National Right-To-Carry Reciprocity Bill Introduced

[dmazur]

What does LEOSA give them aside from nationwide recognition of the trust their own state has in them?

Exactly! A national right-to-carry reciprocity bill could address this using much the same concept. If you have met the requirements of your state for concealed carry, then travel should not alter this trust, or your rights to defend yourself.

There may be some details to work out, to be sure. I seem to remember a problem many years ago about neighboring states recognizing so-called "farm licenses" that young drivers were issued in states like, for example, Texas. They were underage in neighboring states, which had no similar license, and the neighboring states didn't like the situation.

So, I can see states which require an exam and proof of competency shoot looking askance at states such as Washington, which have no requirements other than a thorough background check.

Nevertheless, I think it's a good idea. If it can be considered as mundane as having a driver's license, maybe some of the paranoia about concealed pistols will begin to diminish. One can always hope.

 

[TAB]

What about contractor Lic, hell even your standard biz lic.

Explain to me why if I do work in a city, a 7 miles away from my city, my biz lic is not valid and I have to get one from thier chamber of com.

many states have laws about lock pick/ slim jim

CA does...

 

[notorious]

thats true. and those usually tend to fall into safety issues rather than politics. it makes sense to not sell an xm307 to some 15 year old from south chicago with gang tattoos all over his back. same thing with mental patients. but just because there are restrictions doesnt mean there should be.

doctors: you can try that, and as long as your patient agreed to the procedure, was notified that you had no license, and signed an affadvit agreeing to disburse you of legal liabilities, i dont think there would be much they could do about it. similar to drugs or herbs that have to state that their product isnt certified by the fda. buy at your own risk.

postal workers get those jeeps as part of their job. same way construction workers get backhoes and tower cranes as part of theirs. its not like they get to use that as their personal vehicle. (they might, but they arent supposed to)

i dont believe you can get in trouble for having lockpicks on you. now if the bank down the street just got robbed, and they catch you walking away with a set, thats suspicious but not illegal until they can prove you did it. The main thing is: possession of these tools with the intent to commit a crime. Therefore, the crime of possession of burglars tools is almost always combined with another crime, such as trespass or burglary.

politicians have those as job perks. highup executives in most companies get private jets, cars, golf courses, etc. and staff is usually not just needed, but does provide jobs. i do think, however, that most politicians are currently going way overboard with the amount of perks they enjoy.

How about driving age, voting age, drinking age, veteran's preferences in hiring, affirmative action, minority quotas in government contracts, tax brackets, law licenses, beautician's licenses, cab driver licenses, movie production permits, tax exempt organizations, etc.?

The state is already regulating and differentiating people. What's the problem with cops who are tasked with protecting society from carrying their weapons 24/7 like they already do in their home states?

People who practice medicine without a license go to jail here for practicing medicine without a license. Same if they dispense prescriptions. We have laws against that. Would you be supportive of everyone having all the same rights across the country regardless? Sounds like you are more in favor of federal encroachment than anyone else.

 

[Rodentman]

«Plumbers are different from non-plumbers.»

Except for Joe the Plumber...???

 

[TAB]

The state is already regulating and differentiating people. What's the problem with cops who are tasked with protecting society from carrying their weapons 24/7 like they already do in their home states?

What about the fact that while its legal for you to be a LEO in your home state, it would not be legal for you to be a LEO in another state? Would it be fair/right for him to carry in that state? If so please explain why

lets face it, laws all over the US are drasticly diffrent. Felonys in one state, can be infractions in others.

 

[notorious]

So what is the problem exactly with cops being allowed to carry nationwide?

Let's get to the root of the problem or the issue.

Is it that cops can't be trusted outside of their state?

Is it that cops have rights over citizens?

What is the issue?

What did LEOSA take away from the citizens?

 

[TAB]

how about the fact that they created a class of citz that have no oversite from states( out side of thier own of corse) I see it as a dircet violation of the 10a.

 

[notorious]

You talking about Hollywood stars and Democrats who don't pay taxes without penalty?

 

[hugh damright]

So what is the problem exactly with cops being allowed to carry nationwide?

There's principalities in the whole thing.

I think there is supposed to be a separation of state/federal powers just as there is supposed to be a separation between the states ... if New Jersey passed a law saying that anyone who was ever a NJ cop could carry in Virginia, rather than ask how that impacts a Virginian's right to carry, or asking if NJ cops can be trusted, or even asking if the problem is that cops are getting special privileges ... I think the primary question would regard where NJ gets off thinking they can legislation over matters outside of their jurisdiction.

It is not clear to me what federal power is being exercised by legislating that anyone who has been a cop in any State can carry a concealed weapon in every State. It's not as if the US can just pass any law that they consider to be helpful, good, proper, for the common good, or anything of that nature. Or at least that is not our constituted frame of government.

 

[Dokkalfar]

How about driving age, voting age, drinking age, veteran's preferences in hiring, affirmative action, minority quotas in government contracts, tax brackets, law licenses, beautician's licenses, cab driver licenses, movie production permits, tax exempt organizations, etc.?

The state is already regulating and differentiating people. What's the problem with cops who are tasked with protecting society from carrying their weapons 24/7 like they already do in their home states?

i dont see much of a problem with it. what i do see a problem with is cops getting special treatment simply because they 'qualify' at a range twice a year. which is a LOT less than most people. the main issue behind this is encroachments upon the 2A, by federal and state laws.

as to your list, i disagree with alot of those, but can understand the need for some, such as age limits and such. maturity levels are needed to drive, or drink. i dont know about the current laws, but a 9-year-old isnt going to be able tomake decisions that a 19-year-old can.

and anything discriminatory i think isnt right. like hiring preferences, quotas, taxes, etc. everyone should be considered equal for each. affirmative action is racism. law licenses: crap. if i want someone to defend me, and they are willing to do so, they should be allowed to do so. the bar exam means nothing for people who dont take it.

 

[bensdad]

Is it that cops have rights over citizens?

Cops ARE citizens. They just have special training on how to direct traffic around an accident, how to do that fancy PIC maneuver, and how to de-escalate domestic disturbances.

The law allowing them to carry nation-wide is a violation of the 10A. If Michigan wants to disarm cops visiting from LA, that's their business. If WI wants to accept MN carry permits, that's their business.

 

[notorious]

Granted, all valid points from your perspective. However, why does that translate into anti-cop vitrile? What did we do to become the enemy?

 

[TAB]

Granted, all valid points from your perspective. However, why does that translate into anti-cop vitrile? What did we do to become the enemy?

how about the fact that while this bill was being passed no major LEO group ( hell any leo group) did anything from stoping this from passing.

Cops being killed out side of work, does not happen very often, let alone very often in other states. So why was this bill even needed?

In reality being an LEO is alot safer then many other jobs, that pay alot less. Also cops are killed by cars more then anything else.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

LEOSA was passed to spin off an influential segment of the population effectively removing them and their arguments from the discussion and reasons why people should be allowed to carry arms unfettered, state to state. It was an effective divide and conquer move and it worked.

Woody

 

[notorious]

how about the fact that while this bill was being passed no major LEO group ( hell any leo group) did anything from stoping this from passing.

Cops being killed out side of work, does not happen very often, let alone very often in other states. So why was this bill even needed?

In reality being an LEO is alot safer then many other jobs, that pay alot less. Also cops are killed by cars more then anything else.

Okay... let me get this straight. No major cop organizations opposed LEOSA which gave them nationwide carry rights so we are the enemy.

How about if the Feds passed a nationwide carry law similar to LEOSA but for civilian CCWs only and not for cops and there was no LEOSA?

How vocal would the NRA or GOA or any state gun organization oppose it? How many of you would fight it and say if the cops don't have it, we don't want it either.

How many of you would take advantage of it immediately and carry your weapons nationwide with your state CCWs?

Would that make you guys the enemy of the cops then?

How about if it was military instead? Would then the military be the enemy? Or Firefighters? Or pilots? Let's see how far this hypocrisy goes.

 

[TAB]

I would personally fight any bill that gave nation wide carry to ANYONE.

You missed my point, major LEO groups/dept are calling for increased gun contorl, yet want to remove gun control from thier officers. That is where the prob is. You can't have it both ways. you ethier have more gun control for every one, or less for every one. pick one.

Lets forget all that... police are civilans and can get CCWs. Infact most dept around here strongly sugguest it or make it mandatory if they want to CCW off the clock.

 

[notorious]

Hmmm... no department here suggests CCW for their officers. By law we are 24 hour peace officers and we don't need CCWs as we are exempt from the prohibitions.

As for major LEO groups... you must be talking about IACP which does not speak for the line officers, most of whom support CCWs for citizens and advocate for self-defense against crooks.

IACP is all politicians as would be expected for an association of chiefs. Their views do not reflect line officers, just as you don't necessarily attribute the views of a mayor to the whole city workforce. Otherwise, all of Los Angeles would be the same as Villagorosa and openly defy federal law.

 

[TAB]

its not just them, just recently the cheif from FL called for a federal AWB.

Reality is, the rank and files "IMO" does not mean a damn thing. What thier "mouth piece" is saying that matters. sucks, but thats reality. they guy screaming the loudest is the one people hear.

 

[notorious]

So... let me get this straight, you would, on principle, reject vocally a nationwide CCW and not personally take advantage of it and carry under its provisions. You would then fight the NRA, GOA, and everyone else who supported the bill.

Is that what you're saying?

Also, do you also blame everything done by Bernie Parks or Willie Williams on the 8,000 LAPD officers that have nothing to do with them?

Do you blame the NOPD officers for the acts of their chief?

Are the 7,000 LASD deputies liable for Lee Baca's political wranglings?

How about all the Orange County Deputies after their sheriff was busted for corruption and obstruction?

We have nothing to do with the political positions of the Chiefs and even less control over what they say. To make us the enemy for something the chief says is as asinine as blaming all the citizens for Obama letting terrorists on US soil after closing Gitmo.

 

[TAB]

So... let me get this straight, you would, on principle, reject vocally a nationwide CCW and not personally take advantage of it and carry under its provisions. You would then fight the NRA, GOA, and everyone else who supported the bill.

Is that what you're saying?

yes that is what I am saying. Trampling one right to give another is never a good thing.

Also, do you also blame everything done by Bernie Parks or Willie Williams on the 8,000 LAPD officers that have nothing to do with them?

no, but that does not mean it casts a good light on the LAPD.

Do you blame the NOPD officers for the acts of their chief?
yes I do, atleast all of those that went around collecting guns

Are the 7,000 LASD deputies liable for Lee Baca's political wranglings?

no, but he is the boss, so his "IMO" and policys are the LASD policys

How about all the Orange County Deputies after their sheriff was busted for corruption and obstruction?

if they pertook in any of them yes, if they knew and did nothing yes.

We have nothing to do with the political positions of the Chiefs and even less control over what they say. To make us the enemy for something the chief says is as asinine as blaming all the citizens for Obama letting terrorists on US soil after closing Gitmo

Like it or not, the "boss" speaks for you. I would not work for a boss would think diffrent of me for having a diffrent political view. Yes, I have told bosses to shove it for them doing that.

I don't care how much you say the rank and file arn't like that. until they come out publicly( not on the inter net) no one will think they are any diffrent.

 

[Dokkalfar]

for any organization, the head guy is the one who determines the official policy of that organization. some members may disagree, but that doesnt change the company's policy. When i worked in a restaurant in high school, i thought some of out prices were rather high, but i didnt go around charging people 25% off or anything. but i was still a member of the staff and so i had to abide by that policy if i wanted to keep my job.

lets say you usually drive about 50 in a 45mph zone. however, one city you drive through has some cops who will pull you over for speeding. and this city ios known for that. so if you drive through and see a cop, you are of course going to slow to 45. whether he would target you for 5 over or not.



but the nice thing about a national CCW reciprocity is that is gives 2A rights back to alot of people. the problem, though, is it is federal govt meddling in areas it shouldnt, to unmeddle areas the state shouldnt have meddled with in the first place. and when they do something that the people like that they shouldnt do, they're gonna start doing stuff the people wont like. overall, they shouldnt really mess with this, but states shouldnt be restricting CCW so much in the first place.

 

[notorious]

I am glad that you can afford to walk away from a job on a whim if you don't like the boss, TAB. Lots of places change bosses regularly. Where do you work and how often do you have changes in admin?

As for your principled fight against nationwide carry... how does LEOSA trample on your rights? As far as I know, LEOSA did not take anything away from non-LEOs.

As for all the other rants of yours, how often have you had disagreements with company policy and how often do you just pack up and leave and tell the admin to shove it?

 

[TAB]

my boss changes with almost every single contract. I can and do turn down work. I've told the boss to shove it 3x. Once for them telling me to do something illegal, once for blaming something on me to a custmer( I did it right in front of the custmer) and once for asking me to do something that was unsafe.

They did trample my rights and the rights of all states, by saying " your state law does not mean **** anymore" They took my power to choose who and who can not carry in my state. It does not mater how I feel about people CCW, what maters is they took away my choice.

 

[Dokkalfar]

most places i know of have pretty steady management. but if you do have problems with the boss treating you badly because of politics or such, try talking to your HR department. thats rather unprofessional of him, and mot companies dont like employees who act towards others in such a manner.

as to LEOSA trampling on rights, its just like affirmative action. does AA trample on your chances to get a job (assuming you are white) when AA is specifically targeted at minorities, not whites?
Giving certain people special privileges over and beyond those granted to other groups turns it into a privilege. how do you think women felt when the 15A was passed?

 

[bensdad]

With all due respect Notorious, I think you're being a bit defensive. You haven't addressed this post:

LEOSA was passed to spin off an influential segment of the population effectively removing them and their arguments from the discussion and reasons why people should be allowed to carry arms unfettered, state to state. It was an effective divide and conquer move and it worked.

and yet you said this:

how does LEOSA trample on your rights? As far as I know, LEOSA did not take anything away from non-LEOs.

It took away a group that might otherwise have been an ally.
If LEOSA didn't exist, would you be in our corner? I'm not anti-cop (in this case). I'm anti fed.gov. This isn't a cop vs. non-cop issue. It's a fed encroachment issue. LEOSA was/is a violation of 10A. Any national right to carry would be a violation of 10A. If WI has no permit process, let the cheeseheads iron it out.

It's not that I don't care about gun rights in WI, it's that I care a little more about state's rights. AND I'm not so short-sighted that I think this would be the end of it.

I can repeat it as many times as you guys can argue with it: Once the fed gets involved, they will add requirements, restrictions, fees, hoops, etc. until nobody can carry a firearm (execpt the anointed LEOs of course).