Nationwide Concealed Carry Reciprocity In The Senate - Page 2
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 18 of 18

Thread: Nationwide Concealed Carry Reciprocity In The Senate

  1. #11
    I am totally against this bill for several reasons. First I don't want the federal government meddling any more in the state's business than absolutely necessary. Be very careful what you wish for because what the Fed's give they can also take away. This would be the start of Federal CCW licensing and I don't think the people of Vermiont and Alaska really want that. Second is from what I understand the law does not apply to all states. The Federal government has no business making any law that only applies to just some states. We already have that in the 1964 civil rights acts and it winds up just being punishment for the Confederate states. Drivers license recognition is not a Federal deal but rather an agreement between the states.

    So if you want the BATF controlling how you can carry in your state keep on supporting Sen. Vitter and his misguided proposals.

  2.   
  3. #12
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Inland Empire
    Posts
    394

    Wink Franchising what was never meant to B splintered.

    Dear FN1910
    I respect your point of view, but it is to me a very provincial one. U R damn right that if we turned it all over to the Feds then it could be an Alaska friendly open carry mentality in every other 49 States, 48 if U throw in VT, or it may nose-dive into DC overnight! Personally I don't want to see guns all over the place, in almost every place I go and neither do the tens of thousands I know/knew or have met in 30 years of living with or around guns think they belong in most hands as commonly as wedding rings do! I do not want CA or DC Draconian BG friendly moronic crap pushed down my throat. I don't want to fear that the ass I accidentally bumped into walking down the street will take my life for that innocent mistake. Night & day! There are just too many laws and forgetting just 1 puts a legal gun owner into a world of hurt, years in jails learning to be a BG, or a hole in the ground. The H.R. as it will be presented does NOT make it a Fed 1-rule book/law or USC or 2a Amendment (the beta) that fits all, it just tries to un-**** the reciprocity (one issue) SNAFU and make one CCW state less confusing to other states. It does try for more cooperative and working on the same laws, more compatible with other like-minded states and easier for the legal gun owner to comprehend. But when it comes down to the very essence of the 2nd, that sir was a federal permission granted by the brand new U.S. government (not any one state) to bear arms granted to already armed rebels turned Americans and very new to nation building. Over 200 years and God only knows how many states spins on that federal amendment we now have a gun law for almost each state, whole states that are are nowhere near gun friendly and a very few where you may get run out of town for not owning something that shoots lead; there's no place like Nome :-) (Humor)
    The abolishment of slavery did not become even close to the freedoms African Americans have today in all 50 states, and racial prejudice although illegal has still not vanished in every state, so to turn a human who was the property of another took a Civil War (the bloodiest our nation ever fought) to even start the process and U, or someone reading this may have grown up in a state not so long ago where signs said 'Whites Only!'. Give America another 50 years and if we still have the right to own guns then those rights may be the the same in every state, not the patch-work quilt of legalisms that is now status-quo. Give my 2nd to Barack Hussein Obama and the ghost of Britannia will descend upon this nation before his term is 1/2 way done. Now think those words through and understand there will probably be a human settlement on Mars by the time all 50 U.S. states agree that one law suits every state not just the ones with the most CW friendly few.

    Canis-Lupus
    Last edited by Canis-Lupus; 06-24-2008 at 04:27 AM.

  4. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by FN1910 View Post
    I am totally against this bill for several reasons. First I don't want the federal government meddling any more in the state's business than absolutely necessary. Be very careful what you wish for because what the Fed's give they can also take away. This would be the start of Federal CCW licensing and I don't think the people of Vermiont and Alaska really want that. Second is from what I understand the law does not apply to all states. The Federal government has no business making any law that only applies to just some states. We already have that in the 1964 civil rights acts and it winds up just being punishment for the Confederate states. Drivers license recognition is not a Federal deal but rather an agreement between the states.

    So if you want the BATF controlling how you can carry in your state keep on supporting Sen. Vitter and his misguided proposals.
    "WHAT PART OF SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND"
    The Unabridged Second Amendment

    GOA (Gun Owners of America):
    GOA Alert-- June 18, 2008

    NRA (National Rifle Association):
    NRA-ILA ::

    Under the constitution is the right to keep and bear arms Dependant on your zip code?

    Does not everybody have the inalienable right to defend themselves by any means necessary, any place, any time, with equal or greater force then what can be brought against them?

    When states and other municipality's start infringing upon our second amendment and inherit rights according to our zip code, I EXPECT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO STEP IN AND FIX IT.
    The fact that the states arbitrate and mandate and require a CCW license/permit in it self is a clear infringement, but for the time being it is what we have to deal with; because to many citizens do not pay attention to the issues and let crap legislation get voted in because they failed to oppose it. I am all for Vitter's support of getting the states to recognize each others existing CCW's just like they do for drivers license's...

    But make no mistake I would support a federal CCW reciprocity act in a heartbeat, do people in Los Angeles or New York City have less of a inherit right to defend themselves just because they do not live in Alaska or Vermont?

  5. #14
    My understanding of the Vitter amendment is based almost totally on what I have read on the Internet, primarily gun boards and if my understanding is correct this ammendment does nothing toward expanding or defending 2A rights. The only thing it does is require states such as SC to honor GA permits. It does not require states such as CA to honor GA or SC permits. It does not require any state to issue permits and does not require any state to expand or enhance their permit program.

    It is not a nationwide program but only to those states where CCW and reciprocity is already in place but simply takes the reciprocity agreement out of the hands of those states. It is a first step in a Nationwide CCW and if you think that when it comes about that the people of Vermont will still enjoy the fredom they have I have a bridge to sell you.

    Unlike another senate reciprocity measure, S. 388, Vitter’s bill does not establish "national standards" for concealed carry. It simply says that states that allow concealed carry must recognize the CCW permits of other states.

    Vitter's bill also respects the rights of states that allow concealed carry without a permit. Citizens of Vermont and non-license holders in Alaska are allowed to carry concealed without a permit. Under the Vitter bill, these states would be recognized in the same manner as states that do issue permits.

    States that do not allow concealed carry at all are not forced, under the Vitter bill, to recognize out-of-state permits. There are currently two such states, Illinois and Wisconsin. While it is deplorable that these states refuse to trust their citizens with firearms, this is an issue that has to be dealt with at the state level.
    Why is he punishing states for trying to do what they believe the people of the state want. If CA or HI do not want to accept out of state permits, or Fl does not want to accept non-resident permits then why should they be singled out while IL and WI get exempted. This bill reeks of favoritism and pandering. If he wants to truly do something for 2A then step up and help the people of IL, WI and DC rather than this BS.

  6. #15
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    4,650
    Quote Originally Posted by 99sparks View Post
    It would be interesting to see what CA would do. Have to allow any out of state person with a CCW to carry…. But still not issue to residents with the exception of “special” people.
    Actually, Michigan was this way for years. Before it became shall issue in 2001, Michigan, as it does even today, for years honored resident permits from all other states, but was only may issue for its own residents. Thus, people who did not live in Michigan actually had more rights there than Michiganders themselves!

  7. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by FN1910 View Post
    My understanding...



    Obama The Anti-Christ

    GIVING UP THE RIGHT TO DEFEND ONESELF BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY, USING EQUAL OR GREATER FORCE THEN MAY BE BROUGHT AGAINST THEM ANY PLACE, ANY TIME HAS NEVER BEEN THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE...

    "WHAT PART OF SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?
    The Unabridged Second Amendment

    If I have a valid drivers license in one state I am allowed to drive in any other state in the U.S. and any foreign country without having to pay for driving privileges therein...

    Under the current CCW system; I am gouged by multiple states at regular intervals and can break the diverse CCW laws of a particular state without knowing it...
    Vitter and others have attempted a Nationwide Reciprocity bill several times and the uber liberal, ultra left wing nut jobs like Kennedy(s), Obama, Clinton(s), Kerry, Feinstein, Schumer, Reid, Pelosi, et.al. have used their majority thanks to THE NON VOTING SILENT MAJORITY to pretty much have their way if not for W. BUSH there would have been no stopping them the last two years...

    Unlike a drivers license, which is clearly a state issue covered by the 10th amendment; GUN LAWS are a Federal issue and the states were never given the right to infringe upon god given, inalienable, fundamental rights of every individual, even the Federal Government has no right to infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms, but they have as have the states; and they have been able to do so not because the majority of people want to give up their inalienable rights; but because the majority of people listen to the media and blog posts on the internet, hearsay, fail to do their own research, verify facts, make informed decisions and act on them by voting in all elections big and small; writing their representatives state, federal and local, and letting them know how they feel about particular issues...

    The Senate & House Switch Boards being shut down multiple times last year, their fax machines, emails and snail mail boxes overflowed; should give everybody an idea of what can happen if people get off their keisters and be proactive...

    VITTER IS ONE OF THE GOOD GUYS!

    If you fail to support CCW Reciprocity, and Vitter and the Gun Owners of America (GOA Alert-- June 18, 2008) then you may as well turn in your guns now, if you even own any, and vote for Barack Hussein Obama and the other nut jobs that are supporting him, either implicitly or explicitly...
    NRA-ILA ::

    If you do nothing then you are supporting gun control, amnesty, higher taxes et.al. ...

    If we do nothing, we can only say we did nothing...

  8. Quote Originally Posted by tattedupboy View Post
    Actually, Michigan was this way for years. Before it became shall issue in 2001, Michigan, as it does even today, for years honored resident permits from all other states, but was only may issue for its own residents. Thus, people who did not live in Michigan actually had more rights there than Michiganders themselves!
    Ironically, Delaware is this way. However, Delaware honors non-resident permits from FL. So I, as a MD resident, will be able to carry in Delaware under my FL permit.

  9. #18
    Ironically, Delaware is this way. However, Delaware honors non-resident permits from FL. So I, as a MD resident, will be able to carry in Delaware under my FL permit.
    Thats right!, Hey guys have the full recip hearings been heard yet or are they completed?

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

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