SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  The Lounge    National Reciprocity for Concealed Carry
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

Moderators: Chris Orndorff, LDD
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
National Reciprocity for Concealed Carry Login/Join 
The Main Thing Is
Not To Get Excited
Picture of wishfull thinker
posted Hide Post
Against. I agree that going East is a hassle, no question. But my rational mind sees the consequence of giving this level play to the feds, it will very soon become a hassle to go west as well.

Look at the discussion on this forum; in the past we have had heated discussion from members that say it is 'wrong' not to require training for a carry permit, while others, including me, say look at the facts, WA licencees have no more silly situations than any other state and we require no training. That's just one example is all, but putting the right to carry in the hands of a fickle, feckless federal government is a first step onto a short pier.

those characters need to be controlled not enabled.


_______________________
I don't wanta leave the party
I still wanta have some fun,
I wanta leave 'em feeling breathless,
Show 'em how the west was won.
 
Posts: 5195 | Location: Washington | Registered: November 06, 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of sigcrazy7
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by jhe888:
quote:
Originally posted by sigcrazy7:
quote:
Originally posted by jhe888:
Against. Our federalist system should allow the states to regulate for themselves subject to the limits of the Constitution.

We shouldn't have national standards on much of anything.


Those Constitutional limits seem fairly straightforward. “Shall not be infringed.”

I always thought the 14th settled the idea that states can selectively restrict rights, especially in light of Heller/McDonald. Should any other enumerated right be subject to a federalist system? Should a state be allowed to regulate and license churches?

I do not see how an honest reading of the Constitution can find a difference between the prohibitions placed on Congress in the first and second amendments. When we have states actively restricting enumerated rights, I thought it was Congress’ duty to intervene and enforce the provisions of the Constitution. We would never today allow a federalist argument to justify a state’s police to search an out-of-state traveller’s car without PC or a warrant, or deny a traveler any other due process. Why is the second amendment treated so differently?


Your post contains some errors.

One example:

All of the enumerated rights are subject to limits. ALL of them. Your right to free speech is not unfettered. You cannot slander people. And certain kinds of commercial speech are limited - look at all the regulations the FDA can impose on advertisements for medical advertising. Square that with "make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech." You can't, free speech can be abridged in certain ways.

The 4th amendment requires that no warrant issue but upon probable cause, yet the police may search your person and car in some circumstances with no warrant at all, never mind one supported by probable cause.

Even in Heller, Scalia acknowledged that some limits on the 2d would be permitted. So talking about no limits on the 2d makes no sense and would not be expected by even the most hard-core. (No one seriously doubts that a state, or the feds, can prohibit the possession of 120mm mortars.)

So, as I said, subject to the floor levels guaranteed by the Constitution, the states should be able to regulate carry permits as they choose. That will not mean that there are no limits on gun regulation. The Feds shouldn't abrogate a state's constitutionally proper regulatory scheme. Federalism is a critically important component of our system and we should not abandon it.

If you do, you will find the feds mandating all sorts of things that are better left to the states. Educational requirements for example.


There are differences between limits on rights, and an outright denying the right. In some parts of the country, D.C. and NJ for example, the possession of a plain lead ball or spent brass is construed as being armed, and will get you prosecuted. Getting three years in prison for a piece of spent brass is hardly on par with anti-slander laws, which, incidentally, one must persue civilly. The authorities don’t file criminal cases and use the full force of the government because somebody overstepped their 1A rights.

Being that the RKBA is denied absolutely in some states, not simply limited and regulated, it seems fitting for Congress to step in and enforced the Constitution’s provisions.



[i]
 
Posts: 5080 | Location: Utah | Registered: December 18, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Striker in waiting
Picture of BurtonRW
posted Hide Post
Anyone else listening on C-Span?

Alcee Hastings cracks me up. Where can I get an "AK-47 multiple firing gun"? Sounds like a blast.

-Rob




I predict that there will be many suggestions and statements about the law made here, and some of them will be spectacularly wrong. - jhe888

A=A
 
Posts: 14547 | Location: Maryland | Registered: March 16, 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post
It's not you,
it's me.
Picture of RAMIUS
posted Hide Post
What time is the vote today?


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Totus Tuus

 
Posts: 4123 | Location: Philadelphia, Pa | Registered: September 08, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
E tan e epi tas
Picture of cslinger
posted Hide Post
Around 145 they are saying.

Let me summarize the discussion.
Democrat - blah blah RACE TO BOTTOM
Republican- blah blah COMMON SENSE

Rinse/Repeat


"Guns are tools. The only weapon ever created was man."
 
Posts: 3004 | Location: Nashville, TN | Registered: July 25, 2002Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of sig sailor
posted Hide Post
I am conflicted about this. I fear having congress involved with CC, but I live in Michigan and have kids in New Jersey. When I visit, I am unprotected in Mich, Ohio, Pa, and NJ.because I must leave my gun at home. SUCKS!
Rod


We have a President again. Thank God.
 
Posts: 849 | Location: Between Rock & Hard Place (Pontiac & Detroit) | Registered: December 22, 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Against. I continue to believe very strongly that if something like this can be abused, it will be. It's just a matter of time. And we're rarely, if ever, better off surrendering control of some element of our life - no matter how small or insignificant - to the federal government. And this particular issue is not insignificant.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"And it's time that particularly, some of our corporations learned, that when you get in bed with government, you're going to get more than a good night's sleep."
- Ronald Reagan
 
Posts: 5686 | Location: Pegram, TN | Registered: March 17, 2002Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Thank you
Very little
Picture of HRK
posted Hide Post
It's (2A) already being abused by state and local governments, law abiding citizens cannot traverse freely through NY or NJ without fear of imprisonment when transporting a firearm, much less carry of that firearm.

Each state should be able to set its own rules and laws, just as they do for a drivers license now, hours of instruction, age, where and how, speed limits on state and local roads, all are subject to state laws, however they cannot prohibit a non state resident from driving through their state, in so far as they are in concert with the laws of that state.

Right now you can't even try and be in compliance in NY if you are not a NY citizen, and that is one thing this bill would address forcing states to create regulations that can be followed allowing people to carry through all states.

I'm sure NY will make it next to impossible to comply, and we'll end up with a 2A lawsuit however this would give us the platform to legally force NY to adopt laws that do not restrict lawful carry.

I agree that politicians are not to be trusted, right now we have 50 states full of local politicians that refuse to agree, and in doing so place many of us at risk for becoming a felon simply by crossing a state line.

Fixing the reciprocity issue doesn't mean we're in for having to restrict everyone to the rules of the worst state.



"My rule of life prescribed as an absolutely sacred rite smoking cigars and also the drinking of alcohol before, after and if need be during all meals and in the intervals between them." Winston Churchill
 
Posts: 11119 | Location: Mouseville, FL | Registered: November 07, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Against. Any gun legislation that Feinstein and Schumer have their hands in will NOT be good for us.

I have an AZCCPermit for traveling and I don't want the above bozo's screwing with that.


*******
"Avoid the rush. Procrastinate now".
 
Posts: 5131 | Location: Arizona | Registered: August 17, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Gracie Allen is my
personal savior!
posted Hide Post
For. If there's a law, then there's access to the courts regardless of what some politician tries to do down the road.
 
Posts: 20791 | Location: Deep in the heart of the brush country, and closing on that #&*%!?! roadrunner. Really. | Registered: February 05, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Green Mountain Boy
Picture of Jus228
posted Hide Post
I am against it. Let the free states continue to pass constitutional carry. As for the hostile states, they will remain hostile no matter what the law says.


!~God Bless the U.S. Military~!

If the world didn't suck, we'd all fall off

Light travels faster than sound, this is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak
 
Posts: 5309 | Location: Vermont | Registered: March 02, 2002Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Thank you
Very little
Picture of HRK
posted Hide Post
Interesting enough if you take the time to watch cSpan discussions the members from left wing oppressive regulation states, MA, NY, CA etc all use the same argument against the bill as those here who are against it, that it's a states rights issue.

Guys here don't want to be potentially subjected to changed in laws to accomodate the rules of the more oppressive gun law states

The legislators believe it will force their states to be subject to less stringent laws of other states and don't want to open up gun carry to people that haven't been subject to there "may carry" rules..

Exact same type of argument from the viewpoint of who is oppressing whom....



"My rule of life prescribed as an absolutely sacred rite smoking cigars and also the drinking of alcohol before, after and if need be during all meals and in the intervals between them." Winston Churchill
 
Posts: 11119 | Location: Mouseville, FL | Registered: November 07, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Little ray
of sunshine
Picture of jhe888
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by BurtonRW:
Anyone else listening on C-Span?

Alcee Hastings cracks me up. Where can I get an "AK-47 multiple firing gun"? Sounds like a blast.

-Rob


Is that like those guns that were two 1911 slides welded together on one frame?




The fish is mute, expressionless. The fish doesn't think because the fish knows everything.
 
Posts: 44508 | Location: Texas | Registered: February 10, 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
I believe in the
principle of
Due Process
Picture of JALLEN
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by HRK:
It's (2A) already being abused by state and local governments, law abiding citizens cannot traverse freely through NY or NJ without fear of imprisonment when transporting a firearm, much less carry of that firearm.

Each state should be able to set its own rules and laws, just as they do for a drivers license now, hours of instruction, age, where and how, speed limits on state and local roads, all are subject to state laws, however they cannot prohibit a non state resident from driving through their state, in so far as they are in concert with the laws of that state.

Right now you can't even try and be in compliance in NY if you are not a NY citizen, and that is one thing this bill would address forcing states to create regulations that can be followed allowing people to carry through all states.

I'm sure NY will make it next to impossible to comply, and we'll end up with a 2A lawsuit however this would give us the platform to legally force NY to adopt laws that do not restrict lawful carry.

I agree that politicians are not to be trusted, right now we have 50 states full of local politicians that refuse to agree, and in doing so place many of us at risk for becoming a felon simply by crossing a state line.

Fixing the reciprocity issue doesn't mean we're in for having to restrict everyone to the rules of the worst state.


Fixing the reciprocity will mean that while you will have a permit in every state, you will still have to comply with the peculiar laws of whatever state you are in. They vary wildly, which olaces are forbidden, effect of signs, open/concealed, and these can be quite complicated.

Carrying past a 51% sign here means big trouble, whether you know to look or not.

It is like some states allow right turns on red after full stop but failure to signal is a felony, etc.




Luckily, I have enough willpower to control the driving ambition that rages within me.

When you had the votes, we did things your way. Now, we have the votes and you will be doing things our way. This lesson in political reality from Lyndon B. Johnson

"Some things are apparent. Where government moves in, community retreats, civil society disintegrates and our ability to control our own destiny atrophies. The result is: families under siege; war in the streets; unapologetic expropriation of property; the precipitous decline of the rule of law; the rapid rise of corruption; the loss of civility and the triumph of deceit. The result is a debased, debauched culture which finds moral depravity entertaining and virtue contemptible." - Justice Janice Rogers Brown
 
Posts: 43269 | Location: Texas hill country | Registered: July 04, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
It's not you,
it's me.
Picture of RAMIUS
posted Hide Post
Passed the House.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Totus Tuus

 
Posts: 4123 | Location: Philadelphia, Pa | Registered: September 08, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Writer by profession,
smartass by the
grace of God.


posted Hide Post
Very good news.


(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")
 
Posts: 539 | Location: Beaverton, OR | Registered: April 19, 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Glorious SPAM!
Picture of mbinky
posted Hide Post
I don't ever see it getting 60 in the senate. If it does you can bet it will be with SERIOUSLY detrimental markups from the dems placing vast restrictions on it.

So it won't pass.
 
Posts: 7168 | Registered: June 13, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of Pipe Smoker
posted Hide Post
If reciprocity passes, it'll be interesting. CC license are easily obtainable in some CA counties, but not in San Diego county. So when hordes of Arizona residents come to San Diego for the summer, they'll be able to carry, while San Diego residents cannot.




Cognition?
On.
 
Posts: 2406 | Location: San Diego | Registered: July 26, 2014Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Gracie Allen is my
personal savior!
posted Hide Post
Sure, but what if San Diegans get Utah permits?
 
Posts: 20791 | Location: Deep in the heart of the brush country, and closing on that #&*%!?! roadrunner. Really. | Registered: February 05, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Move Up or
Move Over
posted Hide Post
I'm against. I don't need 1 single more federal or state law in my life.

I solve the problem of not being able to carry in certain states by not going there.

Mark
 
Posts: 4022 | Location: middle Tennessee | Registered: October 28, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
  Powered by Social Strata Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7  
 

SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  The Lounge    National Reciprocity for Concealed Carry

© SIGforum 2017