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; Originally Posted by Pistology It's an Obiter dictum from Robertson v. Baldwin. The case regards seamens' contractural committment with their ship masters vs apprehension for ...

Page 6 of 12 FirstFirst ... 2345678910 ... LastLast
Results 76 to 90 of 174
Like Tree48Likes

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

  1. #76
    VIP Member Array livewire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    2,052
    Quote Originally Posted by Pistology View Post
    It's an Obiter dictum from Robertson v. Baldwin. The case regards seamens' contractural committment with their ship masters vs apprehension for involuntary servitude. The ensuing comment is sandwiched between disparate rights
    Interesting... so it was a blanket statement about a bunch of rights... but still in that context, it's probably one of those things that doesn't really matter when a case specifically regarding carry comes up.
    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

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #77
    Distinguished Member Array Stubborn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Tampa Fl
    Posts
    1,530
    Quote Originally Posted by azchevy View Post
    Why would "they" do that? it is already a 5-4 majority. If "they" wanted to "they" could have not made the rulings "they" made on McDonald and heller.

    If four justices agree that a specific petition for writ of certiorari should be granted, then the case will be placed on the Supreme Court's docket and an order stating that certiorari has been granted will be issued to the petitioner.

    Soooo the 5 who are for gun rights could just decide to hear the case..... the 4 anti-s have nothing to do with it. If "they" whoever "they" is wanted to, "they" could have shot heller down like a dirigible. So "they" does not exist.......

    I think the conspiracy theories and tinfoil are way too deep for this one
    Possibly, but again possibly not. Don't forget that the adminstration we're dealing with here has "made a living" out of side-stepping congress and the system in general. It has proven itself untrustworthy time and time again. That man (that is out of respect for you Hop) promised Sarah Brady gun control "under the radar". I would not put anything past them. It's easy to say "tinfoil hat" bunch, but in light of what we've seen the last three years are you 100% certain. Certain enough to bet your gun rights on it. Thats a pretty steep wager.
    "The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it".
    Thomas Jefferson

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

  4. #78
    Ex Member Array azchevy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Oceanfront Property
    Posts
    3,850
    This administration has nothing to do with SCOTUS outside of any appointments that have been made, and has even publicly admonished some of their decisions so I am not buying into the alex jones conspiracy theory.
    Hopyard likes this.

  5. #79
    Distinguished Member Array Stubborn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Tampa Fl
    Posts
    1,530
    Quote Originally Posted by azchevy View Post
    This administration has nothing to do with SCOTUS outside of any appointments that have been made, and has even publicly admonished some of their decisions so I am not buying into the alex jones conspiracy theory.
    Exactly...that's where the connection lies. The adminstration has 22% of the SCOTUS "beholding" to him, ie: Kagan and Sotomayor. Again vehemently anti-gun people, just like the adminstration.
    One more appointment and it becomes 33%
    I think it's scary, and bears watching very closely. Is it 100% fact? No, but it is plausible enough to keep an eye on it.
    "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
    Senior Member
    Array 1911_Kimber's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    732
    After reading all the info you have provided and the official stand of the NRA, I am for this bill.

    The goal everyone here is trying to reach is to be able to legally own (and carry) a weapon anywhere it is legal to do so. That is also the goal of the NRA and all those in government positions who have voted yes to this bill... I understand the feelings of concern and the implications for those who are at a disadvantage, (IL, CA, etc). I understand the distrust on the government and I understand the precedents at issue... However, I see this as a positive step to achieving our goal as stated above.

    It's great to live in a country where there is a process for the average citizen to make a difference without the fear of persecution or even death. We have organizations (like the NRA) dedicated to causes such as this and are relentlessly thinking and planning strategies to make the changes sought by the citizens a reality.

    If any of us have ideas or plans on how to make a difference, we should work with these organizations and actually make things happen.

    Sorry for the ranting but I get a little disappointed when I see myself forgetting that because of the legal and political system we have in place, we are able to do these things and we should not take them for granted.
    Hopyard and KoriBustard like this.
    "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


  7. #81
    VIP Member Array Badey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Posts
    3,049
    Quote Originally Posted by azchevy View Post
    I apologize sir, I just do not want to argue something that we do not have any control over. I was not rebutting or arguing anything, just pointing out printed, documented, legal facts as it pertains to concealed carry and the states rights to restrict it over the federal governments right to regulate it. So that you may further educate yourself on the subject and come to your own conclusions.
    Ok, fair enough.
    Though defensive violence will always be a sad necessity in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men -St. Augustine

  8. #82
    Member Array randian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    192
    Quote Originally Posted by KoriBustard View Post
    Since local restrictions would still apply, it would seem that reciprocity would NOT allow you to CC in San Francisco if that is a no-carry zone.
    California is a preemption state. San Francisco has no authority to regulate lawful carry. The only thing they get to do is deny permits to anybody in their jurisdiction who applies. They can't prevent Californians who received their permits from other CA counties from carrying in San Francisco, nor could they (under an 822-style Federal law) deny non-Californians from carrying.

  9. #83
    VIP Member
    Array Pistology's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    South Coast LA Cty
    Posts
    2,051
    Quote Originally Posted by livewire9880 View Post
    Interesting... so it was a blanket statement about a bunch of rights... but still in that context, it's probably one of those things that doesn't really matter when a case specifically regarding carry comes up.
    Yeah, as in the Heller comments about states have some power of regulation, the courts are going to have to split some hairs anyway.

    Quote Originally Posted by 1911_Kimber View Post
    After reading all the info you have provided and the official stand of the NRA, I am for this bill.

    The goal everyone here is trying to reach is to be able to legally own (and carry) a weapon anywhere it is legal to do so. That is also the goal of the NRA and all those in government positions who have voted yes to this bill... I understand the feelings of concern and the implications for those who are at a disadvantage, (IL, CA, etc). I understand the distrust on the government and I understand the precedents at issue... However, I see this as a positive step to achieving our goal as stated above.

    It's great to live in a country where there is a process for the average citizen to make a difference without the fear of persecution or even death. We have organizations (like the NRA) dedicated to causes such as this and are relentlessly thinking and planning strategies to make the changes sought by the citizens a reality.

    If any of us have ideas or plans on how to make a difference, we should work with these organizations and actually make things happen.

    Sorry for the ranting but I get a little disappointed when I see myself forgetting that because of the legal and political system we have in place, we are able to do these things and we should not take them for granted.
    It's an optimist who believes that a box of horse hockey must have a pony in it somewhere. Some reason that though 822 excludes many or most citizens, that it is a blow for reciprocal carry. I believe that it is what it is.

    I'm no less appreciative of the blessings of liberty and democracy than you, 1911_Kimber. But that we are able to do wrong as a mob is not improving our status. This is why it is so important to hold and to have in mind the principle of liberty: less government regulation, less tortuous interpretation of constitutional clauses like the commerce clause out of all recognition of its original intent, and more power for all individuals, equal throughout the land, to enjoy their natural rights.
    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)

  10. #84
    Senior Member
    Array 1911_Kimber's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    732
    Quote Originally Posted by Pistology View Post
    It's an optimist who believes that a box of horse hockey must have a pony in it somewhere. Some reason that though 822 excludes many or most citizens, that it is a blow for reciprocal carry. I believe that it is what it is.

    I'm no less appreciative of the blessings of liberty and democracy than you, 1911_Kimber. But that we are able to do wrong as a mob is not improving our status. This is why it is so important to hold and to have in mind the principle of liberty: less government regulation, less tortuous interpretation of constitutional clauses like the commerce clause out of all recognition of its original intent, and more power for all individuals, equal throughout the land, to enjoy their natural rights.
    I going to ignore some of the innuendo in your response for right now.

    The 822 bill WILL exclude cities/states where the local laws do not allow a carry permit/license, some will argue that the whole permit/license premises is unconstitutional to begin with and I agree with that, I don't see a better solution being offered, an optimist, maybe, a realist, yes... This is going to go the house and it may get to BO. Less government regulation you said? you are too late, the 2A belongs with the feds, they gave States power over some of the processes, NRA is working to diminish the impact on us.
    "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


  11. #85
    VIP Member Array livewire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    2,052
    Quote Originally Posted by 1911_Kimber View Post
    The 822 bill WILL exclude cities/states where the local laws do not allow a carry permit/license
    Careful here... to my knowledge, other than DC, there is no city in the US where concealed carry is banned completely where it is allowed elsewhere in the state. Can someone confirm or refute that?

    Concealed carry is banned in Chicago because it's banned in Illinois. Concealed carry is allowed in NY, and is also allowed in NYC, though with a more difficult to attain permit. Because of the wording of this bill, if I carry in NY under the proposed law, I can carry in NYC, so long as I follow the local regulations. This is because the wording of the new law will make an out of state permit carry the same weight as the most permissive permit in the host state.
    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. #86
    Senior Member
    Array 1911_Kimber's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    732
    Quote Originally Posted by livewire9880 View Post
    Careful here... to my knowledge, other than DC, there is no city in the US where concealed carry is banned completely where it is allowed elsewhere in the state. Can someone confirm or refute that?

    Concealed carry is banned in Chicago because it's banned in Illinois. Concealed carry is allowed in NY, and is also allowed in NYC, though with a more difficult to attain permit. Because of the wording of this bill, if I carry in NY under the proposed law, I can carry in NYC, so long as I follow the local regulations. This is because the wording of the new law will make an out of state permit carry the same weight as the most permissive permit in the host state.
    Thanks for the correction.
    "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. #87
    VIP Member Array livewire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    2,052
    Quote Originally Posted by 1911_Kimber View Post
    Thanks for the correction.
    Nah... no thanks needed, and it wasn't a correction so much as a clarification. There are a lot of assumptions around this bill and I'm just trying to minimize them.
    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. #88
    VIP Member
    Array Pistology's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    South Coast LA Cty
    Posts
    2,051
    We established that this bill does nothing for citizens of IL. Can anyone tell me why the bill passed the IL delegation by a vote of 11-7 including two Democrats in favor when in the general house the vote was mostly along party lines? This is a grab for your guns, and the feds are holding all of the cards.
    If the bill shuts down intrastate exemption of firearms from federal regulation and if the may issue states can live with the bill, then the feds can play the long game of chipping away at right-to-carry. If that doesn't work out, a may-issue state can slam-dunk this bill off the books and out on its ear.
    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. #89
    VIP Member Array livewire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    2,052
    Quote Originally Posted by Pistology View Post
    We established that this bill does nothing for citizens of IL. Can anyone tell me why the bill passed the IL delegation by a vote of 11-7 including two Democrats in favor when in the general house the vote was mostly along party lines? This is a grab for your guns, and the feds are holding all of the cards.
    If the bill shuts down intrastate exemption of firearms from federal regulation and if the may issue states can live with the bill, then the feds can play the long game of chipping away at right-to-carry. If that doesn't work out, a may-issue state can slam-dunk this bill off the books and out on its ear.
    There is a lot of pressure in Illinois to enact legal carry, and a lot of the politicians in IL have a pro-gun opinion. Just not enough to get past the severely Anti governors they've had. If there is a conspiracy here, it's just as likely to be our own...
    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

  16. #90
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,642
    Quote Originally Posted by Pistology View Post
    We established that this bill does nothing for citizens of IL. Can anyone tell me why the bill passed the IL delegation by a vote of 11-7 including two Democrats in favor when in the general house the vote was mostly along party lines?
    The vote was 272-154, with seven Republicans voting against 43 Democrats supporting .
    By today's standards, that is fairly bipartisan.
    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

Page 6 of 12 FirstFirst ... 2345678910 ... 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.