So what does the text of the bill actually say?

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:
So what does the text of the bill actually say?

Gotta' pass it to read it. (Nancy Pelsoi)

I hate to say it, but it doesn't really matter at this point. As we're seeing with the back and forth over the tax bill, the text that matters is the text that comes out of the House-Senate conference committee.

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.

How about a law that says transport/carry is allowed on any federal highway and businesses fronting them? (Individual businesses allowed to opt out, though.)

flashguy

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?

quote:

Originally posted by 220-9er:
"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.

Lol

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 actually enjoy visiting njgunforum, lotsa knowledgable people...after Sigforum of course

quote:

Originally posted by RAMIUS:
I actually enjoy visiting njgunforum, lotsa knowledgable people...after Sigforum of course

A lot of knuckleheads too

quote:

Originally posted by RAMIUS:
Passed the House.

Stand-alone reciprocity or merged with a few gun control laws?

One thing I could see the dems trying to insert into this is the demand that CCW info be shared among the states. In NC the police know I have a permit when they run my tag. I don't want NY or CA or any other communist state having that info. With the politicians running those state police agencies I could definently see it being abused.

I see absolutely no benefit to this.

quote:

Originally posted by mbinky:
I don't want NY or CA or any other communist state having that info.

They already do, as soon as they run your plate.

quote:

Originally posted by SIG228:
I see absolutely no benefit to this.

I see many.

I'm curious how many of those here who are against this bill are in favor of LEOSA.

quote:

Originally posted by Gustofer:
<<snip>>

I'm curious how many of those here who are against this bill are in favor of LEOSA.

c

I don't know how many are but I am, against the bill and for LEOSA, that is.

I have no problem with somebody having something I don't. Fair? Nope. But the cops didn't keep me out, they got themselves in. good for them and that gives just that many more good guys with guns that may keep me from being shot to crap in a post office.

quote:

Originally posted by wishfull thinker:
I don't know how many are but I am, against the bill and for LEOSA, that is.

I have no problem with somebody having something I don't. Fair? Nope. But the cops didn't keep me out, they got themselves in. good for them and that gives just that many more good guys with guns that may keep me from being shot to crap in a post office.

No offense, but your explanation makes no sense.

You are against having something that you could have, that you believe is a good thing, and that you applaud another group for having.

I, and many others, have more training and experience with firearms than the majority of cops, yet they can travel freely while carrying while I go to jail. How is that right?

quote:

Originally posted by Gustofer:
They already do, as soon as they run your plate.

ONLY if your state shares it. Many do not. Many states do not tie CCW permits to the DMV.

quote:

I have no problem with somebody having something I don't.

Me either, if we're taking about an ice cream cone or any one of a zillion inconsequential things. But this is a fundamental, natural Right, wrongly denied to many by various bad laws that never should have been allowed to come to be in the first place. This isn't about fair, it's about correcting a colossal fuck up on the part of various State governments and the Fed.

quote:

Originally posted by Gustofer:
I'm curious how many of those here who are against this bill are in favor of LEOSA.

Why the curiosity on this particular bill? They are not alike, really in any way.

LEOSA grants retired LEO's the right to carry a firearm in any state regardless of local or state laws - it does not require a concealed carry permit, thus it does not imply or concede that the federal government has a right to regulate state issued concealed carry permits. Once that point is conceded, when dems gain control of Congress and the WH they WILL use that fact to regulate those licenses - requiring training, time periods, prohibited people, etc. I don't think it's even a question of if they will do it or not - they will.

quote:

Originally posted by Gustofer:

quote:

Originally posted by wishfull thinker:
I don't know how many are but I am, against the bill and for LEOSA, that is.

I have no problem with somebody having something I don't. Fair? Nope. But the cops didn't keep me out, they got themselves in. good for them and that gives just that many more good guys with guns that may keep me from being shot to crap in a post office.

No offense, but your explanation makes no sense.

You are against having something that you could have, that you believe is a good thing, and that you applaud another group for having.

I, and many others, have more training and experience with firearms than the majority of cops, yet they can travel freely while carrying while I go to jail. How is that right?

No offense taken. If I was offered LEOSA because of my good looks and extensive training I'd jump on it in a minute. But the prospect of the federales screwing around with it is off-putting.

I've gone to the trouble to have a small array of back up permits but national would be convenient, I just flat, do.not.trust. the .gov not to screw it up.

The cops are a whole separate thing to me.