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 I see. Not quite a veto-override majority but very close. It probably would have been 12-7 but for a non-voting Republican. ...

Page 8 of 12 FirstFirst ... 456789101112 LastLast
Results 106 to 120 of 174
Like Tree48Likes

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

  1. #106
    VIP Member Array livewire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    2,050
    Quote Originally Posted by Pistology View Post
    I see. Not quite a veto-override majority but very close. It probably would have been 12-7 but for a non-voting Republican.
    Hopefully, there is a sea change on the horizon in IL - and gun prohibitions are soon to be a thing of the past.
    Still 822 is wrong, and congress is in favor of anything that they can tweak later with more regulation.
    You contradict yourself. There is no place in this bill, shall it become law, for regulation. Plus, there is already a tremendous infrastructure in place for behind-the-scenes regulation. It's called the ATF. No, wait, the BATF... I mean, the BATFE.

    Then there's the EPA, remember trying to slip the lead ammunition thing?

    Like I've said before: I have no doubt that a later Congress might try to interfere with our RTKBA, but they have lots of far more convenient ways to do so than by compromising this particular law.


    Quote Originally Posted by Pistology View Post
    Why can't IL resident can get those permits, now?
    How does 822 improve the status quo?
    I'm afraid that congress (particularly Republicans) is for this bill for all of it's inherently wrong reasons.
    It improves the status quo by allowing that very same permit to be valid in 49 states. I have permits that allow me to carry in as many places as possible without getting individual out of state permits for every remaining state, and I can't get the two closest to me (California and Colorado), or the remaining place that I would really like to go and can't carry (Hawaii). I have four permits.
    Last edited by livewire; March 16th, 2012 at 01:25 AM. Reason: Grammar
    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. #107
    Distinguished Member
    Array Pistology's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    South Coast LA Cty
    Posts
    1,997
    Quote Originally Posted by livewire9880 View Post
    You contradict yourself. There is no place in this bill, shall it become law, for regulation. Plus, there is already a tremendous infrastructure in place for behind-the-scenes regulation. It's called the ATF. No, wait, the BATF... I mean, the BATFE.

    Then there's the EPA, remember trying to slip the lead ammunition thing that they tried?

    Like I've said before: I have no doubt that a later Congress might try to interfere with our RTKBA, but they have lots of far more convenient ways to do so than by compromising this particular law.
    Nothing in the bill is stopping congress from tweaking it - or any other bill - or stopping the executive (DOJ, BATFE...) from defining parameters in implementing the legislation. This bill is the key to federal definitions of your carry permit with all of the same gun control tricks, fees, taxes, frequency of renewal, waiting periods, national data base accessible by DOJ and other government gate keepers (Obamacare givers), carry-free zones, and more. And, to participate, VT has to go back from Constitutional Carry to a traceable permit system (more regulation).

    We've seen similar defacto gun controls on both the state and federal level and no one has any rationale to doubt it won't happen with this bill.

    This bill hands a blank check to Obama to draw against your rights to self defense.

    The bill's erroneous evocation of the Commerce clause gives another avenue of federal corruption of the Constitution. As GOA says:
    The bill states that because firearms “have been shipped in interstate commerce,” the Congress in justified in passing this legislation. That is not the “commerce” the Founder’s envisioned as they sought to remove barriers of interstate trade.

    The modern and broad interpretation of the Commerce Clause would, in the words of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas (Gonzales v. Raich), confer on the federal government the power to “regulate virtually anything – [until] the federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers.”

    ....Any federal legislation that imposes demands on the states must be scrutinized carefully by the language of the Constitution. At this point, a cynic might correctly point out that Congress passes bills on a weekly basis that go beyond what the Constitution allows. But we must be especially careful, as people who work towards federalism and constitutional government, not to fall into the trap of the end justifying the means.

    Lastly, the senate hasn't begun to tweak the bill for its part.


    Quote Originally Posted by livewire9880 View Post
    It improves the status quo by allowing that very same permit to be valid in 49 states. I have permits that allow me to carry in as many places as possible without getting individual out of state permits for every remaining state, and I can't get the two closest to me (California and Colorado), or the remaining place that I would really like to go and can't carry (Hawaii). I have four permits.
    You're right. But this bill is weird that way - permitting one in all states but his own - and of course, IL is off limits for all, for now and maybe a long time. Sheesh.
    jem102 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)

  4. #108
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,600
    Quote Originally Posted by Pistology View Post
    Nothing in the bill is stopping congress from tweaking it - or any other bill - or stopping the executive (DOJ, BATFE...) from defining parameters in implementing the legislation. This bill is the key to federal definitions of your carry permit with all of the same gun control tricks,
    I think you have:
    1) an unrealistic expectation if you think any law will prevent any legislature or any court
    or any regulatory agency from future tweaks. Our law doesn't work that way. The actions of one Congress are
    not binding on subsequent Congresses on any matter whatsoever.

    2) The purpose of the law is what is stated in the text of the law. The imaginings of doors opening are just that; imagining. The doors are open and always will be. They can not be closed. Doing so would take flexibility to
    govern from Congress.

    There is nothing in The Constitution which would prohibit any state or Uncle from imposing prohibitive taxes on
    (for illustration) Remora holsters, if they thought doing so would reduce the "evil of concealed carry." In short, there is no guarantee of anything about the future--- and none of us are clairvoyant or mind readers.

    Look, 822 does not give Congress any power it presently does not have. It gives gun owners benefits we don't presently have.

    Think a little about what is good for most of us instead of some ideology separated from the realities of how
    government actually operates. We live in the legal world that is, and not the a legal world the utopian imaginings of our thoughts.
    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

  5. #109
    Distinguished Member
    Array Pistology's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    South Coast LA Cty
    Posts
    1,997
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    I think you have:
    1) an unrealistic expectation if you think any law will prevent any legislature or any court
    or any regulatory agency from future tweaks. Our law doesn't work that way. The actions of one Congress are
    not binding on subsequent Congresses on any matter whatsoever.

    2) The purpose of the law is what is stated in the text of the law. The imaginings of doors opening are just that; imagining. The doors are open and always will be. They can not be closed. Doing so would take flexibility to
    govern from Congress.

    There is nothing in The Constitution which would prohibit any state or Uncle from imposing prohibitive taxes on
    (for illustration) Remora holsters, if they thought doing so would reduce the "evil of concealed carry." In short, there is no guarantee of anything about the future--- and none of us are clairvoyant or mind readers.

    Look, 822 does not give Congress any power it presently does not have. It gives gun owners benefits we don't presently have.

    Think a little about what is good for most of us instead of some ideology separated from the realities of how
    government actually operates. We live in the legal world that is, and not the a legal world the utopian imaginings of our thoughts.
    Our basic difference is not one of unrealistic ideology or imaginings but where to address concerns about our rights. You are very supportive of 822 and trusting in the power of more government to somehow do more good than ill. I am very leary and, like Washington, believe that "Government like fire is a dangerous servant and a fearful master".

    The only convincing part of your post is its making my point that laws are power to expand government. Expanding government to "give benefits" that you need because of prior government prohibitions is wrong on its face. You benefit and ignore that "benefits" don't extend to more than 25% of your fellows in their resident, May-Issue or No-Issue jurisdiciton; and that doesn't count good Americans who "vote with their feet" against the permit mandate altogether by refusing to apply.
    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)

  6. #110
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,600
    Quote Originally Posted by Pistology View Post
    Our basic difference is not one of unrealistic ideology or imaginings but where to address concerns about our rights. You are very supportive of 822 and trusting in the power of more government to somehow do more good than ill. I am very leary and, like Washington, believe that "Government like fire is a dangerous servant and a fearful master".

    The only convincing part of your post is its making my point that laws are power to expand government. Expanding government to "give benefits" that you need because of prior government prohibitions is wrong on its face. You benefit and ignore that "benefits" don't extend to more than 25% of your fellows in their resident, May-Issue or No-Issue jurisdiciton; and that doesn't count good Americans who "vote with their feet" against the permit mandate altogether by refusing to apply.
    Well, being recently an avid reader of American History and biography including quite a bit about the Washington
    administration, I'd suggest to you that while the quote is possibly correctly attributable to him, he was by today's standard
    a big government guy. Those about him providing key advice were The Federalists who wished to make the central
    government strong and preeminent above the states. We've been fighting about that since the start.

    Your distrust of government doesn't mean you are right to give up a good for gun owners out of fear of the future-- a future which if it is going to turn bad will turn bad regardless of this one piece of legislation which confers no new power
    on anyone.
    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

  7. #111
    Distinguished Member
    Array Pistology's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    South Coast LA Cty
    Posts
    1,997
    More law borne by the Commerce Clause is an unnecessary risk when less law is a better way. Two Democrats, U.S. Senators Mark Begich (D-Alaska) and Joe Manchin (D-W.V.) are sponsoring S. 2188, the “National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2012.” This bill is more a song and dance for the election year than a "good for gun owners", though congress has no more qualms about trampling the Constitution than prohibiting rights in the process.
    My refusal to support HR822/S2188 is owing to his failure to meet my standards of good law / better government. On the other hand, HR 2900 (`Secure Access to Firearms Enhancement (SAFE) Act of 2011') has my support for its better adherence to the Constitution. I would link it, but it's brevity lends itself to direct quote:

    `Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof:

    `(1) A person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, and is carrying a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of any State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm, may carry in any State a concealed firearm in accordance with the terms of the license or permit, subject to the laws of the State in which the firearm is carried concerning specific types of locations in which firearms may not be carried.

    `(2) A person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, and is otherwise than as described in paragraph (1) entitled to carry a concealed firearm in and pursuant to the law of the State in which the person resides, may carry in any State a concealed firearm in accordance with the laws of the State in which the person resides, subject to the laws of the State in which the firearm is carried concerning specific types of locations in which firearms may not be carried.'
    Paragraph 1 says that citizens of May-Issue and No-Issue jurisdictions may carry in those jurisdictions. Paragraph 2 means that citizens who enjoy Constitutional carry don't have to go (to government) get a permit. This is the bill the statists don't want.

    The list of congressmen who support 2900 includes its sponsor and cosponsors:
    Rep. Paul Broun [R-GA10]
    Robert Aderholt [R-AL4]
    Lou Barletta [R-PA11]
    John Barrow [D-GA12]
    Rob Bishop [R-UT1]
    Vern Buchanan [R-FL13]
    Tom Cole [R-OK4]
    Raymond Green [D-TX29]
    Andy Harris [R-MD1]
    Vicky Hartzler [R-MO4]
    Duncan Hunter [R-CA52]
    Bill Johnson [R-OH6]
    Doug Lamborn [R-CO5]
    Donald Manzullo [R-IL16]
    Kenny Marchant [R-TX24]
    Thaddeus McCotter [R-MI11]
    Mike McIntyre [D-NC7]
    Bill Posey [R-FL15]
    Dennis Ross [R-FL12]
    Austin Scott [R-GA8]
    Joe Walsh [R-IL8]
    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)

  8. #112
    VIP Member Array tokerblue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    2,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Pistology View Post
    My refusal to support HR822/S2188 is owing to his failure to meet my standards of good law / better government. On the other hand, HR 2900 (`Secure Access to Firearms Enhancement (SAFE) Act of 2011') has my support for its better adherence to the Constitution. I would link it, but it's brevity lends itself to direct quote:
    - I doubt that anyone on this board believes that HR822 is better than HR2900. Let's be realistic though, HR822 has a MUCH better chance of passing at this time than HR2900. Why cut off your nose to spite your face?
    Hopyard 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

  9. #113
    Distinguished Member Array Stubborn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Tampa Fl
    Posts
    1,530
    Quote Originally Posted by tokerblue View Post
    - I doubt that anyone on this board believes that HR822 is better than HR2900. Let's be realistic though, HR822 has a MUCH better chance of passing at this time than HR2900. Why cut off your nose to spite your face?
    So we should settle for bad law because it's easier than pushing for the good bill?
    "The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it".
    Thomas Jefferson

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

  10. #114
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    5,822
    I haven't commented on this because quite frankly I am not great with legalese and I have to trust all you expert Constitutional lawyers out there for advice. But after considerable review I feel it is not a good bill. Personaly it will not affect me to much so call that selfish if you will. And just because the NRA supports it does not mean it is good. I have issues with them and their own agenda sometimes. Same as the Brady Bunch. Just because they oppose something does not mean all that much sometimes.
    I think down the road it can possibly hinder concealed carry. SSome are saying that it is better than nothing and we should take what we can get. Well, I would rather stay single than rush into a marraige with a woman I just like, not love an respect because I feel it is the best I can do, and years down the road it falls apart because there was no good foundation or promises that you could count on. Just my 2 cents.
    Stubborn likes this.

  11. #115
    VIP Member Array tokerblue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    2,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Stubborn View Post
    So we should settle for bad law because it's easier than pushing for the good bill?
    - Bad? I see it as good, not great. HR822 doesn't take away ANY of my current carrying privileges and simply makes it so other states recognize my permit. The problem is that people keep playing the what if game with language that is NOT currently in the bill or keep believing that this bill suddenly puts permits solely in the Federal government's hands, which it does not.
    Hopyard 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. #116
    VIP Member Array tokerblue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    2,338
    Quote Originally Posted by suntzu View Post
    I think down the road it can possibly hinder concealed carry.
    - How will this hinder concealed carry? The states that would possibly do so, most likely already have restrictive carry laws. The other states are moving in the other direction.

    Quote Originally Posted by suntzu View Post
    Well, I would rather stay single than rush into a marraige with a woman I just like, not love an respect because I feel it is the best I can do, and years down the road it falls apart because there was no good foundation or promises that you could count on. Just my 2 cents.
    - Just because you love and respect someone doesn't mean they'll feel the same way down the road. That's the way life is, there's no guarantees. Personally, I'd rather take any type of gun rights victories as they come, rather than hoping for something that may not ever happen. Since you're in NH, you're virtually the same exact boat I am.
    Hopyard 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

  13. #117
    Distinguished Member Array Stubborn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Tampa Fl
    Posts
    1,530
    But it certainly does open the door for the Fed's. HR2900 does not, in fact the language of the bill very much spells out the limits of the Federal Gub'mit.
    Why settle for a "Trojan horse" when there is a good and viable alternative?
    "The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it".
    Thomas Jefferson

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

  14. #118
    VIP Member Array tokerblue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    2,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Stubborn View Post
    But it certainly does open the door for the Fed's. HR2900 does not, in fact the language of the bill very much spells out the limits of the Federal Gub'mit.
    Why settle for a "Trojan horse" when there is a good and viable alternative?
    - I'm not following, how does HR822 open the door for the Federal government?
    "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

  15. #119
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,600
    I guess considering your chosen user name there's no point to going on.

    My opinion, it isn't a trojan horse or bad law. The only people who aren't going to like it *if it gets to be law*
    govern NYC, Maryland, and a very few other places. From their perspective it IS bad law. May they be treated to it.
    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

  16. #120
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    5,822
    Quote Originally Posted by tokerblue View Post
    - How will this hinder concealed carry? The states that would possibly do so, most likely already have restrictive carry laws. The other states are moving in the other direction.

    - Just because you love and respect someone doesn't mean they'll feel the same way down the road. That's the way life is, there's no guarantees. Personally, I'd rather take any type of gun rights victories as they come, rather than hoping for something that may not ever happen. Since you're in NH, you're virtually the same exact boat I am.

    This is why I didn't respond before. You all have been going back and forth on this issue now for over 1oo posts with legal this and legal that. I have my reasons some based in what I understand of the bill and some non scientific gut feelings on it. There could be repeals or further restrictions in states that allow CC. It could happen if the legislators of those states don't like the idea of an individual with no formal training carrying a weapon in their state when they require training. States can be fickle and go in different directions in different times. I am not a Constitutional lawyer and niether are most of the experts posting here. It is just my opinion.

    Boy I hate when someones retort is to nit pick a silly analogy. I can work on a perfect one if you want. You get the idea and the intent from the rest of my post.

    And I said some of my reasons are selfish. I live in NH and when I do travel for pleasure I go where I can carry but I admit that is by coincidence.

Page 8 of 12 FirstFirst ... 456789101112 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.