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 livewire9880 My point is that you and I agree on this even though we are doing it from opposite sides of the ...

Page 7 of 18 FirstFirst ... 3456789101117 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 105 of 257
Like Tree81Likes

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

  1. #91
    Ex Member Array azchevy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Oceanfront Property
    Posts
    3,850
    Quote Originally Posted by livewire9880 View Post
    My point is that you and I agree on this even though we are doing it from opposite sides of the spectrum.



    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.




    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.
    The last time this was decided on ( concealed carry) was in 1897....

    Robertson v. Baldwin

    "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."

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #92
    VIP Member Array livewire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    2,048
    Quote Originally Posted by azchevy View Post
    The last time this was decided on ( concealed carry) was in 1897....
    If I had a TARDIS, I would go back to the time the Bill of Rights was written, and tell them to be a little more clear.

    I'm not wholly against the CCW process... I am against "Shall Issue" laws, and I believe that Art4/Sec1 of the main Constitution demands national reciprocity...

  4. #93
    Ex Member Array azchevy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Oceanfront Property
    Posts
    3,850
    Someone needs to sue Illinois and California and get this concealed carry issue to the supreme court while we still have a 5-4 margin.....

  5. #94
    Distinguished Member Array Stubborn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Tampa Fl
    Posts
    1,530
    Quote Originally Posted by livewire9880 View Post

    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.
    Many Senators that "claim" to be pro-gun in general are truly anything but...when you examine their voting records. Especially with respect to them confirming the last two Supreme Court Justices, who were both decidedly anti-gun. You can't have it both ways.
    If you are truly pro-gun, you wouldn't vote to confirm anti-gun Justices to the highest court in the land.
    "The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it".
    Thomas Jefferson

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

  6. #95
    Distinguished Member Array Stubborn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Tampa Fl
    Posts
    1,530
    Quote Originally Posted by livewire9880 View Post
    If I had a TARDIS, I would go back to the time the Bill of Rights was written, and tell them to be a little more clear.

    I'm not wholly against the CCW process... I am against "Shall Issue" laws, and I believe that Art4/Sec1 of the main Constitution demands national reciprocity...
    Do you hear yourself??? How much more clear could it be than "shall not be infringed" and listed second only to free speech.
    "The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it".
    Thomas Jefferson

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

  7. #96
    Ex Member Array azchevy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Oceanfront Property
    Posts
    3,850
    Quote Originally Posted by Stubborn View Post
    Do you hear yourself??? How much more clear could it be than "shall not be infringed" and listed second only to free speech.
    The problem is we live in a country where some of the biggest violators of the second amendment are glorified in movies and books such as the Earp brothers.
    Hopyard likes this.

  8. #97
    VIP Member Array livewire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    2,048
    Quote Originally Posted by Stubborn View Post
    Do you hear yourself??? How much more clear could it be than "shall not be infringed" and listed second only to free speech.
    Easy... the militia clause should be separated by a period, not a comma. That's caused more argument than anything else. Anti's argue that he "Militia" was the "Army" at the time, and the 2a just meant that the government could arm the military. It's not true, but it's commonly parroted...
    Last edited by livewire; September 14th, 2011 at 06:22 PM. Reason: Clarification
    shooterX likes this.

  9. #98
    Member Array CountryGal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Roanoke, VA
    Posts
    70
    Quote Originally Posted by rmilchman View Post
    My understanding is that someone from PA would be able to carry in NJ (NJ is a may issue state). Me being a NJ resident, would never be able to carry in NJ as NJ doesn't actually issue permits.
    That would be a total bummer! Maybe it's time to move. ;)

  10. #99
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,546
    Quote Originally Posted by rmilchman View Post
    My understanding is that someone from PA would be able to carry in NJ (NJ is a may issue state). Me being a NJ resident, would never be able to carry in NJ as NJ doesn't actually issue permits.
    The benefit to you will come indirectly. Because, actually, NJ does issue permits (rarely, when they run out of excuses). So, what will happen is folks from other states such as PA will enter NJ carrying, and sooner or later your legislature will figure out that blood isn't running in the streets, the barbarians are already in the gates and they are really good guys, and they will start to issue Jersey permits more readily.

    I hope you support the bill. It not benefiting you directly is no excuse to deny its benefits to the very many people it would help.
    Brass63 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

  11. #100
    Senior Member Array rmilchman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    780
    I do support it, just find it ironic how it works out for me.

  12. #101
    VIP Member
    Array ksholder's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    3,884
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    The benefit to you will come indirectly. Because, actually, NJ does issue permits (rarely, when they run out of excuses). So, what will happen is folks from other states such as PA will enter NJ carrying, and sooner or later your legislature will figure out that blood isn't running in the streets, the barbarians are already in the gates and they are really good guys, and they will start to issue Jersey permits more readily.

    I hope you support the bill. It not benefiting you directly is no excuse to deny its benefits to the very many people it would help.
    Hop - I think it will be more like this. As far as I know, there is nothing in the provision that would keep people from getting a FL or UT permit and carrying under than even in their home state. Since FL & UT will be getting all the $$$ for the permits, NJ and other states that are currently less than inviting will figure they need to get their share of the pie.
    It's the Land of Opportunity, not the Land of Entitlements - Vote America!!!

    "When governments fear the people there is liberty. When the people fear the government there is tyranny." Thomas Jefferson

    You are only paranoid until you are right - then you are a visionary.

  13. #102
    Senior Member Array sdprof's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Near the Black Hills of SD
    Posts
    968
    Quote Originally Posted by ksholder View Post
    Hop - I think it will be more like this. As far as I know, there is nothing in the provision that would keep people from getting a FL or UT permit and carrying under than even in their home state. Since FL & UT will be getting all the $$$ for the permits, NJ and other states that are currently less than inviting will figure they need to get their share of the pie.
    Actually, there is something that will prevent your scenario.
    ...in any State, other than the State of residence of the person, that...
    So there's no direct benefit to NJ, NY, CA residents. But as noted previously, the pressure may mount for those states to actually issue to residents.
    ~~~~~
    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.

  14. #103
    VIP Member Array paramedic70002's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Franklin, VA
    Posts
    5,119
    The thing about comparing illegal guns to illegal cars, an illegal car gets you a ticket. An illegal gun gets you a long term relationship with Lou Lovin at the Grey Bar Hotel.
    "Each worker carried his sword strapped to his side." Nehemiah 4:18

    Guns Save Lives. Paramedics Save Lives. But...
    Paramedics With Guns Scare People!

  15. #104
    Member Array JJVP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    493
    Quote Originally Posted by Stubborn View Post
    So how would the bill deal with a state like New Jersey? If the bill passed, you could travel through New Jersey with your (permited weapon from another state) but with Jersey"s outlawing Hollow point ammo for civilians, could you carry your weapon with your SD rounds in it, or would you have to stop at the state line and unload your weapon, throw away the HP rounds and reload with ball or FMJ???
    Seems to me it would be hard to pass a bill like this, without standardizing the laws from state to state.
    No difference if your state has reciprocity with NJ. You still have to abide by the laws of NJ while being there.
    Hopyard likes this.

  16. #105
    Member Array JJVP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    493
    Quote Originally Posted by Stubborn View Post
    Do you hear yourself??? How much more clear could it be than "shall not be infringed" and listed second only to free speech.
    I would re-write something like this, which I believe is what they intended to say.

    "A well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State. The right of the individual people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed should it become necessary for the people to defend themselves against the militia or against other individuals."

Page 7 of 18 FirstFirst ... 3456789101117 ... 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.