National concealed carry reciprocity act of 2017 - Page 19
Page 19 of 20 FirstFirst ... 917181920 LastLast
Results 181 to 190 of 194

Thread: National concealed carry reciprocity act of 2017

  1. Haha I bet more than half of these are changed by the time the liberal f-tards take office again: https://www.nationalcarryacademy.com/state-laws

  2.   
  3. #182
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Location
    Colorado Springs
    Posts
    405
    Quote Originally Posted by BluesStringer View Post
    Not sure what you're trying to imply, but the discussion concerning national reciprocity legislation on this forum started at least as far back as March of 2015, and many valid reasons were offered in opposition to it by the most vociferous Second Amendment advocates on the site within the 1,336 replies in that thread. Maybe you should read opposing viewpoints before trying to tag opponents as "backing off gun-supporting legislation" due to either one jackwagon going off the rails, or a government conspiracy, whichever it is you think was "convenient" for whomever you think actually committed the mass murder.

    Blues
    Seriously? You demand that I go through 1,336 replies instead of forming my own fresh opinion on the issue, relatively void of the opinions of others, but armed with a lifetime of experience and knowledge?

    You may not be new to this forum, but you're apparently new to how to best elicit high-value responses on message forums in general. Forcing people to conform to some "We've already discussed this -- get with the program" horse hockey is not the way it's done.

    Perhaps your own advice is what you need the most: "Maybe you should read opposing viewpoints before" going off half-cocked with a bunch of cockamamie nonsense about going off the rails, government conspiracies, or whatever you I actually said.

    Hint: I'm rather clear and concise, yet thorough. If you're reading between the lines, you're wasting your time.

    And mine.

  4. #183
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Republic of Dead Cell Holler, Occupied Territories of AL, former USA
    Posts
    7,759
    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    Seriously? You demand that I go through 1,336 replies instead of forming my own fresh opinion on the issue, relatively void of the opinions of others, but armed with a lifetime of experience and knowledge?

    You may not be new to this forum, but you're apparently new to how to best elicit high-value responses on message forums in general. Forcing people to conform to some "We've already discussed this -- get with the program" horse hockey is not the way it's done.

    Perhaps your own advice is what you need the most: "Maybe you should read opposing viewpoints before" going off half-cocked with a bunch of cockamamie nonsense about going off the rails, government conspiracies, or whatever you I actually said.

    Hint: I'm rather clear and concise, yet thorough. If you're reading between the lines, you're wasting your time.

    And mine.
    OK Mr. Experience and Knowledge, here's the most concise way I can describe my opposition to national reciprocity legislation as it exists at this moment:

    HR 38 is the piece that has emerged as the only one among several over the last few years of having a chance to pass. It, like all the other iterations, is based in the Interstate Commerce Clause, not the Second Amendment. If it passes, with the help of gun owners so wrapped up in their wish to believe that this Trojan Horse is actually supportive of their "rights," it will literally be the case that those gun owners traded not only their rights, but mine as well, for the temporary privilege of the federal government to regulate how, when, where and to whom, permission slips will be issued across the entire nation. That's the crux of my opposition. It never had anything to do with the Vegas shooter going off the rails or, like I said before, a government conspiracy, whichever it is you think was "convenient" for whomever you think actually committed the mass murder. Serving up innuendo in cryptic fashion is antithetical to being concise, expressing knowledge or experience, or a decent way to prevent others from reading between the lines. If you already knew that H.R. 38 is based in Commerce Clause precedent and support it anyway, your experience and knowledge don't mean squat to me, because it obviously doesn't concern what you know about Commerce Clause abuse by the fed. If you didn't know before, now would be a good time to at least skim through the several threads on the subject looking for opposition to the (various) bills that have been discussed. It's called doing your homework. I've already done mine, already stated my findings dozens of times, and ain't about to do yours for you. I will however quote another member's post from another thread from March of last year, because I already had it bookmarked and didn't have to do any searches for it:

    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    From the text of the bill:

    "may possess or carry a concealed handgun (other than a machinegun or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, in any State that—"

    Tell me why the words in bold are included? What effect on this bill would it have if those words were left out?

    I'll save you the research and tell you. Those words were left out of the original Gun Free School Zone act. The original Gun Free School Zone act was declared unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court (United States v. Lopez [1995]). In response, Congress added those words to the current Gun Free School Zone act which is still in place today: 18 USC 922, "(A) It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone."

    So why are those words significant? Look up the US Supreme Court case of Wickard v. Filburn (1942). Those words are the magical phrase that grants the Federal government the supposed authority via an abuse of the Interstate Commerce Clause of the Constitution to regulate anything the Federal government wants to.

    You need to read H.R. 38 carefully. H.R. 38 is not based upon the 2nd Amendment right of the people to keep and bear arms. H.R. 38 is based upon granting more authority to the Federal government to regulate concealed carry. Sure, the Republicans this term use that authority to enact concealed carry reciprocity. What happens when the liberal Dems get control again? The Republicans will have already established the authority of the Federal government to regulate concealed carry and it opens the door even wider than it already is for them to impose regulatory RESTRICTIONS on concealed carry at the Federal level based upon the authority that the Republicans declared earlier that was based upon abusing the Interstate Commerce Clause.

    Show me a bill based on the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution and I will support it. I cannot support a bill based upon further abuses of the Interstate Commerce Clause such as H.R. 38.
    No one has ever heard me say that I "hate" cops, because I don't. This is why I will never trust one again though: You just never know...

  5. #184
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Formerly Western Southern-tier of NYS (now way down South of NYS !)
    Posts
    167
    Quote Originally Posted by BluesStringer View Post
    OK Mr. Experience and Knowledge, here's the most concise way I can describe my opposition to national reciprocity legislation as it exists at this moment:

    HR 38 is the piece that has emerged as the only one among several over the last few years of having a chance to pass. It, like all the other iterations, is based in the Interstate Commerce Clause, not the Second Amendment. If it passes, with the help of gun owners so wrapped up in their wish to believe that this Trojan Horse is actually supportive of their "rights," it will literally be the case that those gun owners traded not only their rights, but mine as well, for the temporary privilege of the federal government to regulate how, when, where and to whom, permission slips will be issued across the entire nation. That's the crux of my opposition. It never had anything to do with the Vegas shooter going off the rails or, like I said before, a government conspiracy, whichever it is you think was "convenient" for whomever you think actually committed the mass murder. Serving up innuendo in cryptic fashion is antithetical to being concise, expressing knowledge or experience, or a decent way to prevent others from reading between the lines. If you already knew that H.R. 38 is based in Commerce Clause precedent and support it anyway, your experience and knowledge don't mean squat to me, because it obviously doesn't concern what you know about Commerce Clause abuse by the fed. If you didn't know before, now would be a good time to at least skim through the several threads on the subject looking for opposition to the (various) bills that have been discussed. It's called doing your homework. I've already done mine, already stated my findings dozens of times, and ain't about to do yours for you. I will however quote another member's post from another thread from March of last year, because I already had it bookmarked and didn't have to do any searches for it:
    .
    I don't know how any thinking rational gun owner could continue to flap the flag for HR 38 after reading your post along with NAVY LCDR's piece of fine writing on the subject.
    As for myself, I don't want the Feds putting their hands into anything more than what they've already screwed up. Especially a firearm reciprocity law ...
    “The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened.”

  6. Quote Originally Posted by AC Orange View Post
    .
    I don't know how any thinking rational gun owner could continue to flap the flag for HR 38 after reading your post along with NAVY LCDR's piece of fine writing on the subject.
    As for myself, I don't want the Feds putting their hands into anything more than what they've already screwed up. Especially a firearm reciprocity law ...
    The interesting part, and I've stated this here before, is that the gun industry is fine with it. The NRA all the way down to LGS owners I know and many members of our club are fooled by this. Or theyre notNational concealed carry reciprocity act of 2017.

    Blues and NavyLCDR have done a great job getting the pitfalls of this commerce clause power grab the visibility it truly deserves. I can understand why members that live in states that offer poor reciprocity and restrictive licensing see this as a lifeline but they're actually throwing us an anchor. This bill is the epitome of a slippery slope and is actually anti 2A to its core. If this is passed and it goes to the courts through state lawsuits, it will be a bad outcome and you can bet on it.

    Sent from my XT1650 using USA Carry mobile app

  7. #186
    Quote Originally Posted by AC Orange View Post
    .
    I don't know how any thinking rational gun owner could continue to flap the flag for HR 38 after reading your post along with NAVY LCDR's piece of fine writing on the subject.
    As for myself, I don't want the Feds putting their hands into anything more than what they've already screwed up. Especially a firearm reciprocity law ...
    The only one that really waved the flag for this, the person that started this thread, lives in a state where he has to take an legal ad out in a newspaper saying he wants to apply for a concealed carry permit, and even if it is granted, he is trapped in his tiny state as none of the neighboring states honor any other states carry permits. And for his own selfish reasons he is more than willing to throw the rest of us under the bus by allowing a federal bureaucrat, probably appointed, not elected to dictate the rules of concealed carry.

    I don't know that he has ever figured out what a disaster this will likely be, if passed, and has gone off to pout and probably champion it on a forum where his views are not challenge.
    “Religion is an insult to human dignity. Without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things.
    But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.” ― Steven Weinberg

  8. Quote Originally Posted by XD40scinNC View Post
    The only one that really waved the flag for this, the person that started this thread, lives in a state where he has to take an legal ad out in a newspaper saying he wants to apply for a concealed carry permit, and even if it is granted, he is trapped in his tiny state as none of the neighboring states honor any other states carry permits. And for his own selfish reasons he is more than willing to throw the rest of us under the bus by allowing a federal bureaucrat, probably appointed, not elected to dictate the rules of concealed carry.

    I don't know that he has ever figured out what a disaster this will likely be, if passed, and has gone off to pout and probably champion it on a forum where his views are not challenge.
    All true and I sort of get why he would desperately cling to this "freedom" the politicians were dangling in front of him but I eventually got worn out by his selfish quest and started National concealed carry reciprocity act of 2017'ing him. He was on a month or so ago talking about a family range shoot and glad he's doing well but I vehemently opposed his sacrificing what scraps of 2A we have still at the state levels for this federal power grab.

    He's being held hostage by his state laws and he's maybe stuck there for various reasons. We are retiring in another state in the not too distant future for three primary reasons. Taxes, weather, and firearms laws. There are also other considerations but those are the drivers.

    Sent from my XT1650 using USA Carry mobile app

  9. #188
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Location
    Colorado Springs
    Posts
    405
    Quote Originally Posted by BluesStringer View Post
    OK Mr. Experience and Knowledge...
    Thank you. A fair amount, anyway.

    here's the most concise way I can describe my opposition to national reciprocity legislation as it exists at this moment:

    HR 38 is the piece that has emerged as the only one among several over the last few years of having a chance to pass. It, like all the other iterations, is based in the Interstate Commerce Clause, not the Second Amendment.
    Do you know of any other way for the feds to force the states to accept one another's CC permits? From what I understand, the commerce clause is precisely the same tack the feds used to get the states to respect DLs from other states. I might be wrong about that.

    If it passes, with the help of gun owners so wrapped up in their wish to believe that this Trojan Horse is actually supportive of their "rights," it will literally be the case that those gun owners traded not only their rights, but mine as well, for the temporary privilege of the federal government to regulate how, when, where and to whom, permission slips will be issued across the entire nation. That's the crux of my opposition. It never had anything to do with the Vegas shooter going off the rails or, like I said before, a government conspiracy, whichever it is you think was "convenient" for whomever you think actually committed the mass murder. Serving up innuendo in cryptic fashion is antithetical to being concise, expressing knowledge or experience, or a decent way to prevent others from reading between the lines. If you already knew that H.R. 38 is based in Commerce Clause precedent and support it anyway
    I did.

    your experience and knowledge don't mean squat to me, because it obviously doesn't concern what you know about Commerce Clause abuse by the fed.
    I'm well aware of the court cases keeping the feds in check on interstate commerce, as well.

    If you didn't know before, now would be a good time to at least skim through the several threads on the subject looking for opposition to the (various) bills that have been discussed. It's called doing your homework.
    Oh, gee, thanks for the lecture. Whatever would I do without you?

    [qutoe]I've already done mine, already stated my findings dozens of times, and ain't about to do yours for you. [/quote]

    I never asked.

    I will however quote another member's post from another thread from March of last year, because I already had it bookmarked and didn't have to do any searches for it:
    Fed-mandated reciprocity is not ideal. The question is it any better than the current scatterbrained hodgepodge of reciprocity agreements between states? That depends a great deal on your home state and desired states of travel. It would LIKE to be able to travel anywhere in the United States, including Hawaii and Alaska, via any means of transportation (save road vehicle to AK, as that transits Canada, and obviously no roads to Hawaii).

    However, as I'm not willing to accept further infringements against my right to keep and bear arms, I'd prefer the entire country simply move to Constitutional Carry for both open and concealed.

    Last time I checked, only 18 states have so moved, and most of those still have some restrictions.

    Thus, I ask you: What's you're plan to get the other 32 states on board with Constitutional Carry?
    It is to one's honor to avoid strife, but every fool is quick to quarrel (Pro 20:3) // I came here to build Pro-2A consensus to help our country, not trade insults like a fifth-grader. If you're on ignore, well, now you know why.

  10. #189
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan
    Posts
    3,800
    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    -snip- From what I understand, the commerce clause is precisely the same tack the feds used to get the states to respect DLs from other states. I might be wrong about that.-snip-
    The comparison between concealed carry permit national reciprocity and driver license acceptance between states is flawed. With concealed carry permit reciprocity it would be the Federal government mandating/requiring and controlling how States treat carry permits. But with driver license acceptance between States it is the individual States themselves that voluntarily entered into the Drivers License Agreement which is an agreement between States without Federal mandate.

    https://www.numbersusa.com/PDFs/AAMV...ent%20text.pdf

    Edited to correct Driver License Compact to Drivers License Agreement.

    Here is the Drivers License Compact:

    National Center for Interstate Compacts Database
    Character is doing the right thing when nobody's looking. There are too many people who think that the only thing that's right is to get by, and the only thing that's wrong is to get caught. - J. C. Watts

  11. Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    I'm well aware of the court cases keeping the feds in check on interstate commerce, as well.
    Would you care to share those court cases with us please? Are you familiar with Wickard v. Filburn? Filburn was a farmer who was growing wheat on his own farm to feed to his own farm animals. The wheat never left his farm, it was for his own use on his own farm. The US Supreme Court ruled that he violated the law in place at the time limiting the amount of wheat farmers could grow and market to keep wheat prices higher. Why? Because they stated that because Filburn was growing his own wheat he was not purchasing wheat from the market and, therefore, the act of growing wheat on his own farm for his own use affected interstate commerce and was therefore subject to regulation by the Federal government under the Interstate Commerce Clause.

    https://supreme.justia.com/cases/fed.../111/case.html

    You assertion that the courts keep the feds in check on interstate commerce is erroneous. The courts have ruled time and time again that basically the Federal government can regulate ANYTHING based upon the interstate commerce clause because if an individual acts alone (IE grows their own wheat for their own use) they are affecting interstate commerce by not purchasing it from the open market.

    And that is why I am against National Reciprocity based upon the Interstate Commerce Clause - because it would grant the Federal government the authority to regulate concealed carry even more than they do. Just like the Federal Gun Free School Zone Act which prohibits carrying a loaded firearm within 1000' feet of school premises - a prohibition relying upon an abuse of the Interstate Commerce Clause. The act of carrying a loaded firearm within 1000' of a school has NO affect on interstate commerce - but the courts have ruled the government can prohibit it if the gun itself affected interstate commerce. And even if you made the gun yourself from iron ore on your own property - it affected interstate commerce because you didn't buy iron to make steel on the open market.
    Anyone who says, "I support the 2nd amendment, BUT"... doesn't. Element of Surprise: a mythical element that many believe has the same affect upon criminals that Kryptonite has upon Superman.

Page 19 of 20 FirstFirst ... 917181920 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast