National Firearms Reciprocity Bill JUST Introduced - Page 12
Page 12 of 25 FirstFirst ... 2101112131422 ... LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 243

Thread: National Firearms Reciprocity Bill JUST Introduced

  1. #111
    So how is this reciprocity bill supposed to work, anyways? For one, how can the federal government legally and get away with it at the same time, tell the states what they can and cannot allow in the first place? Other than it being stupid for some states to not reciprocate between others on carry permits and to have magazine capacity bans, ammo bans, etc. etc, how can the government tell states like California to honor permits from other states?

    The other states do have the right to govern themselves, don't they? At least I thought they did to a certain degree, level.

  2.   
  3. #112
    Quote Originally Posted by thewitt View Post
    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.
    States WANT out of state drivers entering their state for a number of reasons, but primarily because they bring $$$ to spend when they come.

    Some states do NOT WANT anyone to have a gun, and issue resident permits grudgingly. They seen no benefit to allowing people from out of state to bring and carry their guns and strongly oppose it because they are no longer in control. (Remember it is not really about guns, but about control)

    It will go through the courts, and I fully believe that "states rights" will win out.
    “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

  4. Quote Originally Posted by freethink View Post
    H.R. 38 has a preemption provision based in the Supremacy clause
    It is NOT based on the Supremacy Clause. It is based on the Interstate Commerce Clause.
    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. #114
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Republic of Dead Cell Holler, Occupied Territories of AL, former USA
    Posts
    7,759
    Quote Originally Posted by thewitt View Post
    Clearly you have no grasp of what this law does.
    Quote Originally Posted by thewitt View Post
    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.
    I say again to you, "Oppose nationwide reciprocity if you love your liberty. Support it if you don't. Those are your only two choices. Pick one."

    Any legislation that concerns how people are permitted to bear arms has "something" to do with the Second Amendment. To say otherwise is to invalidate whatever the person says subsequently, as the subsequent opining is based on a wholly flawed premise at its outset.

    You have clearly picked the wrong choice, as well as obstinately refused to research and/or substantiate your position with a single byte of scholarship, cites or valid legal analysis. I already gave you a link where you could start with the modern SCOTUS misapplication of the Commerce Clause in Wickard v. Filburn. All you have to do is read it and understand that interstate commerce morphed into intrastate commerce as far as SCOTUS is concerned the very instant that Wickard prevailed over Filburn in that ruling. That means that the federal government can do any damned thing it wants concerning carry issues once it gets its Interstate Commerce Clause hooks into wholly intrastate carry permission schemes. Roscoe Filburn thought that the fedgov couldn't win a case based wholly on intrastate commerce, and valiantly went to battle with the fed over his completely in-state use of his annual wheat crops being regulated by the fed based on its Interstate Commerce Clause. He lost, and so did every American who has ever believed that they/we should be free from federal intrusion into issues/activities/behaviors for which no constitutional authority exists for the fedgov to wield control over. National Reciprocity is one such issue.

    Giving fedgov the authority over regulation of carry issues under the Interstate Commerce Clause is a boneheaded move against The Peoples' right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment. You are opining against our rights and in favor of fedgov's authority to regulate those rights that We, The People never granted to fedgov. Kindly stop it, and absent your ability to do that, at least read and understand what it is you're supporting and why those of us who do understand, would resent and give you strong rebuke for your ignorance of the truth of the matter.

    Blues
    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...

  6. #115
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    California
    Posts
    330
    There's no point in me commenting in this thread to Blues or to NavyLCDR because you two don't seem to have any grasp of the Supremacy Clause or how it is actually being incorporated in H.R. 38, § 926D in the context of evidence of Congressional preemption. Your opinions seem to carry you along like an ocean wave travels inexorably toward the shore. Nothing will stop it or get in its way. You can't reason with a wave.

    Sorry you both can't seem to read. No point in me continuing here.
    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. #116
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    California
    Posts
    330
    Quote Originally Posted by kwc View Post
    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?
    It's a good question. Suppose H.R.38 passes and a Senate bill with same exact language passes and H.R. 38 is signed into law.
    Then suppose, CA realizes it can't win at U.S. Supreme Court (or tries and loses because of the Supremacy Clause / evidence of Congressional intent to preempt in H.R.38 Section 926D).

    Next step for the great cucked state of CA is the legislature will say "oh screw it, let's just outlaw concealed carry entirely." Two problems with that.

    1) EVERY state that has outlawed concealed carry has been defeated in the courts
    2) Even when states make concealed carry so ridiculously hard to get in terms of a permit (if they are states that require a permit -- not all states require permit for concealed carry, as there are nine states that DEFINITELY DON'T require permit for that), then someone can GET A NONRESIDENT PERMIT FROM ANOTHER STATE (example being the Virginia nonresident permit...) Under H.R. 38, THAT OTHER (non-CA permit) will work just fine.

    So that's how it all will play out TL;DR

    I'm going to ignore the whinings of Navy and Blues who apparently don't want people to be able to utilize their rights in every state.

    SUPPORT H.R. 38.
    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. #117
    So you trust the federal government to defend your gun rights. That cute....
    “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

  9. #118
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan
    Posts
    3,800
    Quote Originally Posted by freethink View Post
    -snip-
    I'm going to ignore the whinings of Navy and Blues who apparently don't want people to be able to utilize their rights in every state.

    SUPPORT H.R. 38.
    If you have to have the government's permission in the form of a permit then you do not have a right but only have a privilege. A privilege that the government who gives can also take away.

    Remember.... elections have consequences and it only takes another Obama to use that same Commerce Clause that gave national reciprocity to restrict concealed carry to the point of strangulation.

    Do not support any infringement upon the right to bear arms called a national reciprocity scheme.
    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

  10. #119

    National Firearms Reciprocity Bill JUST Introduced

    So then what do we do? Keep on letting these states continue making non-resident, law abiding people get a permit for states like California if they wish/have to travel there and want to carry for protection? Do we just say screw it and carry there illegally and hope we don't get caught? You know, kinda like, treat these gun hating states like the gun free zones you and I talked about, Bikenut? Just stay out of them? Only travel to the states that currently allows reciprocity with the state you live in?

    No, I'm not trying to be smartassed. I'm only trying to understand. I'm only trying to understand why the people that are for this bill are supporting it and why the people that think it's a bad idea are so opposed to it.

  11. #120
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan
    Posts
    3,800
    Quote Originally Posted by corneileous View Post
    So then what do we do? Keep on letting these states continue making non-resident, law abiding people get a permit for states like California if they wish/have to travel there and want to carry for protection? Do we just say screw it and carry there illegally and hope we don't get caught? You know, kinda like, treat these gun hating states like the gun free zones you and I talked about, Bikenut? Just stay out of them? Only travel to the states that currently allows reciprocity with the state you live in?

    No, I'm not trying to be smartassed. I'm only trying to understand. I'm only trying to understand why the people that are for this bill are supporting it and why the people that think it's a bad idea are so opposed to it.
    There have been several states that have instituted Constitutional carry with no permit necessary. The way that happened is gun folks got together and spent their own time and money talking their lawmakers into it.

    So what should we do? We should get off our arses and invest our own time and money talking our lawmakers into Constitutional carry while at the same time supporting folks in other states who are doing the same thing. It will take time, it will be inconvenient, it will cost money, but it would be worth it. And it gets easier every time another state goes for Constitutional carry.

    But for those who wish to visit a different state right now ... instead of saddling every carry permit holder with the danger of increased restrictions, expenses, and more strict criteria to qualify (elections have consequences so imagine what Hillary would have done to concealed carry with the power of the Commerce clause in her hot little corrupt liberal hands) ... those folks need to man up and spend their money for non resident permits from those states. Yes, there are a few states that don't offer non resident permits and do not have reciprocity and those are the states we... all of us gun owners who wish to have the actual right to bear arms... should be focusing on changing.

    Personally I treat states that do not allow me to carry the same way I treat businesses that have no guns rules/policies. I don't go there and since I don't go there I don't spend any money supporting them thereby not helping them continue their no guns crap.
    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

Page 12 of 25 FirstFirst ... 2101112131422 ... 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