Why I Oppose Cornyn's Concealed Carry Reciprocity Bill - and Why You Should, Too - Page 2
Page 2 of 10 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 98

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

  1. #11
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    California
    Posts
    330
    Quote Originally Posted by OnTheFence View Post
    (...) one would have to hope that states keep issuing non-resident permits.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    I think they will, but yes, one would hope. It probably helps that it's positive for revenue for any state that (like VA) will offer nonresident permits.
    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

  2.   
  3. #12
    If Reciprocity becomes law, if will negate the need for non-resident permits. Why would you want to go to the expense of another states non-resident permit when you home state permit is all you need. Most states will not issue you a non-resident permit unless you have a home state permit, or that has been my experience when I got mine. I know now there are people with 3 and 4 non-resident permits like Florida, Utah, Pennsylvania, Etc., that would all be senseless under HR 38. I am not all too sold on S 446 either.
    But irregardless it will be a long time before either of these bills will hit Trumps desk if ever. Don't forget they have been tried over and over before and never got out of Congress.

  4. #13
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    TN
    Posts
    4,255
    Quote Originally Posted by SR9 View Post
    If Reciprocity becomes law, if will negate the need for non-resident permits. Why would you want to go to the expense of another states non-resident permit when you home state permit is all you need. Most states will not issue you a non-resident permit unless you have a home state permit, or that has been my experience when I got mine. I know now there are people with 3 and 4 non-resident permits like Florida, Utah, Pennsylvania, Etc., that would all be senseless under HR 38. I am not all too sold on S 446 either.
    But irregardless it will be a long time before either of these bills will hit Trumps desk if ever. Don't forget they have been tried over and over before and never got out of Congress.
    We must make sure that residents from HI, CA, NJ and other restrictive states can't carry anywhere in the US. The National Reciprocity bill may make that happen.

  5. #14
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    California
    Posts
    330
    Quote Originally Posted by SR9 View Post
    If Reciprocity becomes law, if will negate the need for non-resident permits. Why would you want to go to the expense of another states non-resident permit when you home state permit is all you need. (...)
    The reason being, SR9, is because in most places in CA (and in some other states as well that I won't name here), people have a very hard time getting their local law enforcement officials to issue a CCW permit.

    As such, under H.R. 38, if you were to get a permit from VA (but you live in CA), it would work for you. (The way H.R. 38 is written you wouldn't need to get a CA CCW permit --- since H.R. 38 contains a preemption clause, if someone in CA obtained a nonresident CCW permit from Virginia, THAT VIRGINIA PERMIT would be considered (under federal law) to be, in the words of the bill as proposed, " a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of a State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm." WERE THE PREEMPTION PROVISION NOT INCLUDED IN H.R. 38, no-one would be able to make such a claim - which is why Cornyn's bill is so dangerous to the Concealed Carry Reciprocity movement.

    That's why.

    I explained the details of it in another comment (see first page of comments) but I don't want to rehash all the details of it 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

  6. #15
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    California
    Posts
    330
    Quote Originally Posted by bofh View Post
    We must make sure that residents from HI, CA, NJ and other restrictive states can't carry anywhere in the US. The National Reciprocity bill may make that happen.
    I do catch the sarcasm and I appreciate it as a current CA resident (who hopes to ultimately move to and own property in Idaho).

    The Concealed Carry Reciprocity bill as proposed by H.R. 38 would be good, but the other one, Cornyn's bill (S.446) is a horror that should not be supported.

    Again, as I've pointed out before, if Cornyn would amend his bill so that it would literally be a copy of H.R.38, then I'd be o.k. with that, but I don't think he will. Cornyn is a gun controller.

    I'll be contacting someone from the Second Amendment caucus to see if they can work with Hudson to get a new Senate bill introduced that would literally be the same text as H.R. 38.

    p.s.: If you haven't already, please sign and share my petition regarding preemption and getting state gun control laws repealed!
    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. Hudson's Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act (H.R. 38) is an affront to the 2nd Amendment and I refuse to support bills which are an affront to the 2nd Amendment.
    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. #18
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    California
    Posts
    330
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    Hudson's Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act (H.R. 38) is an affront to the 2nd Amendment and I refuse to support bills which are an affront to the 2nd Amendment.
    I respect your thoughts, but could you explain in a bit more detail what you mean when you say that? I do understand (or rather, I am assuming) that you are probably suggesting that H.R.38 proposes to extend a permitting regime across the United States for concealed carry (one which would allow any permit of any state to be used by any resident of any other state assuming they could get it) and that said permitting regime is itself offensive to the 2nd Amendment. I assume that is what you suggest. But in what way exactly does H.R. 38 offend?

    For example, right now we already have a situation in which many states demand you obtain a permit for people to concealed carry. How would H.R.38 be making that worse?

    There are also a number of states that have offered constitutional concealed carry (not just constitutional carry, which would be carrying OWB and visible, but constitutional concealed carry which would involve IWB and / or deep concealment). I like the idea of constitutional concealed carry, but H.R. 38 does not require that you get a permit if you are in a state that has a constitutional concealed carry standard.

    Read H.R.38 carefully. It does not require that you get a permit! It doesn't require that you do anything, it just creates options for people who previously didn't have any (because of the lousy states they live in), and for everyone else, boom, it gives you reciprocity IF you are in a state that requires you to have a permit to carry concealed! If you're in a state that DOESN'T require a permit for concealed carry, AND YOU NEVER PLAN ON LEAVING YOUR STATE, the approval of H.R. 38 wouldn't affect you in ANY WAY. If you DO plan on leaving that wonderful state you are in where you don't have to get a permit to concealed carry, then H.R. 38 just made your life easier.

    States that do not require a special permit for concealed carry are Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, Maine, Mississippi, New Hampshire, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming,

    That's nine states that have explicitly stated there is no permit required for concealed carry - hardly a majority of states. And reciprocity is missing everywhere, of course. It should be obvious that some kind of federal bill is needed to address the problem.

    Meanwhile, Peruta v. California is about to be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court (end of March the case could be evaluated / considered by the U.S. Supreme Court with conferences in the following weeks) and by the time that happens, Gorsuch will be seated (he will be seated by April 7), creating a full nine-member Court with a conservative majority. We do not yet know if the Court will even consider Peruta, but if it does the case will undoubtedly shape concealed carry rights across America, in ways that we cannot yet predict.
    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

  9. #19
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    California
    Posts
    330
    Quote Originally Posted by mikestone967 View Post
    Nobody said they were. But it is also well known that the Founders didn't explicitly confer a right to carry concealed when they crafted the Second Amendment. That is why concealed carry has gone through the wringer in the states and in the courts.

    Hell, Jefferson and Madison didn't even seem too excited about protecting people's Second Amendment rights on campus. As has been recorded in historical notes, from 1824, they penned a decision about the University of Virginia in its early days stipulating that:
    "No Student shall, within the precincts of the University, introduce, keep or use any spirituous or vinous liquors, keep or use weapons or arms of any kind,
    or gunpowder, keep a servant, horse or dog, appear in school with a stick, or any weapon, nor, while in school, be covered without permission of the Professor, nor use tobacco by smoking or chewing, on pain of any of the minor punishments, at the discretion of the Faculty, or of the board of Censors, approved by the Faculty."

    (I think "being covered without permission of the Professor" meant a condition in which a student would wear a hat of some sort without permission. No fancy hats in class or about campus, apparently.)

    No need to talk to me about how having more concealed carry is great for public safety - you are preaching to the converted.

    But I'm also a realist. We have courts. People make laws. We need to take the tremendous opportunity that is in front of us to craft laws that are in our favor.

    Hence H.R.38 (which contains a preemption provision derived from the Supremacy clause). If we don't do that, state legislatures will continue to engage in gun control at their whim and leisure, forever limiting our ability to exercise our right up to the point where it is for all intents and purposes extinguished.

    I am fully aware that rights are not gifts from government; they exist no matter what government does; we have natural rights, you need not get into an origin of rights lecture with me, please!

    The question is whether you will support H.R. 38 and thus allow people to be able to exercise their rights everywhere, or continue to allow this horrible situation in which liberal states cause everyone to have their rights limited constantly. And remember, the purview of the 9th Circuit Court and 4th Circuit Court of Appeals (the very liberal, crazy town circus courts of appeals) cover not just a couple states, but MANY states, including very conservative states! Do not pretend that you don't exist in their sphere. (9th Circuit Court of Appeals covers Alaska, Arizona, California, and Hawaii, while the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals covers Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina).


    We need to get H.R. 38 passed (WITH ITS PREEMPTION PROVISION / SUPREMACY CLAUSE ELEMENT INTACT) and we need to get decisions made at the U.S. Supreme Court level that overturn proposals or laws of the type that CA and NY have made. Otherwise bit by bit, so goes the nation!
    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

  10. #20
    MY preference would be to HR 38 also.

Page 2 of 10 FirstFirst 1234 ... 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