National Firearms Reciprocity Bill JUST Introduced - Page 6
Page 6 of 25 FirstFirst ... 4567816 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 243

Thread: National Firearms Reciprocity Bill JUST Introduced

  1. #51
    I am looking forward to this bill passing.

    Certain states have closed their borders to other states' residents' CFP's.

    This will open them.

  2.   
  3. Quote Originally Posted by HKS View Post
    I am looking forward to this bill passing.

    Certain states have closed their borders to other states' residents' CFP's.

    This will open them.
    As well as open the floodgates for Federal regulation of Conceal Carry permits. You know, like the Federal Gun Free School Zone Act and the prohibition of firearms in Federal facilities.
    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.

  4. #53
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    As well as open the floodgates for Federal regulation of Conceal Carry permits. You know, like the Federal Gun Free School Zone Act and the prohibition of firearms in Federal facilities.
    Well, you may turn out to be right, but I hope not.

    I hope it is a simple bill that does not try to regulate the States in their issuance of the permits, but which does force the States to honor all other States' permits as issued while the permit holders are travelling within their boundaries.

  5. Quote Originally Posted by HKS View Post
    Well, you may turn out to be right, but I hope not.

    I hope it is a simple bill that does not try to regulate the States in their issuance of the permits, but which does force the States to honor all other States' permits as issued while the permit holders are travelling within their boundaries.
    As stated numerous times, though....it does not matter how "simple" this bill is. The danger is that these bills are based upon the Interstate Commerce Clause of the US Constitution rather than the Second Amendment. That is why the words "moved in or affected interstate commerce" appears in them. The Interstate Commerce Clause is the basis for the Federal firearms regulations that already exist which violate the 2nd Amendment. Any of these National Reciprocity bills will then extend the Interstate Commerce clause to concealed carry permits which will allow the Democrats, when they regain control of Congress and the White House, to apply Federal regulation to conceal carry permits - regulation such as exists in states like California, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, etc.
    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.

  6. #55
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    As stated numerous times, though....it does not matter how "simple" this bill is. The danger is that these bills are based upon the Interstate Commerce Clause of the US Constitution rather than the Second Amendment. That is why the words "moved in or affected interstate commerce" appears in them. The Interstate Commerce Clause is the basis for the Federal firearms regulations that already exist which violate the 2nd Amendment. Any of these National Reciprocity bills will then extend the Interstate Commerce clause to concealed carry permits which will allow the Democrats, when they regain control of Congress and the White House, to apply Federal regulation to conceal carry permits - regulation such as exists in states like California, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, etc.
    The main problem in California is their "may issue" statute at the state level which allows sheriffs and police chiefs at the local level to deny issuance. So I am not sure I share your paranoia on this issue.

    I would just like to be able to visit other states with my CFP and my pistol with me.

  7. Quote Originally Posted by HKS View Post
    The main problem in California is their "may issue" statute at the state level which allows sheriffs and police chiefs at the local level to deny issuance. So I am not sure I share your paranoia on this issue.

    I would just like to be able to visit other states with my CFP and my pistol with me.
    Paranoia... now that's just funny right there, I don't care who you are. You don't know the difference between paranoia and historical fact. If you choose to educate yourself you should start with researching United States v. Lopez and Wickard v. Filburn. Those two US Supreme Court Cases will show you just exactly how powerful the words "has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce" really are and why it is extremely dangerous to gun rights that they appear in National Reciprocity bills.

    But, hey, as long as you get to carry your gun in California for the next four years, who cares, right? You've already shown a propensity for "me only" thinking. You must be SR9's conjoined twin.
    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. #57
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan
    Posts
    3,800
    Quote Originally Posted by HKS View Post
    The main problem in California is their "may issue" statute at the state level which allows sheriffs and police chiefs at the local level to deny issuance. So I am not sure I share your paranoia on this issue.

    I would just like to be able to visit other states with my CFP and my pistol with me.
    Folks can currently visit many other states with their carry permit and their pistol with them either under the current reciprocity agreements between states or by getting non resident permits from other states.

    The benefits of national reciprocity only applies to those who travel while the danger of Daddy Fed using a national reciprocity law as a way to legally justify standardizing the criteria for obtaining carry permits (and past experience with government shows the word "standardizing" really means "controlling") applies to all permit holders whether they travel or not.

    Actually, the real problem is that people have accepted the idea that government has the authority to control bearing arms in a concealed manner. The 2nd Amendment does not say anything about the method of bearing arms but it does say that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
    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

  9. #58
    Quote Originally Posted by HKS View Post
    I am looking forward to this bill passing.

    Certain states have closed their borders to other states' residents' CFP's.

    This will open them.
    Be careful what you wish for, because the last thing you want is a federal agency dictating when and where you can carry and CANNOT carry your gun.

    This would also put this control under the pen of an "executive order", which you don't want when the next anti-gun administration comes to power in as little as 4 or 8 years.
    “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

  10. #59
    Quote Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
    Folks can currently visit many other states with their carry permit and their pistol with them either under the current reciprocity agreements between states or by getting non resident permits from other states.

    The benefits of national reciprocity only applies to those who travel while the danger of Daddy Fed using a national reciprocity law as a way to legally justify standardizing the criteria for obtaining carry permits (and past experience with government shows the word "standardizing" really means "controlling") applies to all permit holders whether they travel or not.

    Actually, the real problem is that people have accepted the idea that government has the authority to control bearing arms in a concealed manner. The 2nd Amendment does not say anything about the method of bearing arms but it does say that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
    California, Oregon, and NM are not one of them (many other states -- folks can currently visit ...).

  11. #60
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan
    Posts
    3,800
    Quote Originally Posted by HKS View Post
    Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
    Folks can currently visit many other states with their carry permit and their pistol with them either under the current reciprocity agreements between states or by getting non resident permits from other states.

    The benefits of national reciprocity only applies to those who travel while the danger of Daddy Fed using a national reciprocity law as a way to legally justify standardizing the criteria for obtaining carry permits (and past experience with government shows the word "standardizing" really means "controlling") applies to all permit holders whether they travel or not.

    Actually, the real problem is that people have accepted the idea that government has the authority to control bearing arms in a concealed manner. The 2nd Amendment does not say anything about the method of bearing arms but it does say that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
    California, Oregon, and NM are not one of them (many other states -- folks can currently visit ...).
    I've seen this argument about there being a few states where there isn't any reciprocity being a reason for national reciprocity before but having a few states that don't have any reciprocity still doesn't justify handing Daddy Fed the power to regulate/restrict all carry permits. "Fixing" a few states at the expense of all the other states isn't a compelling argument. Especially since the very restrictive states will be the ones who scream the loudest for Daddy Fed to step in so all states have the same carry permit standards. Preferably adopting the more restrictive standards since, at least from my perspective, the government is never magnanimous enough to adopt less strict standards but never misses an opportunity to shows it's authority by adopting the most restrictive of standards.

    I am aware of how tempting it is to have the government pass a law that makes it convenient to carry across state lines but the government never ever .. gives.. anything good to the people without there being some kind of benefit to the government. And national reciprocity holds the possibility for the Federal government to exert total control over carry permits using the legal foundation of a national reciprocity law based in the commerce clause.

    And elections have consequences. Imagine what someone like Hillary could do with the legal power to control carry permits. And that could happen as soon as the very next Presidential election.
    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 6 of 25 FirstFirst ... 4567816 ... 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