quote:

Originally posted by smithnsig:

quote:

Originally posted by LBAR15:
So I’ve always wondered, how does this new law should it be enacted effect someone in a state that is may issue like NY if you have a full carry permit from another state like Florida?

Does the New Yorker continue to not be able to carry in NY even though a visitor from Florida could carry with their florida permit? Does the New Yorker's non resident Florida carry permit do anything for him? Asking for a friend lol...

Technically the New Yorker can get a CCW from Florida. Florida allows non residents to get a Florida CCW. It would seem to me this is a round about way to unrestrict carry in may issue states. If so, it would be glorious.

Except if the bill wants to treat ccw permits like driver licenses, how many states do you know that allow non-resident driver licenses?

Honestly, I'm a little apprehensive about what the unintended consequences of national reciprocity might be.

quote:

Originally posted by 46and2:
We basically just need to apply LEOSA to everyone - not just LE.

Pretty much.

quote:

Originally posted by 46and2:
We basically just need to apply LEOSA to everyone - not just LE.

Or repeal LEOSA. One or the other. It is absolutely wrong that one class of people are afforded this while the rest of us are not.

Agreed, Alan. The unintended consequences scare the hell out of me. Hence why I put forth the pipedream wording I did.

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:
Except if the bill wants to treat ccw permits like driver licenses, how many states do you know that allow non-resident driver licenses?

Honestly, I'm a little apprehensive about what the unintended consequences of national reciprocity might be.

Not only that, who dictates standards for driver's licenses?

What will the argument be when the dems get control of Congress and the WH again - we need standard requirements across all states, it's not fair that some states require 3 days of training and some states don't require any.

Once you concede the point that the feds are in control of reciprocity, you concede that they can control all other aspects of concealed carry. You can't have one without the other.

Show vote....

It was like repealing Obamacare from 2010-2016...Nobody cared.

Never going to happen. Would need...68 Rs and that WV-D in the Senate to overcome all the RINOs.

Repeal LEOSA or extend it to everyone, basically.

Some wise dudes once wrote something about:

quote:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

I live in a free state. I regularly drive thru Oklahoma, Texas, New Mexico, and Colorado. I don't forsee having too much trouble carrying in those locales. Right now Massachusetts and California politicians do not impact my right to carry, I would rather not give them authority over my ability to carry. I can happily live with the current system forever.

Look at the text of the bill. The permit has to be issued from the person's state of residency. It does not protect non-resident permits.

quote:

Originally posted by LBAR15:
So I’ve always wondered, how does this new law should it be enacted effect someone in a state that is may issue like NY if you have a full carry permit from another state like Florida?

Does the New Yorker continue to not be able to carry in NY even though a visitor from Florida could carry with their florida permit? Does the New Yorker's non resident Florida carry permit do anything for him? Asking for a friend lol...

Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) is warning that House Leadership plans to merge Obama-style gun control with national reciprocity for concealed carry.

This news comes just days before Rep. Richard Hudson’s (R-NC) national reciprocity legislation, H.R. 38, is supposed to go the House floor for a vote.

Massie explains that the Obama-style gun controls are contained in the “fix-NICS” legislation, the very legislation that House Leadership “plans to merge” with H.R. 38. He used a Facebook post to explain the “fix-NICS” legislation would allow “agencies, not just courts, to adjudicate your second amendment rights.”

He expounds:
[“Fix-NICS”] encourages administrative agencies, not the courts, to submit more names to a national database that will determine whether you can or can’t obtain a firearm. When President Obama couldn’t get Congress to pass gun control, he implemented a strategy of compelling, through administrative rules, the Veterans Administration and the Social Security Administration to submit lists of veterans and seniors, many of whom never had a day in court, to be included in the NICS database of people prohibited from owning a firearm. Only a state court, a federal (article III) court, or a military court, should ever be able to suspend your rights for any significant period of time.

Massie does not name names, but presumes that some are seeking to add the gun control legislation as a way of “to ensure reciprocity will pass in the Senate.” Yet he believes it is a foolish attempt to gain the support of Senators like Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Chuck Schumer (D-NY), who will not support national reciprocity legislation “even if it contains the fix-NICS legislation they support for expanding the background check database.”

Massie observed, “If our House leadership insists on bringing the flawed fix-NICS bill to the floor, they shouldn’t play games. We should vote separately on HR 38, the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Bill, and HR 4477, the fix-NICS bill. And we should be given enough time to amend the fix-NICS bill, because it needs to be fixed, if not axed.”


http://www.breitbart.com/big-g...ational-reciprocity/

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.

I’ve always been against this.

We don’t want the Federal government touching our carry permits. Liberal states will be comprised with at some point and that endangers everyone.

It serves NO PURPOSE! A state may have to recognize you have a right to carry in your own state, but you still have to comply with their laws which you have no say in. There will be liberal states that will concoct laws to frustrate/entrap visitors with carry permits. I can just see New York recognizing your permit, but requiring you to contact the state police upon entering their territory or some other such onerous rule.

It’s a bad idea. I’ve written my Congress critters with these same arguments. That includes John Cronyn. Crickets from Cronyn and form letters from Cruz and the others. I hope it dies a quiet death!

From the standpoint of conservatism and federalism, the bill is a bad idea.

I also don't see how it gets 60 votes in the Senate. Schumer might let Manchin or Tester vote for it if they needed to, but I think it more likely that he would demand a unified bloc of DEmocrats voting no.

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?

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.

Only in one direction, erring on the side of liberty. A State should never be able to take more away, only to give more, or provide the same degree of liberty as the Feds.

quote:

Originally posted by jbcummings:
I’ve always been against this.

We don’t want the Federal government touching our carry permits. Liberal states will be comprised with at some point and that endangers everyone.

It serves NO PURPOSE! A state may have to recognize you have a right to carry in your own state, but you still have to comply with their laws which you have no say in. There will be liberal states that will concoct laws to frustrate/entrap visitors with carry permits. I can just see New York recognizing your permit, but requiring you to contact the state police upon entering their territory or some other such onerous rule.

It’s a bad idea. I’ve written my Congress critters with these same arguments. That includes John Cronyn. Crickets from Cronyn and form letters from Cruz and the others. I hope it dies a quiet death!

My thoughts exactly.

I can carry ANYWHERE in PA EXCEPT: Court houses, military/gov't installations and secondary schools. THAT'S IT.

NO silly bullshit like VA with the restaurant/alcohol thing or these stupid 30.06 signs I hear you guys talk about all the time.

I do NOT WANT Pennsylvania's awesome carry laws dumbed down and restricted because VA or TX has some silly shit about where you can carry or not.

"Don't Let Perfect Get In the Way Of Good".

No, it's not perfect. But it is progress.

When people in democrat states see that the sky doesn't fall and that there are some benefits, they may start to see the light. While that's happening, we all get to have some sort of carry rights when we travel out of state.

Non resident concealed carry permits become a useless item once a citizen obtains a cc permit from their state. As you then could carry anywhere in the USA.

If you live in a commie state fix it or move?

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.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: jhe888,

I agree with PASig.