National Firearms Reciprocity Bill JUST Introduced - Page 13
Page 13 of 25 FirstFirst ... 3111213141523 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 130 of 243

Thread: National Firearms Reciprocity Bill JUST Introduced

  1. #121
    Quote Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
    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.....
    See, this is one of the things that confuses me. Why do most of the nationwide reciprocity contesters believe that in order to get the states to honor everybody's permits, a price will have to be paid is having to let the federal government take control of the permit system away from the states when it comes to price, requirements, all that other stuff regarding getting carry permits? Where in the bill does it state this? Seems to me that all the federal government is trying to do is make states like California recognize every state's residents' permits.

    (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) ...
    That's another thing, I have kind of an idea what the commerce clause is, a little, but what does it have to do with the reciprocity bill?

    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.
    But that only fixes the part of the problem, though. What about these states that won't issue permits to on-residents? What about the people who need to go there? Even I they don't want to? Just suck it up and hope one day that particular state or group of states someday changes??

    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.
    That's fine and dandy for you but what about everybody else?

    Avoiding an entire state isn't as easy and near is it as feasible as avoiding your local Safeway or 7/11 that doesn't allow guns.

  2.   
  3. #122
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    TN
    Posts
    4,255
    Quote Originally Posted by corneileous View Post
    See, this is one of the things that confuses me. Why do most of the nationwide reciprocity contesters believe that in order to get the states to honor everybody's permits, a price will have to be paid is having to let the federal government take control of the permit system away from the states when it comes to price, requirements, all that other stuff regarding getting carry permits? Where in the bill does it state this? Seems to me that all the federal government is trying to do is make states like California recognize every state's residents' permits.
    I am not sure if you still don't get it after the endless discussions and examples of case law in this forum about the bill or if you are just trolling.

    It is intent vs. mechanism. While the intent of the bill seems noble, the mechanism it uses allows a federal takeover of concealed carry permits. The bill asserts that one state's law shall apply in another state, because the person that the law applies to is visiting. The only way this can be done is by using the Commerce Clause to declare the visit and the application of the law as interstate commerce and the Supremacy Clause to replace the law of the state that is being visited. By invoking these two Clauses, the federal government assumes authority of said law. Once a SCOTUS decision affirms this, there is nothing that prevents this or another administration to enact a federal licensing scheme and regulate concealed carry nationwide.

    The National Reciprocity bill is an interesting case. Over decades the right to keep and bear arms has been eroded to the point that a carrot like this can be dangled in front of the masses and they will blindly cheer for it. We live in an age where facts, logic and understanding don't matter. What does matter are bombastic statements and swift wide-ranging laws that give the government more and more power as the masses are completely clueless.

    How about suing all states for violating the 2nd Amendment? The 2nd Amendment does not only apply to residents of a state, but also to its visitors. The 2nd Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause alone would require each state to issue carry licenses to residents and to non-residents in the same manner, assuming for a moment that state carry licenses are constitutional in the first place. Like any other constitutional right, the right to keep and bear arms can not be denied because someone doesn't live in a state. I know, that this is too complicated for the simple minded masses.

  4. #123

    National Firearms Reciprocity Bill JUST Introduced

    Quote Originally Posted by bofh View Post
    I am not sure if you still don't get it....
    Well, um... I tell ya... I think I did a pretty good job iterating that no, I don't get it. Why is it so hard for you to get that?

    ...after the endless discussions and examples of case law in this forum about the bill or if you are just trolling.
    Well, um. Hate to break it to ya but, even after all this um, discussion, I'm still not so sure I have a good idea about this nationwide reciprocity. Sorry to disappoint you but, do you really think I'm just merely asking for the sake of my health??

    No, I'm not trolling, moron. I really do want to understand this but, if answering in a polite manner is just too difficult for you, how 'bout just not answering at all?? Fair enough or are you even capable of being civil for a change?

    It is intent vs. mechanism. While the intent of the bill seems noble, the mechanism it uses allows a federal takeover of concealed carry permits.
    How bout a link? You're one of many who likes throwing that card so, show me where it says that the federal government is plotting to "take over" the permit system with this bill.

    The bill asserts that one state's law shall apply in another state, because the person that the law applies to is visiting. The only way this can be done is by using the Commerce Clause to declare the visit and the application of the law as interstate commerce and the Supremacy Clause to replace the law of the state that is being visited.
    ---bold added by me---
    Well now wait a minute, is it both the Commerce Clause and the Supremacy Clause or one or the other? Freethink says here that it's just the Supremacy Clause but here, Navy corrects Freethink and says it has nothing to do with the Supremacy Clause and that it's entirely about the Commerce Clause so, which is it?

    By invoking these two Clauses, the federal government assumes authority of said law. Once a SCOTUS decision affirms this, there is nothing that prevents this or another administration to enact a federal licensing scheme and regulate concealed carry nationwide.
    Again, where does anything support this claim or is this just "expert" opinion?? I've looked online for info and I keep coming up empty.

    The National Reciprocity bill is an interesting case. Over decades the right to keep and bear arms has been eroded to the point that a carrot like this can be dangled in front of the masses and they will blindly cheer for it. We live in an age where facts, logic and understanding don't matter. What does matter are bombastic statements and swift wide-ranging laws that give the government more and more power as the masses are completely clueless.

    How about suing all states for violating the 2nd Amendment?
    I guess you'd have to sue each and every one of them, wouldn't you?

    The 2nd Amendment does not only apply to residents of a state, but also to its visitors. The 2nd Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause alone would require each state to issue carry licenses to residents and to non-residents in the same manner, assuming for a moment that state carry licenses are constitutional in the first place. Like any other constitutional right, the right to keep and bear arms can not be denied because someone doesn't live in a state. I know, that this is too complicated for the simple minded masses.
    I get what your saying but isn't this what the national reciprocity bill trying to accomplish?? Being able to carry in all states? Oh wait, it's an evil plot to take over the permit system, I get it now.

  5. #124
    Is there any update on this at the Federal level ??

  6. #125
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    TN
    Posts
    4,255
    Quote Originally Posted by corneileous View Post
    Well, um... I tell ya... I think I did a pretty good job iterating that no, I don't get it. Why is it so hard for you to get that?


    Well, um. Hate to break it to ya but, even after all this um, discussion, I'm still not so sure I have a good idea about this nationwide reciprocity. Sorry to disappoint you but, do you really think I'm just merely asking for the sake of my health??

    No, I'm not trolling, moron. I really do want to understand this but, if answering in a polite manner is just too difficult for you, how 'bout just not answering at all?? Fair enough or are you even capable of being civil for a change?



    How bout a link? You're one of many who likes throwing that card so, show me where it says that the federal government is plotting to "take over" the permit system with this bill.


    Well now wait a minute, is it both the Commerce Clause and the Supremacy Clause or one or the other? Freethink says here that it's just the Supremacy Clause but here, Navy corrects Freethink and says it has nothing to do with the Supremacy Clause and that it's entirely about the Commerce Clause so, which is it?


    Again, where does anything support this claim or is this just "expert" opinion?? I've looked online for info and I keep coming up empty.


    I guess you'd have to sue each and every one of them, wouldn't you?



    I get what your saying but isn't this what the national reciprocity bill trying to accomplish?? Being able to carry in all states? Oh wait, it's an evil plot to take over the permit system, I get it now.
    Once again, I regret that I replied to you. Based on your reply, I see that you are just trolling as you already cite the some of the posts that answer your original question. Add Blues post #77 and #114 and you have your answers.

    You say, you are looking for links and online info, but ignore the content that has been posted here. Blues already provided Wickard v. Filburn. I can give you Gonzales v. Raich as well. You won't find anything specific to federal regulation of concealed carry reciprocity because it hasn't been litigated yet.

    As for your Commerce Clause vs. Supremacy Clause question, the bill is technically based on the Commerce Clause. The Supremacy Clause does come into play too, pretty much as it does with every federal law that overrides an existing state law. A basic reading of what the Supremacy Clause is would give you that.

    I know that 'How about suing all states for violating the 2nd Amendment?' isn't something for lazy ass people that just want to have their national reciprocity with a Commerce Clause bill. A landmark SCOTUS case against a single state would be enough. The federal government can litigate that. I guess you didn't get that either.

    As for your last sentence, there is the law of unintended consequences. It doesn't have to be a conspiracy, just a law that was written in a stupid way. If you want an example for how the federal government can take control of things, take a look at how we went from driver license reciprocity to the REAL ID Act of 2005.

  7. #126

    National Firearms Reciprocity Bill JUST Introduced

    Quote Originally Posted by bofh View Post
    Once again, I regret that I replied to you. Based on your reply, I see that you are just trolling as you already cite the some of the posts that answer your original question. Add Blues post #77 and #114 and you have your answers.

    You say, you are looking for links and online info, but ignore the content that has been posted here. Blues already provided Wickard v. Filburn. I can give you Gonzales v. Raich as well.
    Well, I'm not trolling and if you arrogantly continue to think I am, that's your problem. I really am trying to learn. If you can't discuss this in a reasonable and civil manner, again, that's your problem but, if my need to overlook your reference of me towards the arrogance of Blues' post that in my opinion doesn't explain crap is what you call trolling then, hopefully this post of yours I'm quoting in my reply will be the last one. I still don't see how the government's intrusion to some wheat farmer and two potheads from California has any damn thing to do with making our carry permits work in all states instead of just some.

    You won't find anything specific to federal regulation of concealed carry reciprocity because it hasn't been litigated yet.
    Ahh see, here it is, right up there. Here's the kicker. Until they straighten this bill out and make a final presentation of what it will and what it won't consist of, wouldn't it be a wise bet to wait until it gets to that point before ripping it to shreds prematurely? This goes for both sides, the ones who are scared to death of it and the ones who are jumping up and down impatiently for it to become reality.

    As for your Commerce Clause vs. Supremacy Clause question, the bill is technically based on the Commerce Clause. The Supremacy Clause does come into play too, pretty much as it does with every federal law that overrides an existing state law.
    I was just asking your opinion to which one it is because one person said it was supremacy and the other one said it was commerce. But like for example, since property owners have a right to regulate who does what on their property, are you saying the same goes for each individual state? Do states have that right to govern themselves and for example, have the right to pick and choose if they want to honor out-of-state permits or even issue permits to non-residents? But then again, that's already considered an infringement as it is so, what's this all about, the possibility of the federal government infringing on something that the states are already infringing upon?...lol.

    A basic reading of what the Supremacy Clause is would give you that.
    I have looked it up....and the commerce clause and still don't see what either of those two have to do with making a gun hating state that I either have to or just want to travel to, to honor my carry permit.

    I know that 'How about suing all states for violating the 2nd Amendment?' isn't something for lazy ass people that just want to have their national reciprocity with a Commerce Clause bill. A landmark SCOTUS case against a single state would be enough. The federal government can litigate that.
    I actually agree but, maybe these, "lazy ass people" you speak of aren't seeing all this other stuff from the same perspective that you see. Knowledge is power. As I have said several times now, that's all I'm trying to do because at this point I am neither for it or against it. I actually agree with the last part of Bikenut's post right here about just staying the hell out of those liberal-infested states but you know, there are places I'd like to see and go to that just so happen to be within the boundaries of them states so, it's not as easy to take Bikenut's logic and apply it to everyone.

    I guess you didn't get that either.
    See what?? You're idea of rounding up a posse and start suing states? I think I did, that's why I said you'd have to sue them all because ever-damn one of them is guilty of some infringement.

    As for your last sentence, there is the law of unintended consequences. It doesn't have to be a conspiracy, just a law that was written in a stupid way. If you want an example for how the federal government can take control of things, take a look at how we went from driver license reciprocity to the REAL ID Act of 2005.
    A link would be nice if... you know, it exists.

  8. #127
    Still no updates huh ?!

  9. #128
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    TN
    Posts
    4,255
    Quote Originally Posted by corneileous View Post
    Well, I'm not trolling and if you arrogantly continue to think I am, that's your problem. I really am trying to learn. If you can't discuss this in a reasonable and civil manner, again, that's your problem but, if my need to overlook your reference of me towards the arrogance of Blues' post that in my opinion doesn't explain crap is what you call trolling then, hopefully this post of yours I'm quoting in my reply will be the last one. I still don't see how the government's intrusion to some wheat farmer and two potheads from California has any damn thing to do with making our carry permits work in all states instead of just some.


    Ahh see, here it is, right up there. Here's the kicker. Until they straighten this bill out and make a final presentation of what it will and what it won't consist of, wouldn't it be a wise bet to wait until it gets to that point before ripping it to shreds prematurely? This goes for both sides, the ones who are scared to death of it and the ones who are jumping up and down impatiently for it to become reality.


    I was just asking your opinion to which one it is because one person said it was supremacy and the other one said it was commerce. But like for example, since property owners have a right to regulate who does what on their property, are you saying the same goes for each individual state? Do states have that right to govern themselves and for example, have the right to pick and choose if they want to honor out-of-state permits or even issue permits to non-residents? But then again, that's already considered an infringement as it is so, what's this all about, the possibility of the federal government infringing on something that the states are already infringing upon?...lol.


    I have looked it up....and the commerce clause and still don't see what either of those two have to do with making a gun hating state that I either have to or just want to travel to, to honor my carry permit.


    I actually agree but, maybe these, "lazy ass people" you speak of aren't seeing all this other stuff from the same perspective that you see. Knowledge is power. As I have said several times now, that's all I'm trying to do because at this point I am neither for it or against it. I actually agree with the last part of Bikenut's post right here about just staying the hell out of those liberal-infested states but you know, there are places I'd like to see and go to that just so happen to be within the boundaries of them states so, it's not as easy to take Bikenut's logic and apply it to everyone.


    See what?? You're idea of rounding up a posse and start suing states? I think I did, that's why I said you'd have to sue them all because ever-damn one of them is guilty of some infringement.


    A link would be nice if... you know, it exists.
    Your reply is pretty much a confirmation of my suspicion.

    No, we don't have to wait until the bill gets "straightened out". As I said two posts ago, it is intent vs. mechanism. You just dismissed my explanation, because it actually addressed your question. The mechanism of the Commerce Clause is pretty well known. The proposed bill uses it. The mechanism of the Supremacy Clause is pretty well known too. The proposed bill uses it. A national reciprocity bill based on the 2nd Amendment is close to impossible without outlawing carry permits in the first place. A national reciprocity bill based on the Equal Protection Clause would require states to issue permits to non-residents the same way they do for residents, and not to accept out-of-state licenses. These are the only Constitutional mechanisms at play here. All of them are well known.

    Gonzales v. Raich used Wickard v. Filburn as a precedent for the application of the Commerce Clause. Gonzales v. Raich also used the Supremacy Clause. If you really don't understand how this applies to using the Commerce Clause to take over concealed carry reciprocity and to use the Supremacy Clause to override state law, then no one can help you anyway.

    Your analogy to property owners is completely misguided. It has zero to do with the Commerce Clause and the Supremacy Clause. Again, if you don't understand the Commerce Clause and the Supremacy Clause, which I doubt, no one can help you here anyway. This is Constitution 101. Your questions are answered in Gonzales v. Raich and Wickard v. Filburn. As I stated numerous times in this thread, the National Reciprocity bill is about the federal government seizing authority from the states over infringing on 2nd Amendment rights by regulating concealed carry permits, all in the name of providing universal concealed carry reciprocity.

    You say you looked up the Commerce Clause and the Supremacy Clause and still don't understand what that does have to do with honoring carry permits. Here is a hint: If you travel to another state, you are engaging in interstate commerce and the federal government can regulate that with the Commerce Clause and override state laws using the Supremacy Clause. There is already ample of precedence for that in firearms law. As all federal firearms laws are based on the Commerce Clause, including the GCA, FOPA and GFSZA. Why does the GFSZA only apply if you don't have a carry permit from the state you are in? Why does FOPA give you "safe passage" through hostile states that you are not a resident of? Why does the CGA require you to perform interstate firearms transfer via FFLs? In all these cases, the Commerce Clause is being used. United States v. Lopez obviously comes to mind, a SCOTUS decision that invalidated the original version of the GFSZA under the Commerce Clause and forced a rewrite of it with the necessary interstate-commerce "hook" used in other Federal Gun Laws. The interstate-commerce "hook" for the National Reciprocity bills would be: "that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce in any State other than the State of residence".

    No, not all states have to be sued, only one to get case law. Suing states is not about finding them guilty. It is about invalidating state law that violates the Constitution. The concept of case law seems to escape you. Once there is case law, states have to comply or will face lawsuits in lower courts that will make them comply. There is no need for an individual to file a lawsuit against a state when it comes to constitutional issues. The federal government can sue a state. Some thing that AG Sessions could take care of, if the Trump administration is really pro 2nd Amendment and not just pro big government.

    I guess you are new to the Internet and haven't heard of Google or Wikipedia yet: REAL ID Act of 2005. If you haven't heard of the REAL ID Act yet, that would be another problem too as it establishes federal standards for state-issued driver's licenses and non-driver identification cards. You need a REAL ID compliant state issued ID for a number of things already, such as to access a federal facility or a military base. Soon you will need one to board a commercial airliner. If you visit Annapolis, MD, as a tourist and want to visit the Naval Academy, such as to see the Crypt of John Paul Jones, you have to have a REAL ID compliant state issued ID.

  10. #129
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    TN
    Posts
    4,255
    Quote Originally Posted by HKS View Post
    Still no updates huh ?!
    If you ever read this post, for updates, visit the Web pages of the two bills and look under Actions: H.R. 38 and S. 446.

  11. #130

    National Firearms Reciprocity Bill JUST Introduced

    Quote Originally Posted by bofh View Post
    Your reply is pretty much a confirmation of my suspicion.
    Yeah and once again your reply is the same of that of a "donkey and a hole" kind of person.

    No, we don't have to wait until the bill gets "straightened out".
    So, for a bill that you said right here, last sentence in the second paragraph down, all the sudden we don't have to wait for anything to get ironed out? Hmmm. Interesting.

    As I said two posts ago, it is intent vs. mechanism. You just dismissed my explanation, because it actually addressed your question. The mechanism of the Commerce Clause is pretty well known. The proposed bill uses it. The mechanism of the Supremacy Clause is pretty well known too. The proposed bill uses it. A national reciprocity bill based on the 2nd Amendment is close to impossible without outlawing carry permits in the first place. A national reciprocity bill based on the Equal Protection Clause would require states to issue permits to non-residents the same way they do for residents, and not to accept out-of-state licenses. These are the only Constitutional mechanisms at play here. All of them are well known.
    Well, I guess I'll just have to wait for help from someone else.

    Gonzales v. Raich used Wickard v. Filburn as a precedent for the application of the Commerce Clause. Gonzales v. Raich also used the Supremacy Clause. If you really don't understand how this applies to using the Commerce Clause to take over concealed carry reciprocity and to use the Supremacy Clause to override state law, then no one can help you anyway.
    Again, getting help from someone like you is pointless.

    Your analogy to property owners is completely misguided.
    I was just simply asking a question. For you to refer to it as an "analogy" is your mistake.

    It has zero to do with the Commerce Clause and the Supremacy Clause. Again, if you don't understand the Commerce Clause and the Supremacy Clause, which I doubt....
    Which you doubt? Well, not really. Think I said that once or twice.

    ...no one can help you here anyway.
    Just not you apparently.

    This is Constitution 101.
    That would be the easiest. Your way of describing is like, Constitution Caculus.
    Your questions are answered in Gonzales v. Raich and Wickard v. Filburn. As I stated numerous times in this thread, the National Reciprocity bill is about the federal government seizing authority from the states over infringing on 2nd Amendment rights by regulating concealed carry permits, all in the name of providing universal concealed carry reciprocity.
    My questions are answered in those to links about California potheads and an old-time wheat farmer??...lol. Still don't see the relevance or relation but whatever.

    Again, where does the bill say it has every intention of totally and completely taking over the permit system?

    You say you looked up the Commerce Clause and the Supremacy Clause and still don't understand what that does have to do with honoring carry permits.
    Still don't and your lousy hint below is about as useless as the come.

    But you know, your help is about as useless as tits on a bull. So I'm not even going to answer the rest of your post. I'll patiently wait to discuss it with someone else.

Page 13 of 25 FirstFirst ... 3111213141523 ... 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