Full reciprocity - Page 2
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 22

Thread: Full reciprocity

  1. Quote Originally Posted by cluznar View Post
    This country MUST have CCW Permits issued in ANY state be allowed in every state. We need that change instead of this archaic set of reciprosity we have now. ALL CCW permits good in ANY state. Will there ever be a chance of this?

    What we really need is for the words "and bear arms" to be recognized in the Second Amendment. You don't have to pay for a license or government permission to exercise your first amendment or 4th amendment rights, or any other rights in the Bill of Rights....why should the Second Amendment be different than all the others?
    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.

  2.   
  3. #12
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Posts
    3,832
    Quote Originally Posted by cluznar View Post
    This country MUST have CCW Permits issued in ANY state be allowed in every state. We need that change instead of this archaic set of reciprosity we have now. ALL CCW permits good in ANY state. Will there ever be a chance of this?

    This debate has raged on for many many years. What you are asking is to have the Federal government be in charge of handling CCW permits. This raises more questions and fears then it alleviates.

    First, the 2nd Amendment says "shall not be infringed". Our first argument should be why are there permits in the first place? If there were no permit system, then carrying could be done across state lines without a problem.
    If you are not one to buy into that argument then you have to ask yourself, if the Federal government were in charge of a National carry permit system, to whose laws do they adhere to? Most likely they would adhere to the states that have the strictest laws. This would mean our carry permits would be as good as a resident in places such as NY, CA, HI, etc.

    Be careful what you ask for... you may actually get it.

    I would much rather stick with the system we have now, which mandates I understand the laws of my state as well as states that I visit than have any Federal politician creating the standards and practices of the permit system.
    "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote."
    ~ Benjamin Franklin (maybe)

  4. Quote Originally Posted by wolf_fire View Post
    This debate has raged on for many many years. What you are asking is to have the Federal government be in charge of handling CCW permits. This raises more questions and fears then it alleviates.

    First, the 2nd Amendment says "shall not be infringed". Our first argument should be why are there permits in the first place? If there were no permit system, then carrying could be done across state lines without a problem.
    If you are not one to buy into that argument then you have to ask yourself, if the Federal government were in charge of a National carry permit system, to whose laws do they adhere to? Most likely they would adhere to the states that have the strictest laws. This would mean our carry permits would be as good as a resident in places such as NY, CA, HI, etc.

    Be careful what you ask for... you may actually get it.

    I would much rather stick with the system we have now, which mandates I understand the laws of my state as well as states that I visit than have any Federal politician creating the standards and practices of the permit system.
    Didn't the Supreme Court rule that all states must honor all other states' driver's licenses under the full faith and credit clause of the US Constitution? I believe Clunzar is suggesting the same thing.
    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.

  5. #14
    Why do we need to ask permission of those we employ and elect? A drivers license is a permission to use the public highways for commercial purposes. Private use of the highways which we the people own is a right. A right cannot be taxed. The system we have now is because we the people allow it. The Fed. and the States can ownly license the commercial activities of the people not private activities. I brought this up in the past on these fourums, reshearch it. Use the info in each State to bring back our rights. Elected People are raking in the $$$$ that they should not collect under common law. The only people that have rights are those who stand up and fight for them. I ask is not our system of justice nothing more then a system of peonege? Think about it! You speed over the speed limit in your private vehicle you get a ticket, you pay a fine or lose your license because you have been conditioned to belive that is the law when in fact no one was harmed physicaly or finacialy. You have unwittinly become an indentured servant of the people you elected and employ under color of law. Go do the reshearch many of my posts have links. Informed people know thier rights. When you believe that a law is constitutional and in fact it is not, you become a slave unwittingly thru trust in those you employ or elect.
    The Only Easy Day Was Yesterday

  6. #15
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Posts
    3,832
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    Didn't the Supreme Court rule that all states must honor all other states' driver's licenses under the full faith and credit clause of the US Constitution? I believe Clunzar is suggesting the same thing.
    Great point, but does your state require I suddenly change from unleaded gasoline to diesel (NJ, requires you to take your hollow points out and replace with other type ammo)... does your state require that when you drive you limit the number of passengers from 6 to 2 (magazine restriction??)?

    The point is for the most part driving laws are equitable across state lines. This is not the case with firearms laws. Do you really want the Federal government to be in charge of making all the states equitable? I for one do not. I do not trust what their definition of equitable would mean. Most would agree that if the Feds had control, then they would make equitable be the most restrictive, because states like NY would cry foul if the Feds eased up on their laws.
    "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote."
    ~ Benjamin Franklin (maybe)

  7. Quote Originally Posted by wolf_fire View Post
    Great point, but does your state require I suddenly change from unleaded gasoline to diesel (NJ, requires you to take your hollow points out and replace with other type ammo)... does your state require that when you drive you limit the number of passengers from 6 to 2 (magazine restriction??)?

    The point is for the most part driving laws are equitable across state lines. This is not the case with firearms laws. Do you really want the Federal government to be in charge of making all the states equitable? I for one do not. I do not trust what their definition of equitable would mean. Most would agree that if the Feds had control, then they would make equitable be the most restrictive, because states like NY would cry foul if the Feds eased up on their laws.
    The Federal government did not mess with any state's traffic laws. The Supreme Court simply ruled that if state X said I was licensed to drive, than states A, B, and C must honor that and grant me the same legal ability to drive in their states that residents in states A, B and C have, in accordance with the laws of states A, B and C respectively. A great step forward would be for the Supreme Court to rule the same regarding firearm licensing. If I have a permit/license from state A, than it would be nice if state B was required by law to allow me to carry a firearm with the same ability that a resident of state B has. Then there comes the question of states like Vermont, though.... would such a ruling require all other states to recognize a Vermont resident's ability to carry a firearm without a permit/license.

    Notice I said it would just be a big step forward - not the Constitutional solution to the violation of the Second Amendment that currently exists in this country.
    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.

  8. #17
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Posts
    3,832
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    The Federal government did not mess with any state's traffic laws. The Supreme Court simply ruled that if state X said I was licensed to drive, than states A, B, and C must honor that and grant me the same legal ability to drive in their states that residents in states A, B and C have, in accordance with the laws of states A, B and C respectively. A great step forward would be for the Supreme Court to rule the same regarding firearm licensing. If I have a permit/license from state A, than it would be nice if state B was required by law to allow me to carry a firearm with the same ability that a resident of state B has. Then there comes the question of states like Vermont, though.... would such a ruling require all other states to recognize a Vermont resident's ability to carry a firearm without a permit/license.

    Notice I said it would just be a big step forward - not the Constitutional solution to the violation of the Second Amendment that currently exists in this country.
    The reason being is they didn't have to. Is a traffic light in state Y, the same as a traffic light in state X? Yes. The rules and laws regarding driving are fairly similar in all states. Therefore, the Feds didn't need to butt in.

    But you get a person from TX, AK, PA, etc that travels to NY, NJ, MD, etc, they are going to find the rules in those states to be quite different regarding firearms. There will be problems with people carrying from state to state and the Feds will step in. I cannot believe in this time and age anyone on this forum would really argue for a Federal intervention of firearms regulation.

    Does it suck now that I live in a state where with my license to carry does not allow me to carry in 5 of the 6 bordering states? YES, emphatically, YES. Would it suck more if the Feds intervened. Most likely it would. You have to also realize, that with driving, it is a privilege, with firearms it's a right. Asking the Feds to rule on our rights is a very dangerous thing. For example, I live in PA. Were I to travel to NY with my Glock 22 under the guise of your suggestion, what would happen to me? NY has a ruling that I must carry 7 or less rounds. My G22 holds 15+1. Do I, under your suggestion have to purchase different handguns for different states, or will mine suffice? Will this be answered by the Feds since they now have ruled on our permit system? The answer is the Feds would rule to the most restrictive states. Anytime the Feds tell the States what to do about rights it is a violation of the 10th Amendment. Your parallel to driver's licenses isn't even a parallel.... driving isn't a right and not protected under the Constitution. In all matters that are matters for the States, the Feds need to keep their meddling hands out.

    Quite frankly, a much better solution would be if each of the states realized that their licenses to carry and their permits (seriously a PERMIT to do something that is a right) is an infringement and for the states to remove such infringements. But to sit here and argue that we keep these infringements and let the Feds rule that these infringements are equitable across state lines, is just too much for me to swallow.
    "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote."
    ~ Benjamin Franklin (maybe)

  9. Quote Originally Posted by wolf_fire View Post
    But you get a person from TX, AK, PA, etc that travels to NY, NJ, MD, etc, they are going to find the rules in those states to be quite different regarding firearms. There will be problems with people carrying from state to state and the Feds will step in. I cannot believe in this time and age anyone on this forum would really argue for a Federal intervention of firearms regulation.
    When someone carries in another state now under reciprocity, they have to know the second state's laws anyway, so how can you say with people carrying from state to state there will be problems and the Feds would step in? If the US Supreme Court ruled that every other state had to recognize my license, that would be one LESS law that I would have to follow. Now, I first have to know the law in the "other" state that says my permit is recognized. Federal reciprocity would do away with that requirement. All the other laws of the "other" state I have to know now anyway....so nothing about that would change at all.
    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.

  10. #19

    Full reciprocity

    There was a bill before Congress a year or so ago that would make reciprocity between all states, where each stste would recognize the other. The states would not change their laws, but the CCW holder would have to be arwre of the laws in the stste they traveled and carried in. Well I guess you know what happened. The bill was desk drawered in the Lauhtenberg Judicial Committee until it waS DEAD.

  11. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by cluznar View Post
    This country MUST have CCW Permits issued in ANY state be allowed in every state. We need that change instead of this archaic set of reciprosity we have now. ALL CCW permits good in ANY state. Will there ever be a chance of this?

    I could not agree with you more. But I do not believe it will ever happen. I have heard some talk that in the near future some lib state will come out and say they will not recognize other states marriage certificates if they do not recognize gay marriage. This may spark a civil war between the states on what they will honor. Such as drivers license, license plates, CCW's and anything else they can think of. I hope this will not happen and just a few years ago I would said it would never happen. But today, with the libs and obummer, I would not trust them. It does not seem to matter what the law says. The libs will cherry pick what they want to obey and enforce!

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

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