National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act: Good or Bad? What do you think??

[Blackhawk2001]

The way I understand it, the constitution preempts the states where it written as such. The 2A says the right...shall not be infringed. Now, I obviously view this in its purest reading, in that states cannot infringe on the right to keep and bear arms-period. Therefore in this case, there are no "states rights" when it comes to keep and bear...when they joined the union, they agreed to abide by the constitution and therefore "gave away" their right to "infringe".

The Supreme Court understands it differently than you do.

And that's the crux of the problem, isn't it? The result of letting lawyers parse through the Bill of Rights.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

The Supreme Court understands it differently than you do.

There was a time they agreed with slavery and Jim Crowe laws too...just shows that just because you're educated doesn't mean you can't be wrong...very wrong.

 

[buckstopshere]

POtuS will veto it anyway so I think it's full of win. I think the more exposure to our rights to carry a firearm the better.

Having said that, if BHO doesn't veto, then I'm worried.

 

[ThrottleJockey]

POtuS will veto it anyway so I think it's full of win. I think the more exposure to our rights to carry a firearm the better.

Having said that, if BHO doesn't veto, then I'm worried.

He won't veto, they'll let it slide through. The groundwork and schedule for the UN small arms treaty has already been laid out by hillary. That's when they'll get us. This just gives us a false sense of security and gets us to let our guard down.

Another problem I have is that it won't work. Lets say I have my IN ltch and I travel to NY, NY law requires me to have my gun registered and the serial number must appear on my permit. Since those requirements aren't met and I must abide by the laws of the state I am in...see where this goes? Or IL and their foid.....

 

[Smokepole]

The way I understand it, the constitution preempts the states where it written as such. The 2A says the right...shall not be infringed. Now, I obviously view this in its purest reading, in that states cannot infringe on the right to keep and bear arms-period. Therefore in this case, there are no "states rights" when it comes to keep and bear...when they joined the union, they agreed to abide by the constitution and therefore "gave away" their right to "infringe".

In as far as the legislation is concerned ( I haven't read it yet so I am going on what others are saying about it) It is backed up by the 14th amendment, basically that all states need to honor what the other states do that would apply as citizens from other state travel in and through any other state.

However, your reading of the U.S. Constitution is incorrect. The USC limits ONLY THE FEDERAL GOV'T. It in no way controls what the states may or may not do. In the 9th and 10th amendments it protects the inherent rights of the states.

Which is also the reason that the 17th amendment needs to be repealed.

 

[buckstopshere]

He won't veto, they'll let it slide through. The groundwork and schedule for the UN small arms treaty has already been laid out by hillary. That's when they'll get us. This just gives us a false sense of security and gets us to let our guard down.

Another problem I have is that it won't work. Lets say I have my IN ltch and I travel to NY, NY law requires me to have my gun registered and the serial number must appear on my permit. Since those requirements aren't met and I must abide by the laws of the state I am in...see where this goes? Or IL and their foid.....

I'm not sweating the UN treaty. Hillary and Obama can agree all they want but they still need a 2/3rds majority in congress to ratify it. They won't get that.....for now.

Doesn't mean it can't sit and collect dust for a later time though. But I don't see it happening in the next several election cycles.

As far as NY and Il, your right. It won't help much there but in states like Ohio, Wisconsin, Minnesota, etc...it would be beneficial.

For me, I have to get a Utah or Arizona AND a Florida to get all the states I have to travel to on a consistent basis and that still doesn't give me all the states I may be in.

Something like this would be great for my situation.

 

[Prometheus]

He won't veto, they'll let it slide through. The groundwork and schedule for the UN small arms treaty has already been laid out by hillary. That's when they'll get us. This just gives us a false sense of security and gets us to let our guard down.

Another problem I have is that it won't work. Lets say I have my IN ltch and I travel to NY, NY law requires me to have my gun registered and the serial number must appear on my permit. Since those requirements aren't met and I must abide by the laws of the state I am in...see where this goes? Or IL and their foid.....

The bill is a pathetic joke. It will change virtually nothing and reciprocity will be almost the same it is today.

IF we believe the Second Amendment actually applies to the States, then it must apply as written. Thus all carry licenses and permits would be unconstitutional on their face... I agree with that BTW.

The USSC has already incorporated the 2a against the States. So as of now, it DOES apply to the states....

Unfortunately a bunch lawyers in back dresses incorrectly ruled that "reasonable" restrictions can some how comport themselves with "shall NOT be infringed".

The bill is BS and anyone supporting it (in it's current form) is ignorant to the facts or just a plain idiot. On virtually every level this bill spells a great big FAIL.

 

[ThrottleJockey]

The bill is a pathetic joke. It will change virtually nothing and reciprocity will be almost the same it is today.

IF we believe the Second Amendment actually applies to the States, then it must apply as written. Thus all carry licenses and permits would be unconstitutional on their face... I agree with that BTW.

The USSC has already incorporated the 2a against the States. So as of now, it DOES apply to the states....

Unfortunately a bunch lawyers in back dresses incorrectly ruled that "reasonable" restrictions can some how comport themselves with "shall NOT be infringed".

The bill is BS and anyone supporting it (in it's current form) is ignorant to the facts or just a plain idiot. On virtually every level this bill spells a great big FAIL.

I haven't read the version currently being offered, but they rarely differ much from the previous offering. I wouldn't really call it a fail COMPLETELY. It is at least a step in the right direction, potentially. As I've said before, we didn't lose our rights all at once, they were chipped away at gradually over a long period of time. I don't expect to get them back all at once either, although it sure would be nice!

 

[The Bubba Effect]

I can't believe that a bunch of pro gun people on a gun owner's website are against national carry reciprocity.

I'm against it myself, for the exact reasons dross stated in his first post in this thread. I'm just surprised that so many of us agree on this, of all things.

 

[dross]

There was a time they agreed with slavery and Jim Crowe laws too...just shows that just because you're educated doesn't mean you can't be wrong...very wrong.

Well, going strictly by the Constitution, they were right about slavery.

 

[model67a]

I would add a class in on the use of a gun. I am sure that you all, like me, have seen people that had a gun but shouldn't have been allowed within 10 miles of one. Most of us on here have handled guns all our lives and respect them. Really the class would be for my personal protection. A friend of mine brought another friend of his along on a rabbit hunt. The guy loaded up and proceeded to pull the trigger to see if the safety was on! I had just moved my foot from where he shot. Like I said I would go to a class just to get others to go for my own protection.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

The USC limits ONLY THE FEDERAL GOV'T. It in no way controls what the states may or may not do. In the 9th and 10th amendments it protects the inherent rights of the states.

That is correct, except for where it does limit what states can do. Where it is silent, then any and all other rights are reserved by the people or the states....but review the 14th amendment--it certainly does allow the federal govt to tell the states what they can do or not do.

 

[ATM]

I would add a class in on the use of a gun...

I agree, our grade schools and high schools should all include such classes here in America.

I don't support a mandatory class as a prerequisite for obtaining a permission slip to exercise a right, though.

 

[Zoub]

We could also call that class mandatory service. Then let the military rebuild our infrastucture between range sessions.

Creating jobs one Platoon at at a time.

 

[Kurr]

Amendment No. 1—Rep. Woodall (R-GA): This amendment would protect the rights of states that already have reciprocal agreements in place for the concealed carry of firearms to continue enforcing those preexisting agreements.

Amendment No. 2—Rep. McCarthy (D-NY): This amendment would specify that the legislation can only go into effect in states that have passed legislation enacting the bill.

Amendment No. 3—Rep. Hastings (D-FL): This amendment would exempt states from issuing a carry permit on the basis of state reciprocity which do not require individuals to apply for and complete a carry permit application in person.

Amendment No. 4—Rep. Jackson Lee (D-TX): This amendment would require a state to create a comprehensive database to contain all permits and licenses issued by the state for carrying a concealed weapon and make this comprehensive database available to law enforcement officers from all states 24 hours a day.

Amendment No. 5—Rep. Conyers (D-MI): This amendment would effectively gut the bill by “preserving” state laws with respect to eligibility for concealed-carry.

Amendment No. 6—Rep. Johnson (D-GA): This amendment would require the possession or carrying of a concealed handgun in a state to be subject to “any law of the state that limits the eligibility to possess or carry a concealed handgun to persons who have received firearm safety training that includes a live-fire exercise.’’

Amendment No. 7—Rep. Cohen (D-TN): This amendment would exempt from the bill any state law requiring a person to be at least 21 years of age to possess or carry a concealed handgun.

Amendment No. 8—Rep. Jackson Lee (D-TX): This amendment would require a person intending to carry or possess a concealed handgun in a state to inform that state’s law enforcement of their intentions at least 24 hours prior.

Amendment No. 9—Rep. Cicilline (D-RI): This amendment would limit the bill from taking effect in a state until the State Attorney General, head of the State police, and the Secretary of State have jointly certified that the other state’s carry laws are substantially similar to its own licensing or permitting requirements.

Amendment No. 10—Rep. Reichert (R-WA): This amendment would require a Government Accountability Office (GAO) study on the ability of state and local law enforcement authorities to verify the validity of out-of-state concealed firearms permits.

Whats all that mean and translate out to? On it's face it seemed a simple concept, after reading the amendments, I'm more than a bit confused.

 

[bigg cheese]

red comments are quoted from Christopher Walken

Amendment No. 1—Rep. Woodall (R-GA): This amendment would protect the rights of states that already have reciprocal agreements in place for the concealed carry of firearms to continue enforcing those preexisting agreements.

That's Crap, boo!

Amendment No. 2—Rep. McCarthy (D-NY): This amendment would specify that the legislation can only go into effect in states that have passed legislation enacting the bill.

That's Crap, boo!

Amendment No. 3—Rep. Hastings (D-FL): This amendment would exempt states from issuing a carry permit on the basis of state reciprocity which do not require individuals to apply for and complete a carry permit application in person.

That's Crap, boo!

Amendment No. 4—Rep. Jackson Lee (D-TX): This amendment would require a state to create a comprehensive database to contain all permits and licenses issued by the state for carrying a concealed weapon and make this comprehensive database available to law enforcement officers from all states 24 hours a day.

That's Crap, boo!

Amendment No. 5—Rep. Conyers (D-MI): This amendment would effectively gut the bill by “preserving” state laws with respect to eligibility for concealed-carry.

That's Crap, boo!

Amendment No. 6—Rep. Johnson (D-GA): This amendment would require the possession or carrying of a concealed handgun in a state to be subject to “any law of the state that limits the eligibility to possess or carry a concealed handgun to persons who have received firearm safety training that includes a live-fire exercise.’’

That's Crap, boo!

Amendment No. 7—Rep. Cohen (D-TN): This amendment would exempt from the bill any state law requiring a person to be at least 21 years of age to possess or carry a concealed handgun.

That's Crap, boo!

Amendment No. 8—Rep. Jackson Lee (D-TX): This amendment would require a person intending to carry or possess a concealed handgun in a state to inform that state’s law enforcement of their intentions at least 24 hours prior.

That's Crap, boo!

Amendment No. 9—Rep. Cicilline (D-RI): This amendment would limit the bill from taking effect in a state until the State Attorney General, head of the State police, and the Secretary of State have jointly certified that the other state’s carry laws are substantially similar to its own licensing or permitting requirements.

That's Crap, boo!

Amendment No. 10—Rep. Reichert (R-WA): This amendment would require a Government Accountability Office (GAO) study on the ability of state and local law enforcement authorities to verify the validity of out-of-state concealed firearms permits.

That's Crap, boo!

 

[Effingham]

I've seldom wanted to kick Congressional heads more.

 

[caverjamie]

It passed the house. All the amendments were defeated except one - all that did was require a study to be done the first year the bill is in effect to determine how well police are able to figure out who has a valid license when they travel - or something like that....

Here are the Indiana votes:

NayIN-1Visclosky, Peter [D]
YeaIN-2Donnelly, Joe [D]
YeaIN-3Stutzman, Marlin [R]
YeaIN-4Rokita, Todd [R]
YeaIN-5Burton, Dan [R]
YeaIN-6Pence, Mike [R]
NayIN-7Carson, André [D]
YeaIN-8Bucshon, Larry [R]
YeaIN-9Young, Todd [R]

 

[CTC B4Z]

so this means our permits are good everywhere except IL????

Why is this not gettng more attention? So Classes for Utah's and such are pointless now correct?

 

[tr1gg3r]

so this means our permits are good everywhere except IL????

Why is this not gettng more attention? So Classes for Utah's and such are pointless now correct?

Generally bills in the United States also have to pass in the Senate and be signed by the POTuS. I am assuming this one will be no different.