Cleveland Gun Roadtrip Examiner & national reciprocity

[cce1302]

Daniel White writes:

A couple of days ago, I suggested in an article that a national reciprocity bill would be a good thing. Whenever this issue is brought up, there is opposition from both sides of the fence. Of course, gun control advocates don't want any bill passed that expands gun rights. But there is opposition from the pro-gun side as well.
Two of the biggest fears from "our" side are that the government will take away states' rights by forcing them to accept licenses and issuing standards from other states, as well as the concern that this could turn into a national concealed carry license which could then be easily overturned.
The latest proposal, H.R. 197, does neither of those. It simply states that if you have a concealed handgun license, it is valid in any state. You would still have to follow that state's laws regarding concealed carry, and each state would still dictate the terms of issuance to their residents.

continued here:
Cleveland Gun Rights Examiner: Cleveland Gun Roadtrip Examiner & national reciprocity


As far as I'm concerned, and I'm ready to take heat here, the water of Congress meddling with our gun rights is already under the bridge and gone.
They're already "regulating interstate gun commerce" and putting greater limits on our freedoms and stomping on states' rights to infringe on our gun rights.
I don't know why we allow reciprocity conflicts over our rights when such a conflict would never stand for something like a driver's license.
I'm ready for congress to step in on this and pass HR 197 and tell the states to play nice.

 

[BtownBlaster]

Absolutely right, this bill is desperately needed. In the quote above, the author mentions opposition from pro-gun groups on states rights grounds. This should be no different from a drivers license, and a state handgun permit should be recognized in all fifty states. The opposition from pro-gun citizens should be to the licensing of a fundamental right. Once you accept the authority of the state to regulate your exercise of a constitutional right, it seems silly to argue against this bill.

 

[CulpeperMM]

I couldn't disagree more. Washington is a leviathan choking this country. the states have the right (Amendment #10) to regulate carry.

I do not want to cede any more power to the Feds.

if idiots in California, Mass. or Hawaii don't want to be armed, fine, but they should have no say in my rights.

now you can throw rocks, because this will be my only post in this thread. Just think about the big picture, not just what states you get to carry in.

 

[jeremy]

Personally I think there should be NO permit/license needed for me to carry whatever I so chose. I got my permit when I was born, it is my citizenship in the United States! Personally this is just one step closer to federally licensed ownership. And as such I have all ready sent letters to my reps with my opinion of what can be done with this bill.

 

[jeremy]

I couldn't disagree more. Washington is a leviathan choking this country. the states have the right (Amendment #10) to regulate carry.

I do not want to cede any more power to the Feds.

if idiots in California, Mass. or Hawaii don't want to be armed, fine, but they should have no say in my rights.

now you can throw rocks, because this will be my only post in this thread. Just think about the big picture, not just what states you get to carry in.

+1! I would rep you if I could, however I must spread the wealth around a little first!

 

[CulpeperMM]

Personally I think there should be NO permit/license needed for me to carry whatever I so chose. I got my permit when I was born, it is my citizenship in the United States!

i'm for this ^^^

 

[dburkhead]

I couldn't disagree more. Washington is a leviathan choking this country. the states have the right (Amendment #10) to regulate carry.

I disagree. The States do not have a right to oppress. They do not have a right to infringe on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. While getting the RKBA back to the true Constitutional form is unlikely to happen anytime soon, anything that moves us closer (such as further limiting the individual states rights to violate the 2nd) is a good thing.

 

[dburkhead]

Personally I think there should be NO permit/license needed for me to carry whatever I so chose. I got my permit when I was born, it is my citizenship in the United States! Personally this is just one step closer to federally licensed ownership. And as such I have all ready sent letters to my reps with my opinion of what can be done with this bill.

And you have just given your reps that much support for the anti gun side and made further restrictions that much more likely.

"Unintended consequences" work both ways.

 

[jeremy]

Oh I truly understand the recourse of my actions. We have strayed from the republic that we were born to be. Laws are what should be defining how we should not live, not how we are forced to compromise. We have became a democracy somewhere along the way and it sends chills up my spine to think that it has come to the point that the common person has to live in fear of breaking a law they do not even know exists. Why do we need to explain a text more than it's original form? "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." What is so damn hard about understanding this simple text?

 

[cce1302]

I couldn't disagree more. Washington is a leviathan choking this country. the states have the right (Amendment #10) to regulate carry.

I do not want to cede any more power to the Feds.

if idiots in California, Mass. or Hawaii don't want to be armed, fine, but they should have no say in my rights.

now you can throw rocks, because this will be my only post in this thread. Just think about the big picture, not just what states you get to carry in.

Great. You're willing to roll over and agree that congress has the right to prevent you from buying a handgun in, say, South Carolina, since you are not a South Carolina resident, but you are not willing to support Congress in saying to the states, "you do not have the right to prevent visitors from exercising their right to keep and bear arms in our state." Would you feel the same way if a state said, "sure, you have a right to protection from unlawful search and seizure, just not in our state." Wouldn't you want congress to step in?

 

[dburkhead]

Oh I truly understand the recourse of my actions. We have strayed from the republic that we were born to be. Laws are what should be defining how we should not live, not how we are forced to compromise. We have became a democracy somewhere along the way and it sends chills up my spine to think that it has come to the point that the common person has to live in fear of breaking a law they do not even know exists. Why do we need to explain a text more than it's original form? "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." What is so damn hard about understanding this simple text?

That's all well and good, but it's the flip side of the "ivory tower intellectual with no experience in the real world." Yeah, by all rights the 2nd should be enough. However, the facts on the ground and the situation we are in are different. One has to deal with reality as it is, not as one would like it to be or thinks it should be. And the reality as it is is that the 2nd is not enough, not here, not now, to guarantee our rights. Another reality is that getting to the point where "shall not be infringed" is treated as meaning what it actually says is not something that will happen all at once or in a single step. It's going to be a lot of small steps.

It frustrates me to see people afraid of making or supporting the small steps for fear that some other step might turn it around. Yeah, it might. But if we won't take the small steps it won't have to because the other side isn't afraid of taking those small steps. How do you think we got where we are in the first place?

The antis are going to oppose any move to increase RKBA closer to the Constitutional goal. Folk on the "pro-RKBA" side are going to oppose steps away from it. The problem is that too many (one is too many, IMO) "pro-RKBA" people line up with the antis to oppose steps in the direction of greater exercise of RKBA! Oh, the reasons are different, but they end up lining up on the same side. The bill right here is an example. It increases the individual's right to keep and bear arms. It's not a "states' rights" issue because the "right" to regulate (i.e. to infringe on) RKBA is not a right states are supposed to have in the first place. But this fear that by having the federal government enforce a position actually closer to the Constitution than the current status quo will lead to them "taking over" and moving further away is, to my thinking, rather strange. Going from "there is a federal law requiring reciprocity" to "since we require states to grant reciprocity to each other's licenses, we'll now require federal licensing" is, well, unusual. If the idea of this being a "stepping stone' to requiring federal licensing is valid, then that cause is already lost since NFA '34 is a far more direct link--since some weapons already require federal licensing, simply adding more categories to the controlled list is a far simpler step then the complete about-face required to get there from a bill that expands RKBA.

The thing is to make the small step now, get what we can, and never forget that the job isn't done. Stand guard against attempts to use it as an "excuse" for reversals down the road and keep the pressure on for further opportunities to expand RKBA until we get to what is actually written in the Constitution.

But if one is going to reject, even oppose, these small steps for fears of what someone might do down the road? Well, in that case the antis have already won and you might as well get as much enjoyment from your guns as you can because you won't have them long.