prohibit CCW, so long as I meet the current federal requirements to purchase a firearm in the first place.

    And yet you still have an issue with this. Why?

  9. #83
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,657
    Quote Originally Posted by Stubborn View Post
    Even with passage of the bill you would still have issues. The NYC ban (without special permit) would remain in place. The only way around it (pun intended) would be to change your route through NY state rather than NYC. That would cure your West Virginia issue, also your New Jersey issue and as you stated you could resolve your Ct. issue with a non-resident permit.

    So as I see it you could alleviate your problems with a hundred mile or so re-route of your trip, and the acquisition of a Connecticut non-resident CCW permit.
    Then the rest of us wouldn't have to bow down and kiss the politicians butts and beg them to pass a bill we don't like, and don't want, just so YOU won't be inconvienced on your trips.

    As I see it here sir, the main difference between you and me, is that you trust the government and I don't.
    Not quite. There is a difference between having your gun concealed on your person throughout the trip, and having it locked in the trunk, unloaded, as you go through the various places where you are not allowed to have it.

    It is unclear that this law would not require NYC to honor it as well, since it is a political subdivision of NY and it issues licenses; they won't want to follow it, and they will test it, they do that with FOPA too all the time, but one hard nut doesn't mean the law is valueless.

    As it is I do manage to avoid both NJ and NYC thanks to some good advice from Gasmitty about how to do it.

    As for this, " As I see it here sir, the main difference between you and me, is that you trust the government and I don't , "

    Indeed I trust my government. I am a patriotic American. I believe that our government is generally operating exactly as it was designed to operate. Every citizen has multiple avenues to redress their complains. We have individual suffrage, we have the right to contact any official we wish with our complaints. We can publish them widely thanks to the net. We can demonstrate if we wish to. And if the offense against us is serious we can have it litigated, or we can join with many others who share the complaint and have it litigated as a class. We can also convince our state to litigate certain matters for us; as often happens, though these usually involve large
    corporate grievances against Uncle rather than the grievance of the individual.

    In short, I might get really annoyed about one issue or another, indeed angry, but I don't think Uncle is out to get me or any other ordinary person who is reasonably prudent in attempting to obey the laws.
    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

  10. #84
    VIP Member Array livewire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    2,052
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    Not quite. There is a difference between having your gun concealed on your person throughout the trip, and having it locked in the trunk, unloaded, as you go through the various places where you are not allowed to have it.

    It is unclear that this law would not require NYC to honor it as well, since it is a political subdivision of NY and it issues licenses; they won't want to follow it, and they will test it, they do that with FOPA too all the time, but one hard nut doesn't mean the law is valueless.

    As it is I do manage to avoid both NJ and NYC thanks to some good advice from Gasmitty about how to do it.

    As for this, " As I see it here sir, the main difference between you and me, is that you trust the government and I don't , "

    Indeed I trust my government. I am a patriotic American. I believe that our government is generally operating exactly as it was designed to operate. Every citizen has multiple avenues to redress their complains. We have individual suffrage, we have the right to contact any official we wish with our complaints. We can publish them widely thanks to the net. We can demonstrate if we wish to. And if the offense against us is serious we can have it litigated, or we can join with many others who share the complaint and have it litigated as a class. We can also convince our state to litigate certain matters for us; as often happens, though these usually involve large
    corporate grievances against Uncle rather than the grievance of the individual.

    In short, I might get really annoyed about one issue or another, indeed angry, but I don't think Uncle is out to get me or any other ordinary person who is reasonably prudent in attempting to obey the laws.

    And there goes my agreement with Hopyard

    I don't trust the Government as far as I can throw them, yet I support this bill. Why? Because it reduces the scope of an infringement on a right that "Shall not be infringed". The point is that our governments (at the state level) are encroaching on our enumerated right to keep and bear arms. Sure, the Federal government does it (lets not forget the NFA, after all), but many of the states are FAR worse offenders. This puts them in check, as the Federal government is supposed to do.

  11. #85
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,657
    Quote Originally Posted by Stubborn View Post
    Thats true we don't, but motor vehicles are not legal in one state and not another. If you wish to equate gun laws to traffic laws, then we must equate firearms to motor vehicles. If your Ford has 300 horsepower and is legal in Texas but the state of Oklahoma outlawed any vehicle with more than 250 horsepower wouldn't it be akin to no magazine cap laws in Texas and 10 max mag laws in New York?
    Wouldn't you have to plan your trip by going around Oklahoma?
    Yes, and that could certainly happen. There are modifications to a vehicle you can make say in TX which would make your car illegal if you drove to CA. As a practical matter they will leave you alone, but you will still be driving an illegal vehicle. And knowing this, you are able to drive to CA with a CA legal vehicle. By analogy, if I know that CA does not permit certain types of pistols, nothing prevents me from bringing a revolver.

    You seem to be looking for something perfect, something utopian. Many here think our Supremes are someday going to come to our rescue. Ain't going to happen folks. So, take the best law you can get instead of the perfect law you ain't gonna get.
    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. #86
    Distinguished Member Array Stubborn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Tampa Fl
    Posts
    1,530
    The issue I have with it, is the Federal Government getting involved with what is truly a state vs state matter.
    I don't trust the Feds as far as I can spit. Especially with a President promising Sarah Brady "under the radar" gun control.
    He is now and has always been RABID anti-gun. Anytime your enemy offers to willingly give ground, you better be alert for tricks and traps.

    Understand, I am not against reciprocity, but I feel it is best left to the states. I don't want the Fed in anything it doesn't absolutely have to be in.
    "The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it".
    Thomas Jefferson

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

  13. #87
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,657
    Quote Originally Posted by livewire9880 View Post
    And there goes my agreement with Hopyard

    I don't trust the Government as far as I can throw them, yet I support this bill. Why? Because it reduces the scope of an infringement on a right that "Shall not be infringed". The point is that our governments (at the state level) are encroaching on our enumerated right to keep and bear arms. Sure, the Federal government does it (lets not forget the NFA, after all), but many of the states are FAR worse offenders. This puts them in check, as the Federal government is supposed to do.
    Look, we agree on the need for the law and we agree on the reason why it is needed--"it reduces the scope of an infringement on a right."

    The other stuff, about trusting or not trusting our government is really off topic and is a much broader social-historical matter. The objections many here raise seem to run along the following illogical lines: They say in effect, "I don't trust the Federal Government, and therefore I don't want them to pass this law even if it would do me some immediate good." That is IMO, totally irrational.
    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. #88
    Distinguished Member Array Stubborn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Tampa Fl
    Posts
    1,530
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    Yes, and that could certainly happen. There are modifications to a vehicle you can make say in TX which would make your car illegal if you drove to CA. As a practical matter they will leave you alone, but you will still be driving an illegal vehicle. And knowing this, you are able to drive to CA with a CA legal vehicle. By analogy, if I know that CA does not permit certain types of pistols, nothing prevents me from bringing a revolver.

    You seem to be looking for something perfect, something utopian. Many here think our Supremes are someday going to come to our rescue. Ain't going to happen folks. So, take the best law you can get instead of the perfect law you ain't gonna get.
    No Sir...I do not believe the Supreme Court will come to our rescue, I believe quite the contrary, both MacDonald and Heller were 5-4 votes. One more left leaning Justice and we will see our gun rights begin to dwindle with every case they look at.

    I am not looking for utopia, I'm just looking for something to come at state level not federal level.
    You worked for the Federal Government, you may trust them but I don't.
    "The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it".
    Thomas Jefferson

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

  15. #89
    Distinguished Member Array Stubborn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Tampa Fl
    Posts
    1,530
    Honestly at this point, we're like two fleas arguing over which one owns the dog we're riding. I don't believe for one minute that our overwhelmingly anti-gun Senate will pass this bill, if it passes the House. (looks like it will) Nor do I believe for less than that minute that our rabidly anti-gun POTUS would sign it into law, if by a miracle it got through the Senate.

    You've made your side clear, and I've made my side clear. Obviously we're not going to change each others minds, so we might as well agree to disagree and nod at each other and move on.
    "The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it".
    Thomas Jefferson

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

  16. #90
    VIP Member Array livewire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    2,052
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    Look, we agree on the need for the law and we agree on the reason why it is needed--"it reduces the scope of an infringement on a right."

    The other stuff, about trusting or not trusting our government is really off topic and is a much broader social-historical matter. The objections many here raise seem to run along the following illogical lines: They say in effect, "I don't trust the Federal Government, and therefore I don't want them to pass this law even if it would do me some immediate good." That is IMO, totally irrational.
    My point is that you and I agree on this even though we are doing it from opposite sides of the spectrum.

    Quote Originally Posted by Stubborn View Post
    The issue I have with it, is the Federal Government getting involved with what is truly a state vs state matter.
    I don't trust the Feds as far as I can spit. Especially with a President promising Sarah Brady "under the radar" gun control.

    He is now and has always been RABID anti-gun. Anytime your enemy offers to willingly give ground, you better be alert for tricks and traps.

    Understand, I am not against reciprocity, but I feel it is best left to the states. I don't want the Fed in anything it doesn't absolutely have to be in.
    Here's where, IMHO, you're wrong. This is NOT a state issue. This is a Federal issue. Even more, it's a Constitutionally defined Federal issue.

    As far as your comment about Obama... I agree 100%. But remember, the one great thing about him being President as opposed to being a Senator is that he doesn't write legislation anymore. "under the radar" means that he'll be trying to get gun control pushed through as executive orders, through the Justice Department, even through trade agreements, not in pro-gun bills in the Legislature.


    Quote Originally Posted by Stubborn View Post
    Honestly at this point, we're like two fleas arguing over which one owns the dog we're riding. I don't believe for one minute that our overwhelmingly anti-gun Senate will pass this bill, if it passes the House. (looks like it will) Nor do I believe for less than that minute that our rabidly anti-gun POTUS would sign it into law, if by a miracle it got through the Senate.
    I wouldn't call our Senate "overwhelmingly anti-gun", about 3/4 of Republicans are pro-gun, and about half of Democrats. I think it might pass, and if it hits Obama's desk, I don't think he has much of a choice but to sign it. If he vetoed it, he would be guaranteeing a loss not only for himself in 2012, but a lot of the remaining Democratic Senators and Representatives... Especially after this whole "Fast and Furious" debacle.

Page 6 of 18 FirstFirst ... 234567891016 ... 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.