National Firearms Reciprocity Bill JUST Introduced - Page 11
Page 11 of 25 FirstFirst ... 91011121321 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 243

Thread: National Firearms Reciprocity Bill JUST Introduced

  1. #101
    Quote Originally Posted by thewitt View Post
    Clearly you have no grasp of what this law does.
    Yes, I do, and I also recognize how states will respond.

    MD, NY, CA, HI, NJ are more likely to respond by banning CC completely, thus exempting them from any CC reciprocity. You are not naive enough to think these states are going to roll over and comply.... are you?

    State legislatures in states that are slightly less restrictive than the above (OR, SC, IL, WA) are likely to add restrictions to where guns can be carried.

    But let's assume this goes into effect, and I carry my gun into say NY, CA, MD, HI, MA, or DC I have broken their laws because I have a magazine in my gun that holds more than 10 rounds. If a resident of that state can be arrested for the number of "boolets" in his gun, so can someone from out of state.

    Or drive through NJ, with illegal ammo, JHP, which is illegal in NJ.

    And if passed it will become yet another unconstitutional federal law.
    “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

  2.   
  3. #102

    National Firearms Reciprocity Bill JUST Introduced

    Quote Originally Posted by XD40scinNC View Post
    Yes, I do, and I also recognize how states will respond.

    MD, NY, CA, HI, NJ are more likely to respond by banning CC completely, thus exempting them from any CC reciprocity. You are not naive enough to think these states are going to roll over and comply.... are you?

    State legislatures in states that are slightly less restrictive than the above (OR, SC, IL, WA) are likely to add restrictions to where guns can be carried.

    But let's assume this goes into effect, and I carry my gun into say NY, CA, MD, HI, MA, or DC I have broken their laws because I have a magazine in my gun that holds more than 10 rounds. If a resident of that state can be arrested for the number of "boolets" in his gun, so can someone from out of state.

    Or drive through NJ, with illegal ammo, JHP, which is illegal in NJ.
    First off, New Jersey don't allow civilians to carry hollow points?? How the hell does that make any sense? Are they worried that an attacker or any other bad guy will suffer too much damage from one?...lol. Second, they don't care about people using regular ole, FMJ target rounds that do hardly no good at all on the attacker but are a major concern to bystanders??...lol. Hmm.

    But back on topic...

    See, this is what confuses me about this nationwide reciprocity bill. Why are most people so worried about the federal government when it seems to me that the real problem is these "other" states that don't want to participate in reciprocity and thrive on these ridiculous and redundant gun prohibitions like, outlawing hollow point rounds. Lol. Magazine capacity bans. Lol. Of all things.

    But then again, I don't keep up on stuff like this. I've never been a real political person so, maybe that's why I can't make heads or tails out of it.

    And if passed it will become yet another unconstitutional federal law.
    How?? Unconstitutional because it sounds like the federal government will tell these, "already unconstitutional", hard-headed states to comply?

    I really wish I could see why those of you that hate it, hate it and why those of you who are all for it, are for it.

    I don't know whether to support this legislation or be totally against it. But as far as I'm concerned, if I ever were to travel somewhere, I'd rather just take my chances and not worry about it as is. May be the biggest mistake I make if I get caught.

  4. Forcing all states that issue permits to accept other state permits has nothing to do with the 2A. It would be nice if the SCOTUS would simply rule that no restrictions on our right to bear arms, any arms in any fashion, is really the law of the land, however until that time we need to leverage what we can to further gun rights for law abiding citizens.

    National Firearm Reciprocity does not change the way you can carry in any state, it simply says if a state issues a CCH permit, it must honor any other state's CCH permit.

    The driver's license analogy is the closest thing to this. Can you imagine the outcry if getting a license in MN meant you could only drive in 9 other states? Of course that would not be appreciable. Neither is restricting where I can legally carry my concealed handgun.

    Once the SCOTUS is appropriately staffed, it may be time to challenge ALL state laws that infringe our 2A right, however a bad decision by a liberal court would be devastating for decades.



  5. Quote Originally Posted by SR9 View Post
    How long will it take to get this Reciprocity act signed by Donald Trump. Won't be as easy as you may want:

    TRUMP: How Quickly Can He Have National Reciprocity Passed? – Concealed Nation

    But it is possible.

  6. #107
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    California
    Posts
    330
    Related:

    Why I Oppose Cornyn's Concealed Carry Reciprocity Bill - and Why You Should, Too

    (Note: I will be soon contacting the Second Amendment Caucus to ask that they introduce a different Senate bill which would be a word-for-word replica of H.R. 38, so ask to reject Cornyn's offensive Senate bill, and pass what should be passed: H.R. 38 language as originally proposed by Hudson.)
    Member, FPC - https://www.firearmspolicy.org/act/
    CZ-52 (Česká Zbrojovka vzor 52), M44 Russian w/Brass Stacker, & 80percenters
    HELP STOP ANTI-2A BILLS! COPY & SHARE THIS LINK: fundrazr.com/018flf

  7. #108
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    California
    Posts
    330
    Quote Originally Posted by XD40scinNC View Post
    Yes, I do, and I also recognize how states will respond.

    MD, NY, CA, HI, NJ are more likely to respond by banning CC completely, thus exempting them from any CC reciprocity. You are not naive enough to think these states are going to roll over and comply.... are you?

    State legislatures in states that are slightly less restrictive than the above (OR, SC, IL, WA) are likely to add restrictions to where guns can be carried.

    But let's assume this goes into effect, and I carry my gun into say NY, CA, MD, HI, MA, or DC I have broken their laws because I have a magazine in my gun that holds more than 10 rounds. If a resident of that state can be arrested for the number of "boolets" in his gun, so can someone from out of state.

    Or drive through NJ, with illegal ammo, JHP, which is illegal in NJ.

    And if passed it will become yet another unconstitutional federal law.
    H.R. 38 has a preemption provision based in the Supremacy clause, so it wouldn't matter whether CA, NY, etc. decides to sue or pass a law against reciprocity. Those unconstitutional state laws (and court decisions) would be overridden by federal law (when Congress clearly expresses a desire for preemption as part of the law). H.R. 38 would thus hold up against court challenge because the liberal states that would challenge it would be unable to defeat Congress's use of the Supremacy Clause. You really need to read about this.

    You can read more on the preemption provision by reading the text of H.R. 38. You can also go to Wikipedia and type in the words "Supremacy Clause" in the search bar. Or better yet just go straight to the section on how Congress expresses its intent to preempt. It's not unknown because they've certainly done it before. However, now we have a Congress and President that may actually be able to use the Supremacy Clause in pro-2A legislation- which is excellent. Think I'm wrong? The Hearing Protection Act already has preemption provisions in both the Senate and House versions of the bill. The Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act has preemption provision in the House version of the bill. And that is how it should be passed.

    By the way, I encourage you to sign these petitions which also have to do with preemption:
    The first one is directed at Congress
    https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/pet...n-control-laws
    The second one is directed at the Administration
    https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/pet...n-control-laws


    Cheers
    Member, FPC - https://www.firearmspolicy.org/act/
    CZ-52 (Česká Zbrojovka vzor 52), M44 Russian w/Brass Stacker, & 80percenters
    HELP STOP ANTI-2A BILLS! COPY & SHARE THIS LINK: fundrazr.com/018flf

  8. #109

    National Firearms Reciprocity Bill JUST Introduced

    Quote Originally Posted by freethink View Post
    H.R. 38 has a preemption provision based in the Supremacy clause, so it wouldn't matter whether CA, NY, etc. decides to sue or pass a law against reciprocity. Those unconstitutional state laws (and court decisions) would be overridden by federal law (when Congress clearly expresses a desire for preemption as part of the law).
    HR38, as written, allows those with licenses to carry in a state--or are otherwise allowed to carry in their home states (so-called Constitutional carry)--to carry in a State that:

    "(1) has a statute under which residents of the State may apply for a license or permit to carry a concealed firearm; or

    (2) does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms by residents of the State for lawful purposes."

    So if CA, NY, MD, NJ, etc. decided to rescind their concealed carry licensing schemes, and no longer allowed their own residents to "apply for a license or permit," then HR38 wouldn't allow residents of other states to carry there, either.

    How would preemption prevent those states from entirely eliminating concealed carry within their own borders?

  9. #110
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    TN
    Posts
    4,255
    Quote Originally Posted by freethink View Post
    H.R. 38 has a preemption provision based in the Supremacy clause, so it wouldn't matter whether CA, NY, etc. decides to sue or pass a law against reciprocity. Those unconstitutional state laws (and court decisions) would be overridden by federal law (when Congress clearly expresses a desire for preemption as part of the law). H.R. 38 would thus hold up against court challenge because the liberal states that would challenge it would be unable to defeat Congress's use of the Supremacy Clause. You really need to read about this.

    You can read more on the preemption provision by reading the text of H.R. 38. You can also go to Wikipedia and type in the words "Supremacy Clause" in the search bar. Or better yet just go straight to the section on how Congress expresses its intent to preempt. It's not unknown because they've certainly done it before. However, now we have a Congress and President that may actually be able to use the Supremacy Clause in pro-2A legislation- which is excellent. Think I'm wrong? The Hearing Protection Act already has preemption provisions in both the Senate and House versions of the bill. The Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act has preemption provision in the House version of the bill. And that is how it should be passed.

    By the way, I encourage you to sign these petitions which also have to do with preemption:
    The first one is directed at Congress
    https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/pet...n-control-laws
    The second one is directed at the Administration
    https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/pet...n-control-laws


    Cheers
    This is where National Reciprocity goes off the rails. It is about states fighting with the federal government about who is allowed to infringe upon a right that is supposed to be not infringed upon. There will be a constitutionality challenge by the states and the arguments by both sides in front of SCOTUS will be hilarious. States will argue that they need to have the ultimate authority to decide who can carry concealed in their territory, while the federal government will argue that one state shall have this authority over another state and the federal government has the ultimate authority. Neither argument is actually constitutional.

    What is also interesting is that the National Reciprocity bill applies to concealed carry only. This is not only another constitutionality issue, as the Constitution doesn't say anything about carrying concealed vs. openly, but can also complicate things as open carry can be seen as an unlicensed alternative justifying the licensing scheme for concealed carry. Note, the latter is not universally applicable as unlicensed open carry doesn't exist universally, but it could nevertheless create a mess in a SCOTUS decision.

Page 11 of 25 FirstFirst ... 91011121321 ... 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