quote:

Originally posted by DennisM:

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.

While CT may have a weapons ban, it's actually pretty easy to get a carry permit here.

quote:

Originally posted by jbcummings:
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?

It would have saved Shaneen Allen, and thousands like her, from facing a decade in prison. What about the Utahn who's plane was diverted to JFK? He unwittingly took possession of his luggage and was then arrested the next day for the firearm he had checked. HR38 will begin to roll back these states that criminalize a right.

I wish I could dig up the thread from Dec 2015 when the Virginia AG unilaterally revoked reciprocity from 25 states.

quote:

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.

And if, by extension, I don't agree with that Air Force policy, then I'm for this bill? With all due respect, horseshit.

This bill is a bad idea and a terrible precedent and you can bet your naive ass that it will be used against us, particularly those of us who have kept our politicians reasonably in line with regards to concealed carry. By inserting themselves into any part of this delicate, precious interstate process that most of us enjoy today, the politicians have simply created a single pressure point from which they can more easily fuck us. Yes, the way we have to do it today is a PIA but this proposed law most certainly is not the panacea that many would have us believe it is.

I'll say it yet again...If it can be abused, it will be. You can take that to the bank.

quote:

Originally posted by sigcrazy7:

quote:

Originally posted by jbcummings:
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?

It would have saved Shaneen Allen, and thousands like her, from facing a decade in prison. What about the Utahn who's plane was diverted to JFK? He unwittingly took possession of his luggage and was then arrested the next day for the firearm he had checked. HR38 will begin to roll back these states that criminalize a right.

What was he arrested for? Would recognition of his concealed carry permit have made any difference? Was he arrested for possession of an “illegal in NYC” firearm, I think he was. I doubt recognition of his out of state permit would have saved him. The Allen woman, if it’s the one I’m th8nking about very well may have been saved by this law. Your point on that one is taken, but of course it could have been avoidable if she’d been aware of where she actually was instead of making a wrong turn, as I recall. Short story on her was someone was trying to make a point and the governor of that state was too busy trying to snuggle up with a voting base instead of doing the right thing.

quote:

Originally posted by mikeyspizza:
I wish I could dig up the thread from Dec 2015 when the Virginia AG unilaterally revoked reciprocity from 25 states.

And the SOB just got re-elected!

quote:

Originally posted by jbcummings:
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?

Let's say you happen to find yourself in Albany, NY of an evening. While walking to your car you are confronted by a neighborhood thug intent on ruining your evening. Would you rather have eight rounds of .45 ACP to protect yourself with or none?

quote:

Let's say you happen to find yourself in Albany, NY of an evening. While walking to your car you are confronted by a neighborhood thug intent on ruining your evening. Would you rather have eight rounds of .45 ACP to protect yourself with or none?

Would NY law restrict me to an 8-round mag or simply not "allow" me to load more than 8 rounds in my 15-round mag?

And let's say that I then worked my way over to CT, what would they "allow" me to do?

quote:

Originally posted by FRANKT:

quote:

Let's say you happen to find yourself in Albany, NY of an evening. While walking to your car you are confronted by a neighborhood thug intent on ruining your evening. Would you rather have eight rounds of .45 ACP to protect yourself with or none?

Would NY law restrict me to an 8-round mag or simply not "allow" me to load more than 8 rounds in my 15-round mag?

And let's say that I then worked my way over to CT, what would they "allow" me to do?

CT allows 10in the mag plus 1 in the chamber. But mags holding >10 needed to be registered - so there is an issue there that would need clarification

quote:

Originally posted by jbcummings:

quote:

Originally posted by sigcrazy7:

quote:

Originally posted by jbcummings:
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?

It would have saved Shaneen Allen, and thousands like her, from facing a decade in prison. What about the Utahn who's plane was diverted to JFK? He unwittingly took possession of his luggage and was then arrested the next day for the firearm he had checked. HR38 will begin to roll back these states that criminalize a right.

What was he arrested for? Would recognition of his concealed carry permit have made any difference? Was he arrested for possession of an “illegal in NYC” firearm, I think he was. I doubt recognition of his out of state permit would have saved him. The Allen woman, if it’s the one I’m th8nking about very well may have been saved by this law. Your point on that one is taken, but of course it could have been avoidable if she’d been aware of where she actually was instead of making a wrong turn, as I recall. Short story on her was someone was trying to make a point and the governor of that state was too busy trying to snuggle up with a voting base instead of doing the right thing.

This is where it is unsettled. What happens in states where you need one permit to own a pistol, and another permit to carry? This is unclear. It doesn’t make any sense to honor a permit to carry a gun without permission to also have it. As far as the Allen case goes, she did get a pardon. However, right now there are over 100 people in NJ in the same boat. NJ is a piece of work. A resident can commit armed robbery and get on average three years. An out of state CCW holder gets busted, due to simple ignorance, and the state pursues 7-10 years “to make a point and set an example.”

Once national reciprocity is on the books, I’m sure these types of catch-22’s will get sorted through the courts. If this does become law, I won’t be the first person to go strolling into New Jersey with a CCW.

quote:

Originally posted by jbcummings:

quote:

Originally posted by sigcrazy7:

quote:

Originally posted by jbcummings:
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?

It would have saved Shaneen Allen, and thousands like her, from facing a decade in prison. What about the Utahn who's plane was diverted to JFK? He unwittingly took possession of his luggage and was then arrested the next day for the firearm he had checked. HR38 will begin to roll back these states that criminalize a right.

What was he arrested for? Would recognition of his concealed carry permit have made any difference? Was he arrested for possession of an “illegal in NYC” firearm, I think he was. I doubt recognition of his out of state permit would have saved him. The Allen woman, if it’s the one I’m th8nking about very well may have been saved by this law. Your point on that one is taken, but of course it could have been avoidable if she’d been aware of where she actually was instead of making a wrong turn, as I recall. Short story on her was someone was trying to make a point and the governor of that state was too busy trying to snuggle up with a voting base instead of doing the right thing.

Actually not as you described for Allen. She had it in her car and when pulled over she proactively disclosed to the cop that the firearm was in the trunk as per PA rules. Crispy eventually pardoned her sentence wresting it away from the prosecutor who was hell bent on making her an example. One of the few good things he did.
https://www.nraila.org/article...ardons-shaneen-allen

As for the Utah man, doesn't say if he had a carry permit or not, so not sure if this would have helped although surprisingly the Interstate travel law seems to have failed in an odd way. He was eventually NOT charged. It was NJ after all.

http://www.foxnews.com/politic...d-supreme-court.html

Subjecting those with a ccw to the laws of the state they are in will create a larger headache than it already is. Here in PA we are surrounded by states that do not recognize our license to carry. That makes it simple, don’t carry in those states. Do I think it’s absurd that my license is not valid as soon as I cross an imaginary line. Absolutely, however with the way the bill is written in having to conform to the carry laws of the state you are in is just as bad. Perfectly legal in home state, but cross over imaginary line and once again it’s illegal. NY, MD, and NJ all have either magazine capacity limits or ammunition restrictions.

Honestly this bill has little good in it for the average ccw holder and then add on the Fix NICS portion and it’s a disappointment. The fact that the Fix NICS portion has written that bonuses will be held for not reporting should say everything you need to know concerning it. Is anyone really that naive to think that they won’t start reporting anyone and everyone in order to meet their quota?

quote:

Originally posted by SapperSteel:

quote:

Originally posted by Nickelsig229:
I'm hoping that it passes and in some way sets a precedent that federal laws supersede state laws. . .

Really?

I surely do NOT want that.

THINK! Will your opinion/attitude change the next time the left wins the Oval Office and both houses of Congress?

I do not want to put words in somebody else's mouth, but maybe NickelSig meant to say "a precedent that The Constitution supersedes state laws." If that is what he meant, I agree.

We already have it. The second. Just need to get all of the States to follow the constitution.

If anyones interested heres the R that voted No

Amash, Justin (MI, 3rd)
Buck (CO, 4th)
Costello (PA, 6th)
Curbelo (FL, 26th) (Miami)
Donovan (NY,11) ( NYC)
Fitzpatrick (PA, 8th)
Gohmert (TX, 1st)
King (NY, 2nd)
Lance (NJ 7th)
Massie (KY, 4th)
Meehan (PA, 7th)
Ros-Lehtinen (FL 27th) (Miami)
Roskam (IL, 6th) (West Chicago area)
Smith, Chris (NJ, 4th )

Link to final role call vote

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2017/roll663.xml

Massie not voting yes is pretty telling.

The head scratcher is it that he seems to be all about politicians and staffers carrying guns in DC from anywhere, though. Double standard? Sure sounds like it.

https://massie.house.gov/newsr...tion-reciprocity-act

Congress should use constitutional power to force states to honor gun rights

A few weeks ago, the House of Representatives passed the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017 with bipartisan support. The Act would allow persons eligible to carry a concealed firearm in their home state to carry in other states as well. Opponents contend that the Act violates federalism. Actually, the Act is well within congressional powers under the Fourteenth Amendment. That Amendment was enacted specifically to give Congress the power to act against state infringements of national civil rights.

Section one of the 14th Amendment forbids states to violate civil rights. Section five of the Amendment grants Congress "the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." Enacted during Reconstruction, the Fourteenth Amendment was a remedy to ex-Confederate states denying freedmen the right to arms and other civil rights.

One of the civil rights protected by Concealed Carry Reciprocity is the right to interstate travel. It is "a virtually unconditional personal right, guaranteed by the Constitution to us all," the Supreme Court said in S enz v. Roe (1999). The S enz court explained that travelers have the "right to be treated as a welcome visitor rather than an unfriendly alien when temporarily present in the second state."

Yet some states, such as New Jersey, do not allow nonresidents to apply for carry permits, and do not recognize permits issued by other states. The penalty for unlicensed carry is a mandatory sentence of at least 3.5 years in prison. New Jersey thus treats interstate travelers as unfriendly aliens.

New Jersey's policy is especially unfair because travelers are especially vulnerable to crime. Travelers, including tourists, often carry large sums of money, and may be unfamiliar with the area they are visiting, not necessarily knowing the safest routes to take when walking.

The Fourteenth Amendment grants Congress the power to enact a remedy against state mistreatment of interstate travelers.

Another national civil right that is protected by the Reciprocity Act is the Second Amendment right to bear arms. As the Supreme Court wrote in D.C. v. Heller (2008), "the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right." Thus, the Amendment "guarantee[s] the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation."

Like other constitutional rights, the right protected by the Second Amendment is not limited to one's state of residence. The Fourteenth Amendment made the Second Amendment (and most of the rest of the Bill of Rights) directly enforceable against the states. Coloradans must be free to practice their religion in Utah. Ohioans' free speech must be protected in Michigan. North Dakotans must be free from unreasonable searches in South Dakota. And Idahoans' right to bear arms must be recognized in Oregon.

In Heller, the court suggested that concealed carry is not part of the Second Amendment right. The court cited with approval several nineteenth century state cases that upheld concealed carry bans because open carry was still lawful. However, some states make it nearly impossible for visitors to bear arms lawfully in any manner at all.

For example, Illinois prohibits open carry, does not honor concealed-carry permits from any other state, and allows residents of only four other states to apply for an Illinois permit-effectively prohibiting the residents of 45 states from bearing arms within its boundaries.

The opponents of the Reciprocity Act do not argue that the bill should protect open carry rather than concealed carry. The opponents prefer wholesale denial of the exercise of the right to bear arms in any manner.

In general, courts are deferential to the means that Congress chooses to exercise its Fourteenth Amendment powers against state intrusions on civil rights. As with similar congressional powers under the Thirteenth Amendment (banning slavery) and the Fifteenth Amendment (voting rights), Congress can prohibit state actions even when the Supreme Court has held that such actions are not per se violations of the Constitution. For example, the Supreme Court upheld literacy tests for voters, as long as the tests were administered fairly. Lassiter v. Northampton County (1959). Yet when Congress's Voting Rights Act of 1965 banned literacy tests, the court upheld Congress's discretionary exercise of its power. S.C. v. Katzenbach (1966).

Even if a court were to hold that the Reciprocity Act is not a proper enforcement of the Second Amendment, the Act would still be valid as enforcement of the right to interstate travel.

Moreover, the Reciprocity Act is also supported by the same jurisdictional predicate as many other federal gun control laws: namely, that the firearm in question was once sold or transported in interstate commerce. This is not really consistent with the original meaning of the Interstate Commerce Clause. But if the Reciprocity Act were held to exceed Congress's commerce powers, then much of the federal Gun Control Act would also be unconstitutional-such as laws that ban a person today from possessing a gun just because the gun was sold in interstate commerce four decades ago.

In short, whether you prefer that the Constitution be interpreted based on modern precedents, or based on original meaning, Congress has the discretion to pass the Reciprocity Act.

David Kopel (@DaveKopel) is research director at the Independence Institute (@I2idotorg), a free market think tank in Denver. His Dec. 6, 2017, written testimony on congressional powers to enact interstate reciprocity is available on the Senate Judiciary Committee website. Joseph Greenlee is a fellow at the Millennial Policy Center (@MilPolicyCtr) in Denver.

http://thehill.com/opinion/nat...tter_impression=true

What I would like to see is both Congress and the federal courts vigorously enforcing the 2A on the states.

National reciprocity is a very small step in the right direction.

The way I read the bill, a CCW holder is not subject to the laws of each state regarding mag capacity, restricted places (other than govt property), etc.

The bill that passed the house says that a person entitled to carry a handgun in his home state can carry in any state "notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof..." The federal law explicitly supersedes all state regulations except those allowing private parties to prohibit carry on their property and those restricting carry on state or local government property.

The bill even defines "handgun" as including "any magazine for use in a handgun and any ammunition loaded into the handgun or its magazine."

It would be a tremendous convenience if this law were to pass. But I don’t give it any realistic chance of passing the senate. I’m sad about that, but I’m afraid it’s reality.