Any chance of 50-state CC reciprocity, or perhaps a Federal CC permit? - Page 4

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; Originally Posted by Gaius The concept of the Bill of Rights was not that the government now grants and then guarantees these rights until it ...

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4
Results 46 to 60 of 60
Like Tree124Likes

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

  1. #46
    VIP Member Array SouthernBoyVA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    3,031
    Quote Originally Posted by Gaius View Post
    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.
    This is true.

    Governments can never convey rights to the governed. What it can and does do is convey privilege and/or authority. The thing is, with our system government may only do this with our consent and at our pleasure. That was how this entity was designed but alas, it has become so polluted that for many years, government believes itself to be the master and us to be its servants... a complete reversal of the Founders' original intent.
    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!

  2. #47
    Member Array AnthonyC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    CNY
    Posts
    379
    Quote Originally Posted by ghost tracker View Post
    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?
    As xXxHeavy says above:
    "Hmmm......unless it becomes a Fed. thing we'll never see it here in NJ,"
    those of us in restrictive states such as NJ, NY, California, Maryland, etc. having been hoping for Donald Trump to win and make good on his promise of national carry. This could lead to lawsuits by individuals in those states regarding unequal treatment under the law, ie a nonresident can carry in NJ but a NJ resident cannot.
    So, yeah, I for one want a federal law so that the thousands of law-abiding Americans living in those states can enjoy the same rights as everyone else.

  3. #48
    Senior Member Array Chevy-SS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Rhode Island
    Posts
    1,000
    Quote Originally Posted by AnthonyC View Post
    As xXxHeavy says above:
    "Hmmm......unless it becomes a Fed. thing we'll never see it here in NJ,"
    those of us in restrictive states such as NJ, NY, California, Maryland, etc. having been hoping for Donald Trump to win and make good on his promise of national carry. This could lead to lawsuits by individuals in those states regarding unequal treatment under the law, ie a nonresident can carry in NJ but a NJ resident cannot.
    So, yeah, I for one want a federal law so that the thousands of law-abiding Americans living in those states can enjoy the same rights as everyone else.

    Yeah, this was my thinking in the very first post of this thread. I live in Rhode Island, which will typically NOT issue CC permits. Therefore, a Fed permit MIGHT be a viable option for the folks that live in anti-gun states.

    -
    AnthonyC likes this.
    'Be careful, even in small matters' - Miyamoto Musashi

  4. Remove Advertisements
    DefensiveCarry.com
    Advertisements
     

  5. #49
    Distinguished Member Array kukla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Bradshaw Mountains, Arizona
    Posts
    1,894
    How about constitutional carry for the whole country - no permit or permission slip necessary for anyone legally owning a gun.
    It works very well here in Arizona, why not the whole US?
    I don't like the idea of "lists", state-wise or nationally.
    "I plan ahead. That way, I don't have to do anything right now!"

  6. #50
    Guest Array 103830's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    helena montana
    Posts
    631
    I don't like the idea. Lets say a few elections down the road someone very anti second amendment comes in and gets rid of the 50 state carry. Im not a lawyer, but it could create an opportunity to stop all concealed carry. Leave it up to the states. The federal government has taken over a lot of things they should have never been able to touch, such as education, and what defines an interstate company. You might not deal out of state, but they can regulate you federally by the number of employees you have.

  7. #51
    Distinguished Member
    Array rcsoftexas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Heart of Texas
    Posts
    1,494
    This is why stripping all infringements back to the original 2A is the only way. In one swift monumental motion, not piece by piece like its tragic never ending annihilation. Oh, but if we did achieve this monumental motion there would be no need for groups like the NRA except to run rifle clubs and competitions like when and why the NRA was originally founded.

    This makes, the only way, impossible.
    kukla and CWOUSCG like 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.

  8. #52
    VIP Member Array ghost tracker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Ky Backwoods
    Posts
    12,684
    Quote Originally Posted by AnthonyC View Post
    As xXxHeavy says above:
    "Hmmm......unless it becomes a Fed. thing we'll never see it here in NJ,"
    those of us in restrictive states such as NJ, NY, California, Maryland, etc. having been hoping for Donald Trump to win and make good on his promise of national carry. This could lead to lawsuits by individuals in those states regarding unequal treatment under the law, ie a nonresident can carry in NJ but a NJ resident cannot.
    So, yeah, I for one want a federal law so that the thousands of law-abiding Americans living in those states can enjoy the same rights as everyone else.
    Well, that's a mighty fine & noble thought. Yet we don't "fine & noble" governments. After all, folks in NY, NJ, IL & Calif ELECTED (and continue to RE-elect) the very legislatures that currently restrict their gun rights. So (IMHO) it's not the "responsibility" of Kentucky, Tennessee and Texas to "save" them by jumping into the Federal 50-state net. It's correctly a States-Rights decision, so y'all get your OWN (state)house (pun intended) in order & leave Kentucky...alone.
    rcsoftexas and OD* 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.

  9. #53
    Distinguished Member
    Array rcsoftexas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Heart of Texas
    Posts
    1,494
    Devil's advocate if I may;

    Through our votes towards leadership in the House, Senate and President, through our voice of 10 versus 10 million would it not be more powerful for "We the People" to have one government and house held responsible for what freedoms United States citizens are governed by as a nation instead of broken down by States when involving the constitution? Would it not be easier to manage infringements by the majority of the country versus the individual states? It this not what the pig picture consisted of in 1776?

    Take Texas for instance. We do not need to get involved in Michigans proposed gun regulation because it will not affect us as long as we do not travel through or move to Michigan.

    All for one and one for all.
    kukla 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.

  10. #54
    VIP Member Array ghost tracker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Ky Backwoods
    Posts
    12,684
    Centralized control just makes it easier to sweep all of the (we?) "undesirables" up in one big, fast net. While the current administration FAVORS the 2nd Amendment, when the tides inevitably flows the other way, I do NOT WISH for gun control decisions to be originating from
    ...Capital Hill!
    Doogie, rcsoftexas and OD* 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.

  11. #55
    Ex Member Array Doogie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    SW Florida
    Posts
    3,890
    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernBoyVA View Post
    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.
    This is why I have a Florida and Ohio CHL. I drive within 1000 feet of a school all the time in both States and it only takes ONE idiot to cause all kinds of trouble for you.
    rcsoftexas likes this.

  12. #56
    Ex Member Array Doogie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    SW Florida
    Posts
    3,890
    Quote Originally Posted by rcsoftexas View Post
    Devil's advocate if I may;

    Through our votes towards leadership in the House, Senate and President, through our voice of 10 versus 10 million would it not be more powerful for "We the People" to have one government and house held responsible for what freedoms United States citizens are governed by as a nation instead of broken down by States when involving the constitution? Would it not be easier to manage infringements by the majority of the country versus the individual states? It this not what the pig picture consisted of in 1776?

    Take Texas for instance. We do not need to get involved in Michigans proposed gun regulation because it will not affect us as long as we do not travel through or move to Michigan.

    All for one and one for all.
    Sounds really efficient....however a true constitutional republic is not efficient......NAZI Germany was very efficient. Local States rights are always better because the sheer volume is more difficult to pervert by those who would attempt to take our liberty. I want it to be so hard to change that no carpetbaggers like the Clinton's could do it. Example: Look at the liberal clowns trying to pervert the electoral college right now.
    rcsoftexas likes this.

  13. #57
    Distinguished Member Array nlyric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    sw of Houston Texas
    Posts
    1,853
    Quote Originally Posted by AnthonyC View Post
    As xXxHeavy says above:
    "Hmmm......unless it becomes a Fed. thing we'll never see it here in NJ,"
    those of us in restrictive states such as NJ, NY, California, Maryland, etc. having been hoping for Donald Trump to win and make good on his promise of national carry. This could lead to lawsuits by individuals in those states regarding unequal treatment under the law, ie a nonresident can carry in NJ but a NJ resident cannot.
    So, yeah, I for one want a federal law so that the thousands of law-abiding Americans living in those states can enjoy the same privilege as 3% of Americans.
    FIFY.... Was born and raised in NJ, but grew up in Tx. Most of us have chosen to participate in purchasing our way into a gov sanctioned privileged class. Let's not pretend it is anything but that. I can see where it would look like a gain for your self/state though.
    "It's almost like a right, except without the pesky Liberty"
    Author unknown.....

  14. #58
    Member Array Skolnick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    194
    Quote Originally Posted by Cippee View Post
    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.
    I do not like the Doctrine of Incorporation, not because it extends the Bill of Rights to the States, but because it is concocted.

    I do not see the 14th Amendment saying "the Bill of Rights now applies to the States" -- and if it does say that, then why did it take them half a century to find it?!

    If they can manipulate the text to benefit me one day, then they can manipulate the same text to harm me on the next day. You may have faith in the political process, I don't!

    Again, it does not matter what I say or think, Incorporation is the supreme law of the land and we all have to deal with that reality.



    Quote Originally Posted by Cippee View Post
    So your fine with a state being able to pass whatever laws the state constitution allows.
    No, but it is what it is, not what it ought to be.

    If the Bill of Rights ought to apply to the States, then do it the right way and pass an amendment saying so.



    Quote Originally Posted by Cippee View Post
    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.
    The 13 Amendment that outlawed slavery on its own, the 14 Amendment was not needed for that.

  15. #59
    Ex Member Array Eagleks's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    10,182
    Quote Originally Posted by Chevy-SS View Post
    Of course, the 2A benefits greatly under the new administration. Obviously, the new POTUS is not yet sworn in but I'm curious: does anyone know if Fed-mandated 50-state CC reciprocity (is this even possible, considering states rights?), or perhaps a Federal CC permit has been mentioned or discussed at all?

    Thanks
    Just go to Constitutional Carry in all States, and no need for permits.

    IF, permits are going to be required.... I don't want the Fedl Govt involved at all. They need to stay out of it, or we'll have a mess ..... at some point, some liberal President or Democrat controlled House / Senate will make it impossible and into a Wash DC / Illinois approach.

    I liked Trump's one idea..... States will issue permits and determine any requirements , just like they do on Driver's Licenses, and all States have to recognize any other States permit.
    rcsoftexas, WICCW, Doogie and 2 others like this.

  16. #60
    Ex Member Array Doogie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    SW Florida
    Posts
    3,890
    Quote Originally Posted by Cippee View Post
    Also the gun free school zone act you listed was ruled unconstitutional in 1995.
    Do you have a citation or link for that?

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4

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
  •