National Reciprocity for Concealed Carry Passes, Next Stop House

Status
Not open for further replies.
If it makes it through the house I bet there are enough RINO's in the senate to stop it.
I would love to be wrong about this.
If I'm right, the important thing is to remember who they were in the next primary.
 
I am not familiar with the details of this bill.

Would it allow people with high capacity magazines to travel into states that have high capacity magazine bans?

It should. To use the oft-misplaced "drivers' license" analogy, someone with a Wyoming licensed car and no emissions equipment does not have to change their car and add emission equipment upon entering California (not that anyone in Wyoming would want to go there...:evil:)
 
I'm sorry, I have a CCW permit, but I'm not for this on Constitutional grounds. We're called the United "States" for a reason. The states should never have mandates from the federal government shoved down their throats, even if it's for causes I find valid. In that this legislation helps diminish the power of the states, I'm not for it.

This is like the federal government being able to tell local or state school boards what to teach or what books they should have. The states in the US aren't supposed to be identical to each other. Yes, the patchwork of reciprocity is frustrating, but having the US turn into one gigantic state that's synonymous with the federal government should be troubling to those of you who claim to have an allegiance to the Constitution.
 
A better analogy, instead of drivers license, would be a marriage license.
Just a few years ago, many (most) states did not recognize marriage licenses for certain couples. Here in Oklahoma, one such couple filed for divorce, after being married in another state. The judge denied the divorce, saying he could not divorce a couple whose marriage wasn't recognized.

This was changed by 5 judges, and lauded by certain political segments.

If marriage can be nationwide, why not concealed carry ?
 
Jim NE said:
I'm sorry, I have a CCW permit, but I'm not for this on Constitutional grounds. We're called the United "States" for a reason. The states should never have mandates from the federal government shoved down their throats, even if it's for causes I find valid. In that this legislation helps diminish the power of the states, I'm not for it.

This is like the federal government being able to tell local or state school boards what to teach or what books they should have. The states in the US aren't supposed to be identical to each other. Yes, the patchwork of reciprocity is frustrating, but having the US turn into one gigantic state that's synonymous with the federal government should be troubling to those of you who claim to have an allegiance to the Constitution.
Click to expand...

WRONG

I’m a big advocate of states rights. But states don’t have a right to violate an individuals Constitutional rights.

Where does it say in the Constitution that my rights only apply to the state that I’m a resident of? I’m a CITIZEN of the USA. As such my right SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

What gives MD, NY, MA, IL etc the right to say I can’t exercise my 2nd Amendment right? A right I choose to exercise whenever possible.

So while other things can be decided by the states, and localities, CONSTITUTIONAL rights aren’t one

/Rant
 
It has two chances in getting past the senate....slim and none. It will be filibustered to death by the communists in the Senate.
 
Flechette said:
Would it allow people with high capacity magazines to travel into states that have high capacity magazine bans?
Click to expand...

No, from what I have read, the only thing reciprocity will do is make your other-state permit have the same force as an in-state carry permit. It makes no changes to state and local laws about what you can carry or where you can carry. Thus, limits on magazine capacity, or even type of ammunition (think the NJ ban on hollow point bullets) are not affected. Similarly, if your home state allows carry in churches but the state you are in bans carry in churches, you still must follow the local law not to carry in a church.
You can see the official summary of the H.R. 38 bill at
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/115/hr38/summary
and the complete bill at
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/38/text?q={"search":["h.r.38"]}&r=1
 
" The states in the US aren't supposed to be identical to each other. Yes, the patchwork of reciprocity is frustrating, but having the US turn into one gigantic state that's synonymous with the federal government should be troubling to those of you who claim to have an allegiance to the Constitution."

All well and good until anti-states target individuals using legislation/laws. Some states have chosen to abuse power and they should forfeit that right. We are all aware on here of instances, its only a matter of personal experiences that further defines us as gun owners.
 
Hokie_PhD said:
WRONG

I’m a big advocate of states rights. But states don’t have a right to violate an individuals Constitutional rights.

Where does it say in the Constitution that my rights only apply to the state that I’m a resident of? I’m a CITIZEN of the USA. As such my right SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
Click to expand...

For more on the topic of how the entire Constitution applies to every State and their laws, read up on the history and judicial interpretations of the 10th and 14th Amendments. Early on, the interpretation was that the restrictions of the Bill of Rights only limited U.S. Federal law. Later judicial rulings extended the understanding to Support Hokie's position. However, decades of courts avoiding cases involving this concept and the 2nd Amendment kept the argument murky.
 
Craig_VA said:
For more on the topic of how the entire Constitution applies to every State and their laws, read up on the history and judicial interpretations of the 10th and 14th Amendments. Early on, the interpretation was that the restrictions of the Bill of Rights only limited U.S. Federal law. Later judicial rulings extended the understanding to Support Hokie's position. However, decades of courts avoiding cases involving this concept and the 2nd Amendment kept the argument murky.
Click to expand...
And that’s why we need to end the BS
Our founding fathers were clear on their fear of tyrant.
I see the anti 2nd laws as a way for the tryrants to stay in power and not fear us.

A just Government has no reason to fear the people, one that isn’t should.
 
I agree with hokie 100 percent.

However, just as there currently Federal laws on the books that numerous states blatently ignore, so to would be the case with this.

Even if this passed you'd still be an idiot to try and carry in any number of cities or states unless you like jail, court and losing money.
 
I'm not for this on Constitutional grounds. We're called the United "States" for a reason.
Click to expand...

I understand where you're coming from and don't completely disagree with you. But the issue of states rights was settled 1861-1865.
 
Crawdad1 said:
I'm driving from Pennsylvania to South Dakota with a shotgun and ammunition to hunt so I have to read up on all the states I'm traveling through so I don't violate their law?
Click to expand...
The legislation now before Congress would affect concealed handgun carry reciprocity. I don't think it would apply to your situation at all.
 
tark said:
It will be filibustered to death by the communists in the Senate.
Click to expand...
There is not a single so-called "Communist" in the Senate. We need to be precise in our terminology, not sling pejorative terms against those we don't agree with. That destroys our credibility.

You are correct, though, that this bill won't garner the necessary 60 votes in the Senate. Not even all Republicans will vote for it.
 
AlexanderA said:
The legislation now before Congress would affect concealed handgun carry reciprocity. I don't think it would apply to your situation at all.
Click to expand...

Its a hypothetical response based on response #7 above with all states having differing laws pertaining to firearms.
 
AlexanderA said:
There is not a single so-called "Communist" in the Senate. We need to be precise in our terminology, not sling pejorative terms against those we don't agree with. That destroys our credibility.

You are correct, though, that this bill won't garner the necessary 60 votes in the Senate. Not even all Republicans will vote for it.
Click to expand...

Maybe not as a party member. But Bernie doesn’t hide his communist views. And didn’t he honeymoon in the USSR?

If one buys the argument in this article there are many others

http://www.wnd.com/2013/08/communists-in-congress-just-count-em/
 
As a matter of philosophy I'm not really for it. But for practical reasons I'm a big fan. Lets face it, it should not require a visit to every state's attorney general's page to make a drive cross country. It should not be possible for a wrong turn to turn a law abiding citizen into a felon. At this point it is a real matter of interstate commerce. I think most Republicans are going to look at it as a business decision. If they want another term they better vote for it. If it doesn't pass we need to make people pay for it. Treat them the same way the ones who voted for the magazine ban were treated. Then it will pass in 2018.
 
Jim NE said:
I'm sorry, I have a CCW permit, but I'm not for this on Constitutional grounds. We're called the United "States" for a reason. The states should never have mandates from the federal government shoved down their throats, even if it's for causes I find valid. In that this legislation helps diminish the power of the states, I'm not for it.

This is like the federal government being able to tell local or state school boards what to teach or what books they should have. The states in the US aren't supposed to be identical to each other. Yes, the patchwork of reciprocity is frustrating, but having the US turn into one gigantic state that's synonymous with the federal government should be troubling to those of you who claim to have an allegiance to the Constitution.
Click to expand...

What you are describing is a Republic.

A republic and a democracy are identical in every aspect except one. In a republic the sovereignty is in each individual person. In a democracy the sovereignty is in the group.
Click to expand...
https://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/repvsdem.htm

Does anyone really want to give that up? Some here seem more than willing to do that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

A
  • Locked
Everytown Takes Victory Lap as Paul Ryan Lets National Reciprocity Stall
2 3
Replies
54
Views
3K
danez71
danez71
U
  • Locked
Could the right president pass National Carry Reciprocity?
2 3 4
Replies
78
Views
4K
lysanderxiii
L
A
  • Locked
John Cornyn Introduces National Concealed Carry Reciprocity in Senate
2
Replies
36
Views
2K
SharpDog
SharpDog
A
  • Locked
Cornyn offers ‘reciprocity’ for 17 million concealed carry permit holders
2 3
Replies
60
Views
3K
Pat Riot
Pat Riot
A
  • Locked
Will combining National Carry Reciprocity with Fix NICS help it pass?
Replies
13
Views
894
AlexanderA
A
Back
Top