National Recoprocity Act of 2017 - Page 4

National Recoprocity Act of 2017

This is a discussion on National Recoprocity Act of 2017 within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Originally Posted by 19Kvet True- but that wasn't the question. I was addressing as to why it has been blocked everytime since it has been ...

Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 115
Like Tree166Likes

Thread: National Recoprocity Act of 2017

  1. #46
    Senior Member Array Strmwatch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Posts
    843
    Quote Originally Posted by 19Kvet View Post
    True- but that wasn't the question.
    I was addressing as to why it has been blocked everytime since it has been introduced since 2008.

  2. #47
    Senior Member Array Strmwatch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Posts
    843
    Quote Originally Posted by searcher 45 View Post
    In Texas you have 90 days to get your drivers license change from out of state to Texas once you become a residence.

    LEO told me that if you have a Texas drivers license you should also have a Texas CHL, not some out of state CHL.

    He thought that Texas recognizing out of state CHLs was so non residents could carry on their out of state carry license while VISITING in other state.

    The easiest way to solve this IMHO is to just go nation wide Constitutional Carry and forget the state TAX STAMP which grants a citizen the states permission to exercise their RIGHTS.

    Either RIGHTS OR RIGHTS OR THEY ARE NOT RIGHTS AT ALL!!!!!!!

    That said, I have a TAX STAMP CHL because I do not want to be looking through the bars at the guards.
    Agree with this part 100%.

    That's how it should be, plain and simple.

  3. #48
    Distinguished Member Array dV8r's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    1,398
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike1956 View Post
    Is being drawn up now for introduction after President Trump is sworn in:

    Congressman Preps National Concealed Carry Bill For Next Congress | The Daily Caller

    The proposed language of the bill is contained in the news release.
    What this Country REALLY needs is getting back to using the Constitution and getting the Federal government to direct/enforce the States to also follow the letter of it. This was fine gun control for more generations, by bringing proper and safe gun handling to all young people this would work again.

    We don't need MORE laws we need FEWER laws.
    LEARN something today so you can TEACH something tomorrow.
    Dominus Vobiscum <))>(
    Where is the wisdom that we have lost in knowledge?" T.S. Elliot

  4. #49
    Senior Member Array steve4102's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    MN
    Posts
    777
    Quote Originally Posted by Stoveman View Post
    Have you read the bill?

    Not only does it prohibit the states (presumably CA, MD, NJ, et al) from enacting GFZ other than government owned buildings, it limits the GFSZ to only the building and it's grounds, not the buffer zone, and guts any magazine and ammo restrictions. NY couldn't make NYC a GFZ in it's entirety, for example.
    Yes, I have read the Bill.

    Here it is.

    https://hudson.house.gov/uploads/Con...0of%202017.pdf

    Please post the appropriate sections that deal with the Prohibitions you listed above.

  5. #50
    VIP Member
    Array Mike1956's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Marion County, Ohio
    Posts
    21,602
    Quote Originally Posted by dV8r View Post
    What this Country REALLY needs is getting back to using the Constitution and getting the Federal government to direct/enforce the States to also follow the letter of it. This was fine gun control for more generations, by bringing proper and safe gun handling to all young people this would work again.

    We don't need MORE laws we need FEWER laws.
    That whole "getting back to the Constitution" thing is a bit baffling to when it comes to infringements on the 2nd Amendment as written. I know in Ohio, there was in practice no genuine right to carry firearms from 1859 until 2004. I'm all for educating people on safe gun handling. Laws by which it governs itself is how a society is defined. We need more good ones, and fewer bad ones, IMO.
    ghost tracker likes this.
    "To reject the notion of expertise, and to replace it with a sanctimonious insistence that every person has a right to his or her own opinion, is silly."

    Tom Nichols

  6. #51
    VIP Member
    Array Stoveman's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Cuba on the Chesapeake
    Posts
    4,965
    Quote Originally Posted by steve4102 View Post
    Yes, I have read the Bill.

    Here it is.

    https://hudson.house.gov/uploads/Con...0of%202017.pdf

    Please post the appropriate sections that deal with the Prohibitions you listed above.


    Limits on enforceable gun-free zones:

    There will be no "death by a thousands cuts." Under section (b) the only enforceable state/local laws are "laws of any State that --

    Quote:
    ‘‘(1) permit private persons or entities to pro-
    7 hibit or restrict the possession of concealed firearms
    8 on their property; or
    9 ‘‘(2) prohibit or restrict the possession of fire-
    10 arms on any State or local government property, in-
    11 stallation, building, base, or park.
    So, there could be "force of law" no-carry signs on local businesses.

    And there can be gun-free zones ON state or local property. But note that it says "ON." Meaning, no bans within 5,000 ft of schools type laws.

    The biggest problem here will be bans on carry on public transportation.

    But all in all, section (b) makes effective bans through onerous state carry restrictions impossible.

    eviscerates state mag and ammo laws:
    Love this! Section (e) defines terms in Section (a), including:

    Quote:
    3 ‘‘(2) The term ‘handgun’ includes any magazine
    4 for use in a handgun and any ammunition loaded
    5 into the handgun or its magazine.
    "Any magazine," and "any ammunition." I suppose this could be better drafted to include "any number of bullets in any magazine." But I believe the intent is clear.
    Pistology likes this.
    "And what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms." - Thomas Jefferson

  7. #52
    Senior Member Array steve4102's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    MN
    Posts
    777
    Quote Originally Posted by Stoveman View Post
    Limits on enforceable gun-free zones:

    There will be no "death by a thousands cuts." Under section (b) the only enforceable state/local laws are "laws of any State that --

    Quote:
    ‘‘(1) permit private persons or entities to pro-
    7 hibit or restrict the possession of concealed firearms
    8 on their property; or
    9 ‘‘(2) prohibit or restrict the possession of fire-
    10 arms on any State or local government property, in-
    11 stallation, building, base, or park.
    So, there could be "force of law" no-carry signs on local businesses.

    And there can be gun-free zones ON state or local property. But note that it says "ON." Meaning, no bans within 5,000 ft of schools type laws.

    The biggest problem here will be bans on carry on public transportation.

    But all in all, section (b) makes effective bans through onerous state carry restrictions impossible.

    eviscerates state mag and ammo laws:
    Love this! Section (e) defines terms in Section (a), including:

    Quote:
    3 ‘‘(2) The term ‘handgun’ includes any magazine
    4 for use in a handgun and any ammunition loaded
    5 into the handgun or its magazine.
    "Any magazine," and "any ammunition." I suppose this could be better drafted to include "any number of bullets in any magazine." But I believe the intent is clear.
    Maybe we are reading two different Bills or Versions.

    Here is the one I posted.

    You referred to "Section (b), here is a "quote" from section (b).

    ‘‘(b) This section shall not be construed to supersede
    5 or limit the laws of any State
    that—

    6 ‘‘(1) permit private persons or entities to pro-
    7 hibit or restrict the possession of concealed firearms
    8 on their property; or
    9 ‘‘(2) prohibit or restrict the possession of fire-
    10 arms on any State or local government property, in-
    11 stallation, building, base, or park.
    This is simple text, meaning that this proposed Bill will not supersede (nullify, override) any State and Local firearms carry laws.

    "Any" does not mean all States, it mean "any" as in as many as one.

  8. #53
    VIP Member Array searcher 45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    TEXAS
    Posts
    4,449
    Why not change the law on Post Offices as well, toward of federal reg-law that step on RIGHT
    NOT LIVING IN FEAR, JUST READY!!!
    I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness,
    nor the arrow for its swiftness,
    nor the warrior for his glory.
    I love only that which they defend.
    -J.R.R. Tolkien

  9. #54
    Distinguished Member Array sdprof's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Near the Black Hills of SD
    Posts
    1,877
    Quote Originally Posted by searcher 45 View Post
    Why not change the law on Post Offices as well, toward of federal reg-law that step on RIGHT
    While we're on that topic, do away with all but very small, specific prohibited places in the federal realm. Any federal office or facility where members of the public have a right and reason to be, should not be a prohibited place. To wit, USPS, SSA, National Park facilities (not just the land), CoE lands, etc, etc.
    ~~~~~
    The only common sense gun legislation was written about 226 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.

  10. #55
    VIP Member Array Eagleks's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    9,760
    I'm against it ... dont' want the Feds to have input on requirements, etc. Even if it's not done that way initially, it leaves it open for Dem's to later mess with it, add qualifications, restrictions, etc. that we don't need.

    Want to do it right, pass a bill that restates the 2nd Amendment and makes all States Constitutional Carry and move on.
    I don't make jokes. I just watch the government and report the facts. --- Will Rogers ---
    Chief Justice John Roberts : "I don't see how you can read Heller and not take away from it the notion that the Second Amendment...was extremely important to the framers in their view of what liberty meant."

  11. #56
    Senior Member Array 19Kvet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    1,170
    Quote Originally Posted by bpurdy0 View Post
    The article brings up an interesting point of a resident of a may issue state applying for an out of state permit in a shall issue state. It seems like a good idea in theory except that a national reciprocity bill would probably put an end to non-resident permits, as they would no longer be needed. Also, I would expect the language of the pill to prohibit such a practice. People have been using the argument "your driver's license is valid in other states, your carry permit should be too". I agree with that statement, but the law prohibits me (a CT resident) from getting a license in Nevada or any other state. Unfortunately, I don't see carry permits being treated differently.
    I can see a state like Utah continuing to issue non-resident permits just to mess with the handful of May Issue states (specifically California).

    Quote Originally Posted by steve4102 View Post
    A Carry permit or license is not a "Public Act".

    Public Act



    Public act - definition of public act by The Free Dictionary

    OR



    https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/de.../us/public_act

    "Full Faith and Credit" in general has not been applied with regard to activities subject to a license in a State. If you are licensed to practice medicine or do business as a contractor in one State, you in general can not expect to be able to lawfully practice medicine or do business as a contractor under that license in another State.

    Full Faith and Credit Clause legal definition of Full Faith and Credit Clause




    So no, Full Faith and Credit does not apply to "individuals" that have a Carry License as it is not a "Public Act" as defined by law.
    We would have to see if the courts allow congress to define the scope of this clause to cover CCWs but it seems that the intent of the clause is to allow congress to decide which "public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings" they want to give national validity.

    Perhaps the reason while professional licensing has not been subject to the "Full Faith and Credit" clause is because congress, for whatever reason, has not passed such a law. That does not mean that it is not within their power to do so however.

    Quote Originally Posted by dV8r View Post
    What this Country REALLY needs is getting back to using the Constitution and getting the Federal government to direct/enforce the States to also follow the letter of it. This was fine gun control for more generations, by bringing proper and safe gun handling to all young people this would work again.

    We don't need MORE laws we need FEWER laws.
    The 2A of the COTUS only protects the right to keep and bear arms but does not protect concealed carry. As long as some form of bearing arms is allowed (including under a permitting regime) then the courts will tolerate restrictions on the manner of carry.

    I think that adding a protection of concealed carry to the constitution is a non-starter at this time.

    Quote Originally Posted by searcher 45 View Post
    Why not change the law on Post Offices as well, toward of federal reg-law that step on RIGHT
    I agree but that doesn't mean we should also do this too.

    Quote Originally Posted by Eagleks View Post
    I'm against it ... dont' want the Feds to have input on requirements, etc. Even if it's not done that way initially, it leaves it open for Dem's to later mess with it, add qualifications, restrictions, etc. that we don't need.

    Want to do it right, pass a bill that restates the 2nd Amendment and makes all States Constitutional Carry and move on.
    If the Dems gain the power then they can mess with existing law regardless of this law. Passing National Reciprocity doesn't change that.

    Again, passing a bill to restate the 2A would be ignored by anyone willing to ignore the supreme law of the land (the constitution itself).

  12. #57
    VIP Member Array Eagleks's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    9,760
    Quote Originally Posted by 19Kvet View Post
    If the Dems gain the power then they can mess with existing law regardless of this law. Passing National Reciprocity doesn't change that.

    Again, passing a bill to restate the 2A would be ignored by anyone willing to ignore the supreme law of the land (the constitution itself).
    Yep, that can happen if they have the votes. But in the meantime, all States that have any fears of blood in the streets .... would have had exposure to it and not experienced any of their fears, may have discovered crime actually reduced, and may be more inclined to pass it on the State level if the Dem / anti-gunners got it repealed on the Fedl level. I see that as all good. It could result , even with the repeal, a lot more States seeing that as unnecessary and enacting a law to continue it in their States. Or , if nothing else .... less people in their State willing to fight against it.

    The down side would be, the Dem's deciding to NOT repeal it, and add in all kinds of restrictions that would then be nation-wide.

    Generally speaking, I think it's wiser to keep the Feds out of it all together.
    I don't make jokes. I just watch the government and report the facts. --- Will Rogers ---
    Chief Justice John Roberts : "I don't see how you can read Heller and not take away from it the notion that the Second Amendment...was extremely important to the framers in their view of what liberty meant."

  13. #58
    Senior Member Array 19Kvet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    1,170
    Quote Originally Posted by Eagleks View Post
    Yep, that can happen if they have the votes. But in the meantime, all States that have any fears of blood in the streets .... would have had exposure to it and not experienced any of their fears, may have discovered crime actually reduced, and may be more inclined to pass it on the State level if the Dem / anti-gunners got it repealed on the Fedl level. I see that as all good. It could result , even with the repeal, a lot more States seeing that as unnecessary and enacting a law to continue it in their States. Or , if nothing else .... less people in their State willing to fight against it.

    The down side would be, the Dem's deciding to NOT repeal it, and add in all kinds of restrictions that would then be nation-wide.
    I don't understand your two arguments. If the anti's don't have the votes to create new laws then they don't have the votes to alter existing laws (including a new National Reciprocity law). I did not read anywhere in this bill a change to how laws are passed nor is there an allowance for the executive (ie the BATFE) to add regulations. It's a rather simple and constrained bill.

    Quote Originally Posted by Eagleks View Post
    Generally speaking, I think it's wiser to keep the Feds out of it all together.
    I agree that keeping the National government out of things is good, however, harmonizing interstate issues is the exact kind of laws we need to see out of a Federal government. I would much rather they spend more time working on interstate issues than on intrastate issues as they have been doing for years.

    Additionally, this kind of law is exactly the role of the Federal (rather than national) government under our Constitution (it wouldn't have been under the Articles of Confederation but the Anti-Federalists lost that argument).

  14. #59
    VIP Member Array Eagleks's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    9,760
    Quote Originally Posted by 19Kvet View Post
    I don't understand your two arguments. If the anti's don't have the votes to create new laws then they don't have the votes to alter existing laws (including a new National Reciprocity law). I did not read anywhere in this bill a change to how laws are passed nor is there an allowance for the executive (ie the BATFE) to add regulations. It's a rather simple and constrained bill.



    I agree that keeping the National government out of things is good, however, harmonizing interstate issues is the exact kind of laws we need to see out of a Federal government. I would much rather they spend more time working on interstate issues than on intrastate issues as they have been doing for years.

    Additionally, this kind of law is exactly the role of the Federal (rather than national) government under our Constitution (it wouldn't have been under the Articles of Confederation but the Anti-Federalists lost that argument).
    Do you think the GOP is going to ALWAYS have the majority in the Senate , House and hold the Presidency. I don't .... and the law does not go away and can be modified in the future..... 2 yrs, 4 yrs .. 6 yrs.. It opens a can of worms, that I don't believe we want to open for future changes when the anit-gun group (Dem's) are back in power.... and it will happen. You can't think in terms about just today, but down the line how it can also be abused.

    Ask Harry Reid and the Dem's implementing the nuclear option in the Senate now that the GOP is in the majority.
    TeflonDon likes this.
    I don't make jokes. I just watch the government and report the facts. --- Will Rogers ---
    Chief Justice John Roberts : "I don't see how you can read Heller and not take away from it the notion that the Second Amendment...was extremely important to the framers in their view of what liberty meant."

  15. #60
    VIP Member
    Array Mike1956's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Marion County, Ohio
    Posts
    21,602
    Quote Originally Posted by Eagleks View Post
    Do you think the GOP is going to ALWAYS have the majority in the Senate , House and hold the Presidency. I don't .... and the law does not go away and can be modified in the future..... 2 yrs, 4 yrs .. 6 yrs.. It opens a can of worms, that I don't believe we want to open for future changes when the anit-gun group (Dem's) are back in power.... and it will happen. You can't think in terms about just today, but down the line how it can also be abused.

    Ask Harry Reid and the Dem's implementing the nuclear option in the Senate now that the GOP is in the majority.
    So, essentially you are saying that we don't want to gain that right because at some point in the future it might be taken away from us?
    "To reject the notion of expertise, and to replace it with a sanctimonious insistence that every person has a right to his or her own opinion, is silly."

    Tom Nichols

Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 LastLast

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
  •