Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Legislation goes to the US Senate. - Page 11

Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Legislation goes to the US Senate.

This is a discussion on Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Legislation goes to the US Senate. within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; The law should be written so as to protect people who have a carry permit when they travel, and be all inclusive as it can ...

Page 11 of 12 FirstFirst ... 789101112 LastLast
Results 151 to 165 of 174
Like Tree48Likes

Thread: Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Legislation goes to the US Senate.

  1. #151
    Member Array swmft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    miami,Fl, usa
    Posts
    178
    The law should be written so as to protect people who have a carry permit when they travel, and be all inclusive as it can be under Commerce act, that way NYC would also not have a say.
    Better 12 judging than 6 carrying


  2. #152
    VIP Member Array livewire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    2,054
    Quote Originally Posted by swmft View Post
    The law should be written so as to protect people who have a carry permit when they travel, and be all inclusive as it can be under Commerce act, that way NYC would also not have a say.
    Hmm... that sounds dangerous, maybe more detail would be helpful. How would you envision that being implemented?
    There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap - ballot - jury - ammo

    “The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie: deliberate, continued, and dishonest; but the myth: persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.”
    -- John F. Kennedy

  3. #153
    Senior Member Array rmilchman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    792
    I'm worried that if the law passes I will be out of luck. Living in NJ I can't get a permit from my state so I have the FL permit. One of the bills stated that the permit had to be from the state of residence. If that's the case i think I would loose my ability to CC anywhere.
    Glock Armorer

  4. #154
    VIP Member Array livewire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    2,054
    Quote Originally Posted by rmilchman View Post
    I'm worried that if the law passes I will be out of luck. Living in NJ I can't get a permit from my state so I have the FL permit. One of the bills stated that the permit had to be from the state of residence. If that's the case i think I would loose my ability to CC anywhere.
    The way it passed, and the way it's being presented to the Senate, a nonresident permit will be valid in any state that honors any CCW except your own. So your FL permit will be valid in 48 states for you, as NJ still won't be obligated to honor it.
    Last edited by livewire; March 22nd, 2012 at 01:31 PM. Reason: Counting states fail
    There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap - ballot - jury - ammo

    “The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie: deliberate, continued, and dishonest; but the myth: persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.”
    -- John F. Kennedy

  5. #155
    Senior Member Array rmilchman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    792
    Quote Originally Posted by livewire9880 View Post
    The way it passed, and the way it's being presented to the Senate, a nonresident permit will be valid in any state that honors any CCW except your own. So your FL permit will be valid in 47 states for you, as NJ still won't be obligated to honor it.
    I'm hoping your correct.
    Glock Armorer

  6. #156
    VIP Member Array livewire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    2,054
    Quote Originally Posted by rmilchman View Post
    I'm hoping your correct.
    Here's the actual relevant text of the bill:

    Text of S.2188 as Introduced in Senate: National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2012
    ‘(b) Authorization- Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof, and except as provided in subsection (c), an eligible individual 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 eligible individual, 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.
    There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap - ballot - jury - ammo

    “The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie: deliberate, continued, and dishonest; but the myth: persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.”
    -- John F. Kennedy

  7. #157
    Senior Member Array rmilchman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    792
    Thanks livewire9880.
    Glock Armorer

  8. #158
    VIP Member
    Array Pistology's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    South Coast LA Cty
    Posts
    2,190
    Quote Originally Posted by livewire9880 View Post
    The Constitution is full of authority to do this... hell, if we really look at it, the constitution does this. The 2nd Amendment, the infamous "Commerce Clause", Article 4: Section 1, the 10th Amendment, the whole bloody thing. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is in our Constitution for a reason.
    Your low regard for the Constitution is showing.

    Quote Originally Posted by accessbob View Post
    I do not see it as a conspiracy to kill more rights, but perhaps you are right.
    .... [Y]ou are throwing the baby out with the bath water. Study or no study, this can open things up immensely and could generate even more momentum for people to pester their legislators for more or to keep their hands off.
    "Baby out with the bathwater" vs trojan horse nose under the tent. There is no legitimate Constitutional authority under 822's citation, the Commerce clause, to support this bill. 822/2188 is a potential law. What laws directly "give you rights" and don't have expansive powers of enforcement? You're falling for the government Santa Clause.

    Quote Originally Posted by accessbob View Post
    But as I said, it is the FUTURE legislation which is to be watchful of. This here does not put into law anything more than making it more uniform across the states.....
    In 1913, the Sixteenth Amendment gave us a permanent federal income tax. That year, the lowest tax bracket was 1 percent on income over $5,000 (about $110K today) - truly a "What's the harm? Rich man's" tax. Courts find Constitutional authority to levy taxes but wouldn't if there were no "conditions" or cases to test the monstrous income tax system of today. As Will Rogers said: “The difference between death and taxes is death doesn't get worse every time Congress meets.”
    Another example is, on its inception in 1965, Medicare's projection of 1990 costs was $12B. It was actually $110B.
    Some of us are drawing the line on federal encroachment.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    Just one quick remark on constitutionality. Too much is made by opponents to the notion that this 822 somehow rides on the "evil" commerce clause. It doesn't. It rests on the "necessary and proper" clause.

    The Federal Government has the right to make laws which are necessary and proper to accomplish its purposes. In this instance, the purpose is very much strengthening 2A, which after the last round of court opinions vis-a-vi "incorporation" of 2A under the provisions of the 14th, is very much a proper thing for the Federal Government to do.

    There is no serious constitutional or state's right objection to 822 that comes even close to being reasonable. Sorry if that opinion is going to sound harsh to some, but just as Uncle (via Congress) is beholden to hold the feet of the states to the fire on Miranda and police interrogations, it is obligated to hold the feet of the states to the fire on the "carry" portion of 2A.

    822 goes in that direction while some of our many courts continue to weasel word their way around the word "bear" The House has spoken, and I hope The Senate
    concurs, and The President signs the bill into law.

    IMO 822 is 120% necessary and proper.
    Hopyard, the bill, 822, was passed and sent to the Senate under a cite of authority of, "Article I, Section 8, Clause 3, Commerce Clause". That simply says:
    "Article I, Section 8, Clause 3:[2]

    [The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;
    The Commerce Clause Power is often amplified by the Necessary and Proper Clause which states this Commerce Clause power, and all of the other enumerated powers, may be implemented by the power "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." The Necessary and Proper Clause is the final clause of Article I, section 8. However, the Constitution is clearer about the role of the Congress vis-a-vis interstate commerce in Article I, Section 9, Clauses 1, 5 and 6, though the interpretation of Section 8 and Section 9 could depend on the circumstances presented by specific cases. - Wikipedia
    This use of the Commerce clause just highlights 822's ramshackle design.

    States have the power to reciprocate, and I, for one, am not arguing for any states' rights.
    TX expat 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)

  9. #159
    VIP Member Array livewire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    2,054
    Quote Originally Posted by Pistology View Post
    In 1913, the Sixteenth Amendment gave us a permanent federal income tax. That year, the lowest tax bracket was 1 percent on income over $5,000 (about $110K today). Courts find Constitutional authority to levy taxes but wouldn't if there were no "conditions" or cases to test the monstrous income tax system of today. As Will Rogers said: “The difference between death and taxes is death doesn't get worse every time Congress meets.”

    Another example is, on its inception in 1965, Medicare's projection of 1990 costs was $12B. It was actually $110B.
    Both of these are budgetary items where one bad thing* was expanded to make a bigger bad thing. One of them is a Constitutional Amendment. You're not comparing apples to apples here. More like comparing apples to salmon.

    * depending on how you define "Bad" I suppose...
    There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap - ballot - jury - ammo

    “The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie: deliberate, continued, and dishonest; but the myth: persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.”
    -- John F. Kennedy

  10. #160
    VIP Member
    Array Pistology's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    South Coast LA Cty
    Posts
    2,190
    Just giving examples of the composition of the road to hell to show how the definition changes from "good" to "bad". But that is for many of the supporters of these federal tricks. The politicians pushing such agendas know just what lies beneath the candy coating - aggrandizement of federal powers.

    To expound on my healthcare example, today, two-thirds of total health care in the U.S. is through the federal budget. Federal spending for health care totaled more than $600 billion in 2005, or roughly one quarter of the federal budget (U.S. Office of Management and Budget). And our government health care is far from the best in the world.

    And it isn't only the health care budget that's expanding. It's the entire federal government. One would have to be blind not to see it. Pity those without the resources.
    TX expat 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)

  11. #161
    VIP Member Array livewire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    2,054
    Quote Originally Posted by Pistology View Post
    Just giving examples of the composition of the road to hell to show how the definition changes from "good" to "bad". But that is for many of the supporters of these federal tricks. The politicians pushing such agendas know just what lies beneath the candy coating - aggrandizement of federal powers.

    To expound on my healthcare example, today, two-thirds of total health care in the U.S. is through the federal budget. Federal spending for health care totaled more than $600 billion in 2005, or roughly one quarter of the federal budget (U.S. Office of Management and Budget). And our government health care is far from the best in the world.

    And it isn't only the health care budget that's expanding. It's the entire federal government. One would have to be blind not to see it. Pity those without the resources.
    I agree with you on pretty much everything you cite as an example. I just can't connect the two things.

    Frankly, the healthcare debate doesn't belong here, but you're trying to use it as a correlation between big government taking advantage of us, and pro-gun forces managing to squeeze a bill in in spite of the current trend of shafting the population because they're bigger than us.

    The system might have it's problems, and maybe we're seeing its collapse. But we're not there yet, so we can still work within the system. This bill is an example, but you're all so gunshy (no pun intended) that you can't see a the good thing in the muck. That's what this bill is... one good shiny object in a legislative season that's full of sewage.
    There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap - ballot - jury - ammo

    “The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie: deliberate, continued, and dishonest; but the myth: persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.”
    -- John F. Kennedy

  12. #162
    VIP Member
    Array Pistology's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    South Coast LA Cty
    Posts
    2,190
    NRA's primary purpose of:
    To Protect and defend the Constitution of the United States especially with reference to the inalienable right of the individual American citizen guaranteed by such Constitution to acquire, possess, transport, carry, transfer ownership of and enjoy the right to use arms, in order that the people may always be in a position to exercise their legitimate individual rights of self preservation and defense of family, person and property, as well as to serve effectively in the appropriate militia for the common defense of the Republic and the individual liberty of its citizens.
    Isn't in evidence with support of 822/2188. NRA is promotes guns and gun "rights". Not so much a promoter of freedom. If NRA's definition of "rights" don't come from freedom then they, the "rights" and the NRA, are tainted. No thank you.
    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. #163
    VIP Member Array livewire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    2,054
    Quote Originally Posted by Pistology View Post
    NRA's primary purpose of:

    Isn't in evidence with support of 822/2188. NRA is promotes guns and gun "rights". Not so much a promoter of freedom. If NRA's definition of "rights" don't come from freedom then they, the "rights" and the NRA, are tainted. No thank you.
    Hopyard and Badey like this.
    There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap - ballot - jury - ammo

    “The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie: deliberate, continued, and dishonest; but the myth: persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.”
    -- John F. Kennedy

  14. #164
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    12,305
    Quote Originally Posted by rmilchman View Post
    I'm worried that if the law passes I will be out of luck. Living in NJ I can't get a permit from my state so I have the FL permit. One of the bills stated that the permit had to be from the state of residence. If that's the case i think I would loose my ability to CC anywhere.
    You have a valid complaint, but at the same time you will not be losing something you don't have.
    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

  15. #165
    VIP Member Array livewire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    2,054
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    You have a valid complaint, but at the same time you will not be losing something you don't have.
    He's afraid that nonresident reciprocity would go away... I.E., his Florida permit wouldn't get him what it does now. That's why I quoted the wording of the bill's relevant parts.
    Last edited by livewire; March 22nd, 2012 at 03:49 PM. Reason: one typeo changes the whole meaning...
    There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap - ballot - jury - ammo

    “The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie: deliberate, continued, and dishonest; but the myth: persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.”
    -- John F. Kennedy

Page 11 of 12 FirstFirst ... 789101112 LastLast

Remove Ads

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

concealed carry reciprocity ruling

,
jim brady quotes reciprocity
,
reciprocal gun law before seante
,
reciprocity law senate ruling
,

s.2188 --national right-to-carry reciprocity act

,

s2188 introduced in the us senate

,
senate passes u.s. reciprocity
,

senate right to carry

,

us senate ccw bill 2012

,

us senators in favor of reciprocal carry

,
what is illinous senator kirks stance on concealed carry ?
,
what states have reciprical agreements with mississippi on the right to carry law?
Click on a term to search for related topics.