Any chance of 50-state CC reciprocity, or perhaps a Federal CC permit? - Page 3

Any chance of 50-state CC reciprocity, or perhaps a Federal CC permit?

This is a discussion on Any chance of 50-state CC reciprocity, or perhaps a Federal CC permit? within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Seriously, make it 49 States. Let all the gun Anti's find a new home in California, give em a place to go where the ocean ...

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 60
Like Tree124Likes

Thread: Any chance of 50-state CC reciprocity, or perhaps a Federal CC permit?

  1. #31
    Distinguished Member
    Array rcsoftexas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Heart of Texas
    Posts
    1,494
    Seriously, make it 49 States. Let all the gun Anti's find a new home in California, give em a place to go where the ocean is their only exodus if we the people feel the time has come.
    CWOUSCG likes this.
    "I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted, and I won't be laid a hand on. I don't do these things to other people and I expect the same from them." John Wayne
    NRA member 18 yrs.

  2. #32
    Member Array Skolnick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    194
    Quote Originally Posted by Cippee View Post
    The sencond amendment is federal so it's not up to the states ... So it would be within the federal governments power to stop states from passing gun laws like the safe act in NY or to tell states you must honor other states permits.
    The Bill of Rights is a list of prohibitions against the Federal Government, not the States. As written, "Congress shall make no law abridging ..." does not mean "The Several States shall make no law abridging ..."

    If you read the Federalist Papers #46, the author of the Second Amendment, James Madison, tells us what it is for.

    Do notice the part where he writes "To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence ... Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of."

    Those "subordinate governments" are the States.

    Going by original intent, the 2nd Amendment only precluded the Federal Government from disarming the citizenry, the States and localities were free do what they wanted.

    That being said, starting in the late 1800s, the Supreme Court, under the 14th Amendment, has been using a concocted "Doctrine of Incorporation" to apply the Bill of Rights to all levels of government, and not just to the federal government.

    I don't agree with those decisions, but they have been the supreme law of the land for over 100 years.

    McDonald v Chicago extended the 2nd Amendment to the state and local governments under the Doctrine of Incorporation.

    All that being said, usually the Federal Government imposes its will on the States by using the Interstate Commerce Clause. Here is how it is done in reality ...

    http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-1...-104s890is.htm

    104th CONGRESS, 1st Session, S. 890, To amend title 18, United States Code, with respect to gun free schools, and for other purposes, IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, June 7 (legislative day, JUNE 5), 1995 ...
    SEC. 2. PROHIBITION.
    Section 922(q) of title 18, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
    `(q)(1) The Congress finds and declares that--
    ``(A) crime, particularly crime involving drugs and guns,
    is a pervasive, nationwide problem;
    ``(B) crime at the local level is exacerbated by the
    interstate movement of drugs, guns, and criminal gangs;
    ``(C) firearms and ammunition move easily in interstate
    commerce and have been found in increasing numbers in and
    around schools, as documented in numerous hearings in both the
    Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives and the
    Judiciary Committee of the Senate;
    ``(D) in fact, even before the sale of a firearm, the gun,
    its component parts, ammunition, and the raw materials from
    which they are made have considerably moved in interstate
    commerce;
    ``(E) while criminals freely move from State to State,
    ordinary citizens and foreign visitors may fear to travel to or
    through certain parts of the country due to concern about
    violent crime and gun violence, and parents may decline to send
    their children to school for the same reason;
    ``(F) the occurrence of violent crime in school zones has
    resulted in a decline in the quality of education in our
    country;
    ``(G) this decline in the quality of education has an
    adverse impact on interstate commerce and the foreign commerce
    of the United States;
    ``(H) States, localities, and school systems find it almost
    impossible to handle gun-related crime by themselves; even
    States, localities, and school systems that have made strong
    efforts to prevent, detect, and punish gun-related crime find
    their efforts unavailing due in part to the failure or
    inability of other States or localities to take strong
    measures; and
    ``(I) Congress has power, under the interstate commerce
    clause and other provisions of the Constitution, to enact
    measures to ensure the integrity and safety of the Nation's
    schools by enactment of this subsection.
    ``(2)(A) It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to
    possess a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects
    interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the individual knows, or
    has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.
    Doogie and rcsoftexas like this.

  3. #33
    VIP Member Array flintlock62's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    4,397
    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernBoyVA View Post
    No it's not. It is a right that is unalienable and held by The People.
    Quote Originally Posted by Doghandler View Post
    Quicker than than the last 15,000 years of stupidity, quicker than Kierkegaard's White Knight?
    The knights who say "ni"?
    CWOUSCG likes this.
    NRA lifetime member

    Flint

  4. Remove Advertisements
    DefensiveCarry.com
    Advertisements
     

  5. #34
    Distinguished Member Array Shootnlead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    Southeast GA
    Posts
    1,659
    We don't need or want the Fed's involved in our right to carry.

    NO WAY...that I would support a national right to carry or national reciprocity.
    Doogie likes this.

  6. #35
    Member Array wyoung's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Alabama coast
    Posts
    287
    I found this a little while ago. Here is Trump's current position:

    "Trump said in the paper he has a concealed carry permit. The permits, which are issued by states, should be valid nationwide like a driver's license, Trump said. "If we can do that for driving -- which is a privilege, not a right -- then surely we can do that for concealed carry, which is a right, not a privilege," Trump said."

    https://pjmedia.com/trending/2016/11...ncealed-carry/
    AnthonyC and Pistology like this.

  7. #36
    Distinguished Member Array xXxHeavy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    1,964
    Hmmm......unless it becomes a Fed. thing we'll never see it here in NJ.
    AnthonyC likes this.

  8. #37
    VIP Member Array SouthernBoyVA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    2,926
    Quote Originally Posted by wyoung View Post
    I found this a little while ago. Here is Trump's current position:

    "Trump said in the paper he has a concealed carry permit. The permits, which are issued by states, should be valid nationwide like a driver's license, Trump said. "If we can do that for driving -- which is a privilege, not a right -- then surely we can do that for concealed carry, which is a right, not a privilege," Trump said."

    https://pjmedia.com/trending/2016/11...ncealed-carry/
    But there is a problem with this line of thinking.

    When you walk out your door into the public arena with your sidearm in place and your carry permit on your person, you are NOT exercising an unalienable right. What you ARE doing is operating under a privilege given by the whim of some government.

    However, if you walk out of your home into the public arena armed with your sidearm and no permit needed, you ARE exercising a fundamental right because no governing agency required you to submit information, meet some predetermined criteria, and hand over funds for you to do this.

    This is a huge difference in not only the right to go about armed but in the most basic concepts of liberty, which have seemed to have gotten lost over the past 12 generations.
    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    America First!

  9. #38
    VIP Member Array SouthernBoyVA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    2,926
    Quote Originally Posted by Doghandler View Post
    How do we convince them to give it up?
    I'm sorry, I don't quite understand your question. Do you mean how do we convince the People to give up their rights?
    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    America First!

  10. #39
    VIP Member Array SouthernBoyVA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    2,926
    Quote Originally Posted by Cippee View Post
    I understand the rights are god given and not granted by the government. What I meant is the 10th amendment says "powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
    Yes, and thank God for the Founders' brilliant forethought for including both the Ninth and Tenth Amendments in the Bill of Rights.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cippee View Post
    The sencond amendment is federal so it's not up to the states. Take marriage that's not a federal right so it's up to the states. Every state has there own laws governing it. The states have to honor the 4th amendment they can't pass laws saying well we are gonna let cops search every house they want. So it would be within the federal governments power to stop states from passing gun laws like the safe act in NY or to tell states you must honor other states permits.
    The Second Amendment, indeed the entire Bill of Rights, is the product of George Mason's and Patrick Henry's convincing James Madison of the necessity of such a document in order to put chains on the federal government which they felt were not included in the Constitution. Remember, the Constitution says nothing about rights. It is a document which describes a form of government and then outlines how that government will operate.

    What I find curious is that while it has been quite acceptable for the federal government to place controls and restrictions on arms, they are most reluctant to do the same when it comes to a number of the other amendments in the Bill of Rights. This addresses your comments about the states and what they can and cannot do. When the federal government decides to hone in on one or two specific rights in the Bill of Rights but leaves others alone, we have a serious problem at work. Worse is their propensity to either completely ignore things that are in that document or find things that are not in there when they find this to be to their advantage. This was a very real concern and fear the Founders had about what might take place after one or two of the original generations had passed on.
    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    America First!

  11. #40
    Ex Member Array Doogie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    SW Florida
    Posts
    3,890
    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernBoyVA View Post
    However, if you walk out of your home into the public arena armed with your sidearm and no permit needed, you ARE exercising a fundamental right because no governing agency required you to submit information, meet some predetermined criteria, and hand over funds for you to do this.

    This is a huge difference in not only the right to go about armed but in the most basic concepts of liberty, which have seemed to have gotten lost over the past 12 generations.
    So true!! The mere existence of a CHP is the undeniable proof of the governments proposition that you have to "prove yourself not guilty" of a "disqualifying criminal conviction" before you are "permitted" to exercise your 2A right to KABA as outlined by the BOR. Whereas the whole presumption of innocence of the citizen goes out the window and the government no longer has to prove you guilty beyond a reasonable doubt before your rights can be denied.

    How did that get so twisted?

  12. #41
    VIP Member Array ghost tracker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Ky Backwoods
    Posts
    12,684
    Quote Originally Posted by Chevy-SS View Post
    OK, I give up. I must be missing something. Why would you "surely hope NOT!"?????????? -
    Oh, it's simple. Kentucky currently has perfectly understandable, reasonable gun laws. If we throw-in under FEDERAL law with Illinois, Massachusetts & California, our laws will unDOUBTEDLY become more "leftist". Why in Gaud's name would I WANT THAT?
    rcsoftexas and baren like this.
    There are only TWO kinds of people in this world; those who describe the world as filled with two kinds of people...and those who don't.

  13. #42
    Member Array Cippee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    Upstate NY
    Posts
    141
    Quote Originally Posted by Skolnick View Post
    The Bill of Rights is a list of prohibitions against the Federal Government, not the States. As written, "Congress shall make no law abridging ..." does not mean "The Several States shall make no law abridging ..."

    If you read the Federalist Papers #46, the author of the Second Amendment, James Madison, tells us what it is for.

    Do notice the part where he writes "To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence ... Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of."

    Those "subordinate governments" are the States.

    Going by original intent, the 2nd Amendment only precluded the Federal Government from disarming the citizenry, the States and localities were free do what they wanted.

    That being said, starting in the late 1800s, the Supreme Court, under the 14th Amendment, has been using a concocted "Doctrine of Incorporation" to apply the Bill of Rights to all levels of government, and not just to the federal government.

    I don't agree with those decisions, but they have been the supreme law of the land for over 100 years.

    McDonald v Chicago extended the 2nd Amendment to the state and local governments under the Doctrine of Incorporation.

    All that being said, usually the Federal Government imposes its will on the States by using the Interstate Commerce Clause. Here is how it is done in reality ...

    http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-1...-104s890is.htm

    104th CONGRESS, 1st Session, S. 890, To amend title 18, United States Code, with respect to gun free schools, and for other purposes, IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, June 7 (legislative day, JUNE 5), 1995 ...
    SEC. 2. PROHIBITION.
    Section 922(q) of title 18, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
    `(q)(1) The Congress finds and declares that--
    ``(A) crime, particularly crime involving drugs and guns,
    is a pervasive, nationwide problem;
    ``(B) crime at the local level is exacerbated by the
    interstate movement of drugs, guns, and criminal gangs;
    ``(C) firearms and ammunition move easily in interstate
    commerce and have been found in increasing numbers in and
    around schools, as documented in numerous hearings in both the
    Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives and the
    Judiciary Committee of the Senate;
    ``(D) in fact, even before the sale of a firearm, the gun,
    its component parts, ammunition, and the raw materials from
    which they are made have considerably moved in interstate
    commerce;
    ``(E) while criminals freely move from State to State,
    ordinary citizens and foreign visitors may fear to travel to or
    through certain parts of the country due to concern about
    violent crime and gun violence, and parents may decline to send
    their children to school for the same reason;
    ``(F) the occurrence of violent crime in school zones has
    resulted in a decline in the quality of education in our
    country;
    ``(G) this decline in the quality of education has an
    adverse impact on interstate commerce and the foreign commerce
    of the United States;
    ``(H) States, localities, and school systems find it almost
    impossible to handle gun-related crime by themselves; even
    States, localities, and school systems that have made strong
    efforts to prevent, detect, and punish gun-related crime find
    their efforts unavailing due in part to the failure or
    inability of other States or localities to take strong
    measures; and
    ``(I) Congress has power, under the interstate commerce
    clause and other provisions of the Constitution, to enact
    measures to ensure the integrity and safety of the Nation's
    schools by enactment of this subsection.
    ``(2)(A) It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to
    possess a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects
    interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the individual knows, or
    has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.
    You at right at first it was intended to limit federal government power. Madison wanted the word states added but it was rejected. However after the 14th amendment and the incorporation you mentioned the 2nd amendment has been incorporated. I don't know why your against incorporation. So your fine with a state being able to pass whatever laws the state constitution allows. So before the 14th amendment states had slavery you would be cool with that because you don't agree with the 14th amendment's interpretation.
    CWOUSCG likes this.

  14. #43
    Member Array Cippee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    Upstate NY
    Posts
    141
    Also the gun free school zone act you listed was ruled unconstitutional in 1995.

  15. #44
    Distinguished Member Array Gaius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    1,424
    The concept of the Bill of Rights was not that the government now grants and then guarantees these rights until it no longer wants to do that. Rather, that these rights are of the inalienable variety or so called God-given rights. Apart from the theology here, the concept of incorporation makes perfect sense. As these rights are fundamental and are considered part of the general rights of man, not only can the federal government not infringe on them, but neither can the states.
    --Best way to win a gun fight? "That's easy, don't show up." --Wyatt Earp

    --If youíre carrying a gun for self-defense, donít practice like a target shooter. Practice like a gunfighter.

    --Always be nice until it's time not to be nice.

  16. #45
    VIP Member Array SouthernBoyVA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    2,926
    Quote Originally Posted by Cippee View Post
    Also the gun free school zone act you listed was ruled unconstitutional in 1995.
    Yes it was. I think the case was Lopez v. the United States. Unfortunately, that law remains in U.S. Code (18, 921 and 18, 922) and many states have written statutes around this. To show just how ignorant some who write these laws are, the wording of 18, 922 mentions a "permit to possess". It says nothing about a permit to carry. Most states do not require a permit to possess a handgun, therefore most of their citizens would technically be acting outside of the law if within 1,000 feet of school property. Go figure.
    nlyric and rcsoftexas like this.
    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    America First!

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 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
  •