Concealed Carry Reciprocity is CURRENTLY banned under Federal Law. (Important) - Page 20
Page 20 of 31 FirstFirst ... 10181920212230 ... LastLast
Results 191 to 200 of 302

Thread: Concealed Carry Reciprocity is CURRENTLY banned under Federal Law. (Important)

  1. ------>I just got off the phone with one of the higher ups at NRA. They told me they very recently received information that someone is currently being prosecuted under Fed GFSZA95 as a stand alone charge. I will let you know more when the information becomes available to me.<------

  2.   
  3. Quote Originally Posted by Bear75135 View Post
    Can a State law be written that covers a Fed Law?
    … that was a rhetorical question. The answer is Yes.
    This Fed Law might be able to null and void what was written “before it”
    but not “something written after it, if what is written after covers it”
    You are welcome to believe whatever you want to believe about it, Bear75135. I'm sure your opinion will carry more weight in court than the ATF's and be accepted by the judge. Good luck.

    I know I am just wasting my time posting this from the ATF....

    http://www.handgunlaw.us/documents/batf_school_zone.pdf

    The law clearly provides that in order to qualify as an
    exception to the general prohibitions of the Gun-Free
    School Zones Act, the license must be issued by the State
    in which the school zone is located
    or a political
    subdivision of that State. A concealed weapons license or
    permit from any other State would not satisfy the criteria
    set forth in the law.

  4. Try again

    Quote Originally Posted by Eagle2009 View Post
    The United States v Smith case was in 2005. It doesn't matter what Georgia law says, or the law of any other State. Federal Law trumps State law under the supremacy clause every time. The United States v Cruz Rodrguez appellate case upheld a GFSZA conviction under the 1000 foot rule on September 8, 2008. That was seven months ago.

    I guess that is why people in california can't smoke pot for medical reasons. OOOOPS, my bad I forgot they can smoke it. How did that happen if federal law trumps state. It doesn't, we are back to interstate commerce again.

    That is why if the feds banned handguns a gun mfg could produce the guns in a state and as long as they didn't ship them out of state the fed law wouldn't hold water.

  5. #194
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    PANHANDLE, FL
    Posts
    144
    44WCF:
    to answer your question:
    Lawyers, Lawyers, Lawyers, - 60% have comprised the House and Senate since the late 1780s. Lawyers and Prosecutors sell justice but they don't keep it at home for their own family.

  6. Quote Originally Posted by ferggie View Post
    I guess that is why people in california can't smoke pot for medical reasons. OOOOPS, my bad I forgot they can smoke it. How did that happen if federal law trumps state. It doesn't, we are back to interstate commerce again.

    That is why if the feds banned handguns a gun mfg could produce the guns in a state and as long as they didn't ship them out of state the fed law wouldn't hold water.

    Both of your assertions are incorrect. Read the United States Supreme Court Case United States v Raich

  7. Quote Originally Posted by ferggie View Post
    I guess that is why people in california can't smoke pot for medical reasons. OOOOPS, my bad I forgot they can smoke it. How did that happen if federal law trumps state. It doesn't, we are back to interstate commerce again.
    I can smoke marijuana too. I can smoke it to ease pain. I can smoke it to get high. I can hire a prostitute to smoke it with me. I can smoke marijuana while shooting a machine gun with a suppressor attached in Washington state at the United States Post Office. OOOPS, may bad, I forgot that being able to do something does not make it legal.

    Quote Originally Posted by ferggie View Post
    That is why if the feds banned handguns a gun mfg could produce the guns in a state and as long as they didn't ship them out of state the fed law wouldn't hold water.
    You might ALSO want to read Wickard v. Filburn

    Roscoe Filburn was a farmer who admitted producing wheat in excess of the amount permitted. Filburn argued however that because the excess wheat was produced for his private consumption on his own farm, it never entered commerce at all, much less interstate commerce, and therefore was not a proper subject of federal regulation under the Commerce Clause.

    Filburn argued that since the excess wheat he produced was intended solely for home consumption it could not be regulated through the interstate Commerce Clause. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, reasoning that if Filburn had not used home-grown wheat he would have had to buy wheat on the open market. This effect on interstate commerce, the Court reasoned, may not be substantial from the actions of Filburn alone but through the cumulative actions of thousands of other farmers just like Filburn its effect would certainly become substantial. Therefore Congress could regulate wholly intrastate, non-commercial activity if such activity, viewed in the aggregate, would have a substantial effect on interstate commerce, even if the individual effects are trivial.

    Quote Originally Posted by Eagle2009 View Post
    Both of your assertions are incorrect. Read the United States Supreme Court Case United States v Raich
    Yep.

  8. #197
    Quote Originally Posted by Eagle2009 View Post
    ------>I just got off the phone with one of the higher ups at NRA. They told me they very recently received information that someone is currently being prosecuted under Fed GFSZA95 as a stand alone charge. I will let you know more when the information becomes available to me.<------
    I'd be very interested to read more about that.

  9. Some folks really get their panties in a bunch, don‘t they?
    I like the part where you're telling me that this is MY OPINION.
    This is TEXAS LAW!
    This is what/how, I've been told/explained by… The State of TEXAS.
    TEXAS is NOT just stating… ours are ok because we say they are.
    This is why the agreements that TEXAS has with these 29 states is written the way they are.
    Written after the Fed’s ‘95 law.
    You know…. The wording. The same thing you keep touting as why they’re not legal.
    The Fed Law is worded… must be issued by the state, it’s the wording that does it.
    These agreements are not what is referred in “The Letter of ‘02“.
    As in… You have and we have too, so yours is good here if ours is good there.
    Let’s look at that letter from ‘02...
    The inquiry is, "if the State honors another state permit by legal agreement, is that considered the same as issuing it themselves for the purposes of the GFSZA?"
    Pay attention to that part… it is asking what if a state “honors another”
    AND that is what I’m pointing out about TX law/agreements… They are not Honoring
    By law they are claiming them as their own. Just as if they issued it themselves.
    Does it say in that Fed Law that a State can not claim another states permit as their own? NO
    Can the Fed’s make a state give an actual copy of a permit… Yes…
    and these states do it by the wording of their laws. Words mean a whole lot and that is what is being done here.
    But you Claim words can’t. Words do have meanings.
    Hey N.LT…You also brought up…
    Can the state of Oklahoma revoke your Texas CHL? NO. Because it was not issued BY them. They can refuse to accept it's validity, if they choose to, though.
    First… I rewrote it below, to say any of those 29... But the answer to you is that you are WRONG on both parts…..
    Can a State that is in an agreement with TEXAS, “Suspend/Deny” my permit to carry in it? YEPPERS!! At anytime I’m found guilty of not following all of that States Laws while I‘m there. Can they revoke it… TX would do it for them, For any reason that I was convicted of in the other state that revokes it in TX. You know… that background check. For the validity part, can they question it… Pssst… each state shall (watch that wording) provide a means of checking.
    You know, it’s just like… Any other State suspending your driving privileges in it… Yeppers. Same reason. You must obey their laws.

    No where in this have I said that this Fed Law is not LEGAL.
    I’m only passing along what I’ve been told by TEXAS, on what they have done to deal with it.
    Can they?………… YES
    Does TX Law agree with this Fed Law?…. Per TEXAS… YES!
    Check Your State Laws

    Be Safe
    Bear

  10. There is nothing special about Texas reciprocity agreements. The Federal law is clear. The ATF opinion is that the Federal law is clear.

    For the purposes of the Federal Gun Free School Zone Act, your Texas CHL is only good in Texas and no other state's permit is good in Texas. Carry your gun wherever you want to. I just hope you don't have to rely upon your interpretation of the law in front of a judge.

  11. All can read to enjoy…
    but LT... just for you, to see why your thinking process… is stuck on stupid?
    Are you in any way involved with the writing/processing of the laws for and in the state of TX since 1995?
    Are you in any way involved with the writing/processing of the laws for and in the Fed Gov since 1995?
    Doe you have any reading comprehension skills? Because I’ve been over this with you, How many times? And all you come back with is…. IT'S ONLY MY OPINION.
    You’ve read something from a Fed Law, that was written in 1995...
    And you claim there is NO WAY, since ’95 that any of these 29 states can do that without taking the time, getting an address of every permit holder in these other 29 states, going through the costs to do, and sending them a copy of a TX permit, and being sure the right person got it?
    As I said, as was pointed out to me by the State Of Texas… TX and these 29 other states… do not honor a permit… They claim it as their own.
    Sorry to make you think so soon again…
    Do you think these 30 states Att Generals got with the fed Att. Gen. (the guys who take the person to court/charges them on state/fed law) and asked how can we without all that BS?
    Why do you think it’s only with 29 other states?
    Why isn’t this with (like Utah) with 33?
    Why not 30... 31... 50... Etc, etc?
    Can you come up with something/anything, after the date of any of these 29 agreements, in the Fed Law that kicks it down?
    What was the feds answer when asked? Check you state laws.
    But someone said fed beats state… yep, but then state can write something to beat fed. Oh My! Then fed needs to write/rewrite again.
    SHOW ME LT!
    Guess what LT... I’m not arguing about what the Fed Law says………..
    Read that again LT.
    Then maybe again for a ninth time….
    Again people… check you state law. Do Not Believe anything about your State/Fed Laws without checking yourself. Don’t trust forum postings. Even mine.
    Be Safe
    Bear

Page 20 of 31 FirstFirst ... 10181920212230 ... 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