Congress will not GIVE us anything; they will only take away. This will never pass the senate but rest assured if it comes close it will be laden with outrageous gun control inserted by the dems, most of which will have nothing to do with concealed carry reciprocity.

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:
And I'm sorry for you guys in New Jersey, Connecticut, and the like, but I tell you this now. I will not want to sacrifice even a single element of my right to carry in Utah just so you can get some semblance of freedom in your restrictive states.

And as a resident of one you those restrictive states: I don't want you to.

quote:

Originally posted by pulicords:
If you think "everyone" is going to carry "everywhere with no permit" you're dreaming an absurd dream that even our best supporter on SCOTUS (Justice Scalia) wouldn't agree with.

FYI - 13 states now have 'constitutional carry and 3 more have a limited form of it.

quote:

LEOSA provided a foot in the door for qualified citizens to carry concealed as a privilege just as LEOSA provided the privilege to qualified (not ALL) cops. This refusal to accept that 2nd Amendment (like all the other Amendments) isn't without limits would be humorous if it wasn't so damn destructive to our cause.

Who made such a silly argument? My argument is that that is what I am in favor of, the US Congress or courts would never vote for it (like 16 US states have), but I am for it. It's neither humorous nor harmful to anyone's cause. As noted above, many states now allow citizens to carry with no permit and there has been no 'blood flowing in the streets' or shootouts like the OK Corral.

quote:

You don't have to accept these limitations as fact any more than you have to accept the fact that the world isn't flat, but arguing isn't going to make things better for those of us that would like to see a reasonable national CCW reciprocity law come to exist.

Do you know what a straw man argument is? You are flailing away on a straw man that you have created in your head.

quote:

It happened to LEOs (only after "9/11"), but it might happen to regular citizens because of this precedent, which BTW was supported by Pelosi and strongly opposed by NYC politicians.

No, it did not happen. LEOSA has nothing to do with concealed carry permits or reciprocity. It granted a group of people a right to carry WITHOUT permits and regardless of any state laws prohibiting it. If the law being considered today stated that any law abiding citizen of a certain age was allowed to carry without a permit, I would support it.

Either you don't understand the arguments being presented here, or you do understand them but are purposely distorting them in order to go into attack mode.

The argument is very simple. Today, states set the rules on concealed carry in their states and decide which other state permits they will honor. The federal government has not had a say in this issue and there are no federal guidelines.

If you pass this bill, you are conceding that the federal government has the right to dictate concealed carry terms to states.

What do you think would happen if this bill were to pass? You think that would be the end of it and we all live happily ever after? The day after this passed CA, IL, NY, NJ, MD, HI and probably several other states would immediately file for an injunction in front of the most liberal federal judge they could find. The lawsuit would either find that (best case) that the federal government does have the right to do this and the states would need to petition Congress to fix it or a liberal activist judge would say that the most restrictive state's rules should apply nationwide.

Either way, it would be a loss for gun owners who live in free states.

46and2 presented a theoretical concerning rights that I agreed with.

I only entered this to answer Gustofer's question about how if you support LEOSA you have to support this bill or vice versa. I was simply pointing out that the 2 bills are not at all similar - one deals with granting a right to a specified group of people and the other bill inserts the federal government into the issue of state issued concealed carry permits. Not even close to the same thing, thus your position on LEOSA should have no bearing on this bill.

As to reality - this bill has no chance and probably won't even come up for a vote in the Senate. This is a show vote like all of the show votes that occured to repeal Obamacare. This bill would require 60 votes, and there are at least 4-5 RINOs who would vote against it and I don't think you could get even 1 democrat to vote for it. That's just reality.

Also reality - I am not opposed to LEOSA, I just think it should be extended to all law abiding citizens (And that is not what this does, it just opens the door to extending more restrictions on concealed carry).

LEOSA does have nothing to do with this argument, no more than driver's licenses do. They are just convenient arguments for a few who apparently don't pay attention.

For the life of me, I can't figure why people are standing in line to hand their Rights to Schumer, Pelosi, McConnell, McCain, et al. I just don't get it.

To follow the straw man argument of LEOSA, if the next BHO were to use a weaponized agency of the federal government to "redefine" LEOSA in response to a mass shooting to show they were "doing something", the Second Amendment wouldn't really lose anything. But, giving the feds control of concealed carry, it is a horrible idea. And I can't believe the number of people who apparently were asleep during the Obama administration who are presently saying "Oh, this is what they can only do according to the bill". Yeah, a leftist, socialist pResident would never make the law up as he goes, would he? He wouldn't direct agents of the federal government to illegally use the government against its people.

NAH! That is unpossible. Yeah, everyone that thinks that can happen is just paranoid. Can. Never. Happen.

Right now, most of the states already has reciprocity. Just about anywhere I want to go, my state has an agreement. Keep the feds out of it.

The greatest trick the devil ever made was convince people he doesn't exist.

I really wish this was never introduced. I don't want this to pass at all.

Like others, I don't want the Feds involved with my right to carry at all.

I live in a state with good gun laws. The states I travel to have good gun laws. If you live in a state with bad laws, vote with your feet folks.

When I moved for my job, the property I liked was over the boarder in Michigan, but they were not NFA item friendly at the time, so I chose to live in Ohio. When we pick a place to go for vacation, we will not visit anti 2A states/cities.

I want to have the option to leave Ohio if they ever go crazy and become hostile to gun owners. If it is a national standard, I lose the opportunity to vote with my feet.

In green are all the states that I can currently and legally carry in with just my Utah permit and my non-resident Arizona permit. I don't need the feds coming in and screwing that up. I'd love for that map to show all green, but I'd rather the states individually work towards that goal. It'll take a lot longer for sure and most likely will never be all 50, but it sure beats the feds getting their mitts in the game.

Hey Blaze, what app is that you've got there? Looks like it could be useful the the travelling CCW holder. Looks cool too!

And, what the heck is SC's problem with Reciprocity anyway? I don't get it!

quote:

Originally posted by nhracecraft:
Hey Blaze, what app is that you've got there? Looks like it could be useful the the travelling CCW holder. Looks cool too!

And, what the heck is SC's problem with Reciprocity anyway? I don't get it!

It's this one:



It's a fantastic app. It does cost something though. $2.99 I think. But worth it.

The same maker also has a historical documents app that is equally awesome. I recommend checking that out as well.

My wife and I use Handgun law.US.
Before we travel I print out the pages for each state we are going through and put them in a binder in the order we will be going through them. As we approach the state lines the wife will check the next stage to make sure we know the appropriate laws such as duty to inform, no gun signs, carry in roadside rest stops etc..
The site is updated frequently and easy to use.
There is no excuse to not know the laws where you are going.
We do not travel in states that rare not gun (our rights) friendly. Screw 'e-mail.
I'm with rest of you who don't want this bill to pass. It's a bunch of show B.S.. I don't want the feds involved in my gun rights at all except to recognize the Second Amendment without any reservations.

I don't have a problem with the bill. It doesn't establish requirements like the Real ID act does. The authority to issue still resides with each state/local jurisdiction, but once issued, it's good everywhere. States behind enemy lines can continue to deprive their residents of rights but not non-residents. The Feds already recognize all CCWs regardless of state issued.

What's not mentioned is which CCW laws apply - those of the home state or laws of the state you are in (e.g., 30.06 signs, CCW in bars, etc.). I would comply with the laws of the state I'm visiting.

I don't expect it to pass anyway.

Although there is no chance that Rino's 1 & 2 from TN would vote for this I wrote them anyway asking them not to.

It is always interesting to see where I am compared to 46&2 and Balze. In general I am an anarchist (as the true definition of the word applies, not some media/ government bastardization of the word). 46&2 ends up being more libertarian than I do on some issues but that is because of the programming I endured through the school system etc. It has taken me a long time to open my eyes but they are wide open now.

There was mention of owning an Apache earlier in the thread. In my opinion THAT is exactly what the 2nd is all about. If I am qualified to fly it, and can afford to keep it properly maintained why shouldn't I be able to own one? Am I suddenly less trustworthy than I am to own the various firearms that I do now? If you accept that definition where does it stop? Am I to be trusted to own everything up to but not including a 50 BMG?

So, looking at a really strict interpretation of the 2nd if you really focus in on the word "bear" then that has some interesting implications. There were a lot of privately owned cannons during the Revolutionary War. There were lots of privately owned ships sailing around armed to the teeth with cannons. I don't think I can "bear" a cannon but with their ownership so widely distributed and accepted I think the original framers equated "Bear" with ownership. But, let's take the word a little more literally. I can certainly "bear" a shoulder fired missile of many different types. I go to dinner with people all the time while armed. I follow the rules forced on me but if there weren't any rules do you think I would suddenly stand up and randomly shoot folks for the hell of it? So what basis is there for preventing me to own a shoulder launched missile?

A long time ago there was farm land in an L shape on 2 sides of the airport in Chattanooga. For decades a family friend farmed that land. When it was dove season we hunted every year. On the short side of the L we were directly in the flight path. None of us ever took a shot at a plane during take off or landing. Then, some busybody decided that when certain flights were scheduled we were not "allowed" to hunt there. A year or 2 later we were prohibited from hunting that land at all and about 5 years after that the airport authority, with the power of the state behind it (remember, the state, both big S and little S does nothing without the threat of armed violence behind it) decided that the owner of that land no longer had to right to farm it or even access it. Merely standing on the land would land you in jail. In the end the land owner sold the land to the airport authority for pennies on the dollar. And of course, looking back now, that was the intent all along.

That which is regulated can be forbidden. It just takes a change of the political landscape. The large population centers continue to out pace rural areas in population growth. They will increasingly dominate the political landscape and not for the better. So, I live in a state that is about as free as it can be and just go along. It isn't right and I will never be happy about it but until there is a spark and enough people stand up there is little we can do. Hard to get enough folks to stand up when most of them are too busy standing in line for their mcrap burger while staring at their phone in a desperate attempt to order the latest xbox game...

The awesome thing in all this is that the xbox games help people escape a reality that they don't understand is making them miserable.

Mark

quote:

For the life of me, I can't figure why people are standing in line to hand their Rights to Schumer, Pelosi, McConnell, McCain, et al. I just don't get it.

That is the long and short of it. Amen.

quote:

Originally posted by downtownv:

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

quote:

Originally posted by downtownv:
I a bit surprised of the mis information that is spoken about this but perhaps most surprised that the same misinformation is being spewed here.

Like what?

Balze here ya Go!
Your fundamental right to keep and bear arms should not end at the state line. This bill would ensure that law-abiding citizens do not lose the ability to protect themselves when they travel from state to state. And it would ensure that anti-gun jurisdictions do not harass travelers for exercising their constitutional rights.

H.R. 38 DOES NOT:

Allow prohibited persons to carry firearms;
Create a federal licensing or registration system;
Establish national standards for concealed carry; or
Override state laws governing the time, place and manner of carrying concealed.


You should know better than most how this effect NJ Gun owners
www.NJgunforums.com has been blowing up on this for weeks.

This is a huge victory for anyone living in Nazi States like CA NY CT MA MD NJ etc. this bill allows ANY license holder resident or NON resident to travel state to state without fear of prosecution, even NYC!

I saw the House bill sponsor on Fox Business yesterday. He even dispels the idea that this will allow someone from a free state to carry as they would like. In his statement he told Stuart Varney that each state would be required to recognize the licensing of other States, BUT the license hold still must conform to the State and Local laws wherever he happens to be. Example (his not mine) in NY you are still limited to 8 rounds in the firearm, in Times Square area the city ordinance forbids carrying -period-. You might not like the 39.6 & 30.7 signs in Texas, but you still can’t pass one of the or a 51% sign without having issues. Same is true of every State, you still have to live with their restrictions.

So tell me what freedom does this bill actually provide?

The only thing I do see this bill doing is setting a president for the Federal government to have a say in something that is a State Right’s issue. Leave it alone! The States will work it out.

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:

For the life of me, I can't figure why people are standing in line to hand their Rights to Schumer, Pelosi, McConnell, McCain, et al. I just don't get it....

The greatest trick the devil ever made was convince people he doesn't exist.

Nobody’s “handing their rights over” to ANYONE, unless you consider proper reporting of criminal convictions and court order psychiatric treatments (which have been valid, disqualifying factors for decades) to be irrelevant.

Do you think NCIC is a threat to our liberty? If you’re against federal, state and local agencies being required to report CONVICTION information to a single, federal agency so law enforcement in State “A” will know an OFFENDER was convicted in State “B” of crimes that make him legally prohibited from buying or possessing firearms, then you must feel that way.

If you think someone that’s been found not guilty of murder BY REASON OF INSANITY and ordered by the court to be treated in a mental institution, SHOULD NOT have this data entered into NICS, then you oppose this bill.

If you agree with the Air Force policy (under the Obama administration) to withhold the Courts Martial conviction which led to the dishonorable discharge of the asshole that murdered those churchgoers in Texas, then you’re against this bill.

This bill does NOTHING but provide necessary funding to insure that lawful, judicial decisions made in ALL jurisdictions are properly retained and made available through a central database so OFFENDERS can be identified when they attempt to make an unlawful purchase of firearms.

If you’re against this, how can you say it’s proper to even share wanted person or conviction histories between ANY state law enforcement agency or Court for ANY reason?

When you or I (when I was working as a cop) checked a lawfully detained person for wants and warrants, we had the benefit of being able to learn (through NCIC) if our detainee was wanted in another state for serious crimes. We had the ability to learn if a gun we’d located was reported stolen in another state, as well as our own. We could run a license plate to determine if the car and it’s occupants are wanted for serious crimes or if the vehicle is associated with a critically missing person report. Are these abuses of authority or threats to our freedom???

This bill doesn’t require or allow gunowners or their firearms to be registered. It only mandates that prohibited persons be PROPERLY identified as already mandated by law. The NRA is correct and the benefits of this bill are obvious. Wishing for a National right to carry law won’t stop Leftists in CA, NJ, and NY. but this is a good start, just as our lawsuits filed in Federal Court.

Maybe someone can help me out, here. If a state permit will already get you the right to carry concealed in another state through reciprocity, the right to carry already "crosses state lines". That being the case, what is there to stop the feds from regulating concealed carry permits now?

quote:

Originally posted by pulicords:

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:

For the life of me, I can't figure why people are standing in line to hand their Rights to Schumer, Pelosi, McConnell, McCain, et al. I just don't get it....

The greatest trick the devil ever made was convince people he doesn't exist.

Nobody’s “handing their rights over” to ANYONE, unless you consider proper reporting of criminal convictions and court order psychiatric treatments (which have been valid, disqualifying factors for decades) to be irrelevant.

Do you think NCIC is a threat to our liberty? If you’re against federal, state and local agencies being required to report CONVICTION information to a single, federal agency so law enforcement in State “A” will know an OFFENDER was convicted in State “B” of crimes that make him legally prohibited from buying or possessing firearms, then you must feel that way.

If you think someone that’s been found not guilty of murder BY REASON OF INSANITY and ordered by the court to be treated in a mental institution, SHOULD NOT have this data entered into NICS, then you oppose this bill.

If you agree with the Air Force policy (under the Obama administration) to withhold the Courts Martial conviction which led to the dishonorable discharge of the asshole that murdered those churchgoers in Texas, then you’re against this bill.

This bill does NOTHING but provide necessary funding to insure that lawful, judicial decisions made in ALL jurisdictions are properly retained and made available through a central database so OFFENDERS can be identified when they attempt to make an unlawful purchase of firearms.

If you’re against this, how can you say it’s proper to even share wanted person or conviction histories between ANY state law enforcement agency or Court for ANY reason?

When you or I (when I was working as a cop) checked a lawfully detained person for wants and warrants, we had the benefit of being able to learn (through NCIC) if our detainee was wanted in another state for serious crimes. We had the ability to learn if a gun we’d located was reported stolen in another state, as well as our own. We could run a license plate to determine if the car and it’s occupants are wanted for serious crimes or if the vehicle is associated with a critically missing person report. Are these abuses of authority or threats to our freedom???

This bill doesn’t require or allow gunowners or their firearms to be registered. It only mandates that prohibited persons be PROPERLY identified as already mandated by law. The NRA is correct and the benefits of this bill are obvious. Wishing for a National right to carry law won’t stop Leftists in CA, NJ, and NY. but this is a good start, just as our lawsuits filed in Federal Court.

If you wish to hand over your Rights to the feds, by all means. I can't stop you no more than I can make you understand how bad an idea it is. You live in CA, so you have already handed most of your Rights over. I guess it is now up to free America to give up theirs, huh? Is that the logic? It's crazy talk that that the feds will use this against us. Uh huh.

And it has zero to do with reporting to NCIC. I went back and reread my post, and it made no mention of NCIC. If they want to do the things you say with NCIC, fine by me. Because it has zero to do with my objection to handing MY Rights over to the federal government. But, I suspect NCIC came into this as a mechanism similar to "anyone who does support welfare reform wants to kill poor people and minorities".

Many people here get it. Those that don't, by admission won't. Not to mention those who readily surrender to the feds don't get the fact that this will never see the light of day, at least for years. Even with the President's signature, a lawsuit will be filed in the 9th circuit (among other places) to the Constitutional over reach of the feds by the left, and it will be tied up in court for years. All you'll see is more bad case law. Oh well. If we can't be smart, we can be strong. Many apparently learned nothing in the 8 years BHO was in office.

I like pie. Pie is delicious. Right now it is legal for me to eat pie anytime I want. I can eat pie anywhere I like. Do I need congress to pass a law detailing my right to eat pie? Does passing that law effect my future ability to eat pie? If congress decides that they have control over my pie consumption will they decide some day to take my pie away? I do not know what those in Washington will do, nor do I know why, but one thing I do know is that they are not interested in me, my rights, or my pie. They will find a way through incompetence or malice to fuck me and take away my pie. Support this bill or not, if they really want to take your pie they will, and nothing we do will stop them. The only thing that has protected us so far to the limited amount of protection we have received has been the gross incompetence of those trying to fuck us.

I do like pie as well.

An interesting article:
Anti-Reciprocity Op-Ed Makes Excellent Case For Reciprocity
Posted at 12:00 pm on December 7, 2017 by Tom Knighton

Not everyone agrees with national reciprocity. That’s obvious of any pro-Second Amendment legislation but especially true of one that will allow a resident from one state to carry in another. People being able to carry a firearm at all is controversial in some circles, for crying out loud. People being able to do it without the express permission of their betters? Unthinkable!

UCLA constitutional law professor Adam Winkler took to the pages of the New York Daily News to underline just how wrong national reciprocity actually is.

In the process, he’s reminding us of every reason to support it.

The Concealed Carry Act works by requiring states to recognize concealed carry permits issued by other states. This sounds pretty harmless, like drivers licenses which are recognized nationwide. But the devil is in the details.

Unlike drivers licenses, some of the most populous states have only a relatively small number of concealed carry permit holders. New York, Massachusetts, California, New Jersey, Maryland and Hawaii have may-issue permitting policies that restrict public carry significantly.

In Los Angeles County, with 10 million people, only a few hundred ordinary civilians have concealed carry permits. They are awarded only to people who can show a special need to carry, such as victims of stalking.
See? What did I tell ya? I mean, if I didn’t already support the idea of national reciprocity, this alone would have sold me.

The fact is that the Second Amendment makes absolutely no mention of “need” when it talks about the right to keep and bear arms. There’s no clause in the amendment arguing that the government can and should stop anyone else from getting a permit unless they can make the case that their situation warrants being armed. None.

But Winkler isn’t done. Not by a longshot.

The Concealed Carry Act requires states like California to recognize permits from Virginia. But you don’t have to be a resident of Virginia to get a concealed carry permit there. California residents can apply online — and carry in California, never having stepped foot in Virginia.

The numbers of guns on the streets of New York, Los Angeles, Boston, San Francisco, Trenton, Baltimore, and Honolulu will skyrocket. In Los Angeles County, the projected number of lawfully concealed guns will go from fewer than 500 to 400,000.

In New York City, which today has very few legal guns carried on the streets, approximately 400,000 will be if the bill passed by the House becomes law.
Stop. Just stop.

You already sold me. There’s no need to keep selling.

New York City’s gun laws are draconian and filled with opportunities for corruption. By allowing citizens to step outside of the need for political connections, ordinary New Yorkers will be able to exercise their Second Amendment rights. I’m sorry, but I fail to see how this is remotely a bad thing.

Of course, Winkler does have a serious attack of the dumb at one point. For example:

Given recent reforms loosening carry requirements, including a dozen states now requiring no permit whatsoever, there’s likely to be “race to the bottom.” States will compete to attract applicants (and the fees) by offering the loosest, easiest, permitting laws.
There are several states that practice constitutional carry and do so without any problems whatsoever, I might add. So what? It’s not like other states–even states with reciprocity with those constitutional carry states–recognize the lack of a permit. Most, if not all, constitutional carry states also issue permits for people who travel outside the state. Pretending that constitutional carry will muddy the waters and is disingenuous to the extreme.

Winkler finishes by saying:

The Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act is far more than just protecting the Shaneen Allens caught up in conflicting gun laws. It will completely reorder Americas gun laws.
And you know what? I agree.

However, it’s a reorder that’s desperately needed. Far too many states view the right to keep and bear arms as a privilege, something that should be parceled out for their subjects as the state desires. That’s not freedom, that’s serfdom.

If national reciprocity tips that on its head, then it may well be the most important legislation to ever be considered. Unlike Mr. Winkler, I actually care about the rights of my fellow Americans, particularly in states where they’re being denied their essential freedoms, such as the right to keep and bear arms.

https://bearingarms.com/tom-k/...mail&utm_campaign=nl

From the read I got, Adam Wrinkler is a loon.
I fail to see how his case against is in fact a reason to let the Feds have a hand in the carrying of my firearm. I don’t see anything that this Federal law will do that is beneficial for anyone. Recognition of my permit in another state doesn’t change their draconian laws that I will be subject to if I travel into their territory. How is that useful?