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; Which of the states which do not honor any of my three different concealed handgun licenses refuse to do so because of my lack of ...

Page 2 of 12 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 174
Like Tree48Likes

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

  1. #16
    VIP Member
    Array Mike1956's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Marion County, Ohio
    Posts
    9,061
    Which of the states which do not honor any of my three different concealed handgun licenses refuse to do so because of my lack of adequate training or questionable background?
    "Who are the ones that we kept in charge? Killers, thieves, and lawyers"

    Tom Waits, God's Away on Business

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #17
    VIP Member Array Badey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Posts
    2,555
    Quote Originally Posted by azchevy View Post
    Incorrect. Marbury v. Madison 1803. Courtesy of john Marshall.

    The Supreme Court's decisions are always final unless they agree to rehear a case, which rarely happens. The Supreme Court is the final authority on federal and constitutional law in the United States; there is no further avenue of appeal.

    There are only two ways in which a Supreme Court decision may be overturned:

    1. The Court may change its own decisions

    2. Congress and the states may effectively overrule a decision by constitutional amendment. In the case of nullified federal laws, Congress may rewrite the law to comply with constitutional requirements.

    When is the last time we had a concon?
    I wasn't saying that the court's decision wasn't final, I was saying that the justice's rulings are opinions, hence split decisions (e.g., 7 to 2, 6 to 3).

    The Supreme Court does take case on the same issue periodically... you yourself said that the Supreme Court ruled against the 2A referring to concealed carry TWICE...
    "All you need for happiness is a good gun, a good horse, and a good wife." - Daniel Boone

  4. #18
    Distinguished Member
    Array skysoldier29's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Miami Florida / Michigan
    Posts
    1,240
    I don't trust the Federal Government enough not to screw this up. It will end up that you can only carry a gun every third Monday of the month from 3:00am to 3:05am on a full moon.
    jem102 and mook012 like this.
    "Where's the kaboom? There was supposed to be an earth-shattering kaboom!" - Marvin the Martian

    Sig Sauer P250 2Sum 9mm, P250c 9mm - Glock 23 - Springfield Armory Loaded .45, XD Service 9mm - Ruger LCP, LCR, Smith & Wesson 638

    NRA Member

  5. #19
    Ex Member Array azchevy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Oceanfront Property
    Posts
    3,850
    Quote Originally Posted by Badey View Post

    The Supreme Court does take case on the same issue periodically... you yourself said that the Supreme Court ruled against the 2A referring to concealed carry TWICE...
    No, they ruled once. And the heller decision mentioned it specifically when they gave their decision regarding "reasonable restrictions". I highly suggest you sit down and take the time to read both of them. I am not saying I agree with it, I am saying it is what it is and it is on "the record books" so to say.

  6. #20
    Member Array mook012's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Lower 48
    Posts
    245
    Quote Originally Posted by adric22 View Post
    I have a question about this. I apologize if it has been asked before. If this passes and one lives in an area that by default is no-issue on permits such as San Francisco, but the state overall does have a permit program in place, does that mean one could go to a neighboring state and get a permit so that you could carry in your home town?
    NO...don't read anything into it. It simply means if you have a concealed weapons permit issued by the state you reside in, all other states must honor your concealed weapons permit, period. The same as if you have a drivers' license issuded in your home state and are pulled over in another state - that state must honor your driver's license even if it's issued in another state. BTW - cities cannot supercede state law. This just clears up any "gray" areas for people that legal;y carry concealed weapons.
    Hopyard likes this.
    " Life is tough and it gets tougher if your stupid." John Wayne.

  7. #21
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,158
    Quote Originally Posted by azchevy View Post
    Well, I see the comment, somewhat out of context, in what appears to be the text of ROBERTSON v. BALDWIN, 165 U.S. 275 (1897) but it will take someone professionally trained to explain to me how they get a citation to 165 282 into the text of the
    earlier case. And this seems to happen throughout the original text in the form of urls inserted within the body of the
    original ruling. At least that is how it appears to me.

    This, within the body appears to be commentary (whatever the legal term) and not a formal judgment on the issue, given that
    what they are discussing is abridging the seaman's rights to be free from involuntary servitude.

    "Thus, the freedom of speech and of the press ( article 1) does not permit the publication of libels, blasphemous or indecent articles, or other publications injurious to public morals or private reputation; the right of the people [165 U.S. 275, 282] to keep and bear arms (article 2) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons; the provision that no person shall be twice put in jeopardy (article 5) does not prevent a second trial, if upon the first trial the jury failed to agree, or if the verdict was set aside upon the defendant's motion (U. S. v. Ball, 163 U.S. 662, 627 , 16 S. Sup. Ct. 1192); nor does the provision of the same article that no one shall be a witness against himself impair his obligation to testify, if a prosecution against him be barred by the lapse of time, a pardon, or by statutory enactment (Brown v. Walker, 161 U.S. 591 , 16 Sup. Ct. 644, and cases cited)."

    Anyway, thanks for the link.

    We need someone like Mitchell to step up to the plate now that he has chosen to not keep us
    company.
    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

  8. #22
    Member Array 43hertz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    52
    Quote Originally Posted by mook012 View Post
    NO...don't read anything into it. It simply means if you have a concealed weapons permit issued by the state you reside in, all other states must honor your concealed weapons permit, period. The same as if you have a drivers' license issuded in your home state and are pulled over in another state - that state must honor your driver's license even if it's issued in another state. BTW - cities cannot supercede state law. This just clears up any "gray" areas for people that legal;y carry concealed weapons.
    This is completely incorrect.

    822 will not force Illinois to honor anyones license because it is illegal to CCW in Illinois.

    822 will only make states allow you to carry under their rules with any other states permit, and in Illinois their rules are that you can't at all.

    It's entirely possible that some states may curtail or otherwise change their own CCW rules, possibly even to the point of disallowing CCW altogether ( I'm looking at Wisconsin, where CCW is new and tenuous at best depending on the upcoming recall election), so that people with no training requirement don't carry in their state.

    I'm distinctly against this bill as it will give the Feds a nose under the tent towards regulating firearms in one more way than they have now.

    Fortunately, it's likely to never leave the Senate.

    We're making such good strides in so many states as it is that I'm not for letting the Feds fool with it.

    Look at where CCW was ten years ago then look at where it is today, without Fed involvement.

    I'm in it for the long gain, not the short sugar rush.

    Edit to add: there is no legal requirement that states honor each others drivers license. This is a much repeated fallacy and should really be put to rest.

    Works the same way for marriage licenses, else gay marriage would be honored in all states.
    jem102, Pistology and Stubborn like this.

  9. #23
    Member Array scott625's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    165
    I was looking for the NRA ratings of us senators or the Brady ratings of us senators. I thought this might be a good proxy for who may vote for the bill. Has anyone seem these?

  10. #24
    VIP Member Array tokerblue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    2,265
    Quote Originally Posted by Pistology View Post
    Not every pro-2A senator or constituent is for this National Reciprocity. Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA) wrote a letter to the mayor of Boston explaining his opposition to the bill on the basis of states' rights.
    - I'm all for State's rights too, except when they are against the 2nd Amendment. I also wouldn't listen to anything that a government representative says that is from one of the most weapon restrictive states in the United States.

    Some MA logic:
    • A non-resident permit is $150 PER year.
    • You have to interview in person with the state police EVERY year to renew your non-resident permit.
    • The Attorney General has an "approved" list of firearms you can buy.
    • Knife laws are town by town, with the most restrictive being 2.5", meaning you risk committing a crime if you don't know each town's ordinance.
    "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the outcome of the vote." ~ Benjamin Franklin

  11. #25
    VIP Member Array tokerblue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    2,265
    Quote Originally Posted by 43hertz View Post
    We're making such good strides in so many states as it is that I'm not for letting the Feds fool with it.
    - That may be true for every part EXCEPT the Northeast. My CT permit is recognized by 1 state out of the 14 closest states, with no sign of anything changing. The only state that will recognize my permit is VT, simply because they allow anyone to carry.

    It's disheartening that there are so many government conspiracy type gun owners. HR822 doesn't grant the Federal government control over permits. It doesn't create a Federal permit. It simply forces states to recognize permits from other states. At least read the NRA primer on the bill.
    NRA-ILA | H.R. 822 -- National Right-to-Carry Rec

    Not to mention that if the Brady Campaign is against it, all the more reason to be for it.
    mook012 likes this.
    "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the outcome of the vote." ~ Benjamin Franklin

  12. #26
    Senior Member
    Array 1911_Kimber's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    673
    I am for it... I like the idea of only having one permit and being able to carry in all states (except on those which do not offer a permit to their citizens). I have not folllowed up on Obama's stance on gun control and I looked and searched but can not find anything with a statement from Obama saying he would not support this.


    This bill is cut and dry.. If your state allows you to carry every other state that allows their citizens to carry have to honor all the other states' licenses/permits. It does not say how the states should process their permits/licenses or what requirements they need to impose.

    I see where folks are skittish of how this could get ugly with those states that do not want to give up control, not to mention those that still do not allow a carry law like IL... AT this point it's in the house.. and if it goes to old BO, we'll just have to see how he handles it
    "The world is filled with violence. Because criminals carry guns, we decent law-abiding citizens should also have guns. Otherwise they will win and the decent people will lose."

    -James Earl Jones


  13. #27
    Distinguished Member
    Array Pistology's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    South Coastal LA Cty
    Posts
    1,832
    Quote Originally Posted by tokerblue View Post
    - I'm all for State's rights too, except when they are against the 2nd Amendment. I also wouldn't listen to anything that a government representative says that is from one of the most weapon restrictive states in the United States.

    Some MA logic:
    • A non-resident permit is $150 PER year.
    • You have to interview in person with the state police EVERY year to renew your non-resident permit.
    • The Attorney General has an "approved" list of firearms you can buy.
    • Knife laws are town by town, with the most restrictive being 2.5", meaning you risk committing a crime if you don't know each town's ordinance.
    If states are in violation of 2A SCOTUS ruled that 2A doesn't lift all regulations on concealed carry; and it's not the senator's fault that MA is restrictive. CA is worse in gun restrictions and knife variations. I am with the senator against 822.

    Quote Originally Posted by 1911_Kimber View Post
    I am for it... I like the idea of only having one permit and being able to carry in all states (except on those which do not offer a permit to their citizens). I have not folllowed up on Obama's stance on gun control and I looked and searched but can not find anything with a statement from Obama saying he would not support this.


    This bill is cut and dry.. If your state allows you to carry every other state that allows their citizens to carry have to honor all the other states' licenses/permits. It does not say how the states should process their permits/licenses or what requirements they need to impose.

    I see where folks are skittish of how this could get ugly with those states that do not want to give up control, not to mention those that still do not allow a carry law like IL... AT this point it's in the house.. and if it goes to old BO, we'll just have to see how he handles it
    You're willing to pass a "National" law that neglects the rights of citizens of restrictive states. Those who stick to principles will hold the field at the end of the day. 822 is bad law.
    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)

  14. #28
    Distinguished Member
    Array Pistology's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    South Coastal LA Cty
    Posts
    1,832
    Quote Originally Posted by tokerblue View Post
    At least read the NRA primer on the bill.
    NRA-ILA | H.R. 822 -- National Right-to-Carry Rec

    Not to mention that if the Brady Campaign is against it, all the more reason to be for it.
    The NRA that so endorsed the Gun Control Act of 1968?

    Read your own link: "states don't have rights, only powers". But the NRA doesn't allow states the power of freedom to abolish permits. How are citizens of Constitutional Carry states like Vermont to benefit from a law that requires permits? See how the federal bill implies states to more regulation?

    That's not the direction we should be going.

    Read the comparisons: 822 a Trojan Horse?; HR 2900 - A Better Bill; and 2900 May Ring the Liberty Bell across the Land.
    Stubborn 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)

  15. #29
    Senior Member
    Array 1911_Kimber's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    673
    Quote Originally Posted by Pistology View Post
    If states are in violation of 2A SCOTUS ruled that 2A doesn't lift all regulations on concealed carry; and it's not the senator's fault that MA is restrictive. CA is worse in gun restrictions and knife variations. I am with the senator against 822.



    You're willing to pass a "National" law that neglects the rights of citizens of restrictive states. Those who stick to principles will hold the field at the end of the day. 822 is bad law.
    I see your posts and I see your point of view from the angle you are looking at this. Those who live in those states would not benefit from this law at this time, but that does not mean that there isn't a plan to deal with those states.. The NRA has been instrumental on where we are at today... I would not put it pass them for them to already have a plan of how they can get those trailing cities/states to fall in and I would imagine this bill is part of that plan...

    So let me ask you, what solution do you have instead of what is being presented?
    "The world is filled with violence. Because criminals carry guns, we decent law-abiding citizens should also have guns. Otherwise they will win and the decent people will lose."

    -James Earl Jones


  16. #30
    VIP Member Array oakchas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    6,505
    Quote Originally Posted by mook012 View Post
    NO...don't read anything into it. It simply means if you have a concealed weapons permit issued by the state you reside in, all other states must honor your concealed weapons permit, period. The same as if you have a drivers' license issuded in your home state and are pulled over in another state - that state must honor your driver's license even if it's issued in another state. BTW - cities cannot supercede state law. This just clears up any "gray" areas for people that legal;y carry concealed weapons.
    All other states but Illinois...at least in the house version... Illinois does not issue carry permits to anyone.
    Politicians, take note of Colorado 9/10/2013.
    "You are elected to service, not power.
    Your job is to "serve us" not to lord power over us."
    Me, 9/11/13

Page 2 of 12 FirstFirst 123456 ... 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

astoria oregon gun carry regulation
,

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

,
senator brown on reciprical carry law
,

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?
,
when is the national reciprocity being voted on
Click on a term to search for related topics.