Concealed Carry Reciprocity is CURRENTLY banned under Federal Law. (Important) - Page 21
Page 21 of 31 FirstFirst ... 111920212223 ... LastLast
Results 201 to 210 of 302

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

  1. #201
    Quote Originally Posted by Bear75135 View Post
    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
    I think this post is about what the Federal law says and how it could get you even though it has not happened yet. And never will, I hope.

    That being said the Federal law is clear, the ATF position is clear and no State law can protect me from that. All that protects me is so far the general common sense of only applying it in cases with other felony offenses on top. You are in Texas and my wife's from there, she swears Texans have enough common sense to keep it that way.

    Back to the point, how do we get rid of this School Zone Act thing or get the Feds to excempt ALL permit holders as they should have in the first place?

  2.   
  3. #202
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    PANHANDLE, FL
    Posts
    144
    Bear75135:
    LT is correct and your verbose reply to him is moronic. As LT says. "The Federal law is clear" and as Eagle2009 has stated, time after time, "federal law will not be trumped." And as jg1967 says, [The] "ATF position is clear and no State law can protect [any of us] from that."
    Last edited by antietam; 02-05-2011 at 07:27 PM. Reason: spelling

  4. Bear75135,

    Legal Definition of Supremacy Clause

    SUPREMACY CLAUSE

    "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." U.S. Const. art. VI, Paragraph 2

    Under the Supremacy Clause, everyone must follow federal law in the face of conflicting state law. It has long been established that "a state statute is void to the extent that it actually conflicts with a valid federal statute" and that a conflict will be found either where compliance with both federal and state law is impossible or where the state law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress. Edgar v. Mite Corp., 457 U.S. 624, 631 (1982). Similarly, we have held that "otherwise valid state laws or court orders cannot stand in the way of a federal court's remedial scheme if the action is essential to enforce the scheme." Stone v. City and County of San Francisco, 968 F.2d 850, 862 (9th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 113 S. Ct. 1050 (1993).

    Due to concerns of comity and federalism, the scope of federal injunctive relief against an agency of state government must always be narrowly tailored to enforce federal constitutional and statutory law only. Toussaint v. McCarthy, 801 F.2d 1080, 1089 (9th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1069 (1987). This is critical because "a federal district court's exercise of discretion to enjoin state political bodies raises serious questions regarding the legitimacy of its authority." Id.
    I'm just wasting bandwith....

    What that means is that when a Texan is standing before a Federal judge because they violated the Federal Gun Free School Act in Oklahoma, claiming their Texas CHL as a defense because of reciprocity, the Federal judge will enforce the Federal law ONLY...Oklahoma and Texas state laws and reciprocity won't mean jack s###t in Federal court.

  5. #204
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    SE FL and SE OH
    Posts
    5,668
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLT View Post
    Bear75135,

    Legal Definition of Supremacy Clause



    I'm just wasting bandwith....

    What that means is that when a Texan is standing before a Federal judge because they violated the Federal Gun Free School Act in Oklahoma, claiming their Texas CHL as a defense because of reciprocity, the Federal judge will enforce the Federal law ONLY...Oklahoma and Texas state laws and reciprocity won't mean jack s###t in Federal court.

  6. #205
    I attended the NRA-ILA event at Cabelas in Dundee,MI. yesterday and posed this question to the speaker there, says the NRA is moving forward on this issue. But that it would be very difficult to fix because of different laws in the states. I simply suggested an exemption to legal permit holders in states that do have reciprocity.Wasn't real impressed with his attitude about this. Kind of just dismissed the issue.

  7. Yes… you have/can not show me where it’s wrong.
    You simply say Fed Law beats State Law.
    I’m not arguing that!
    Show me where in any of my posts that I say this Fed Law does not exist or is not enforceable.
    Show me where in any of my posts that I say that TEXAS said this Fed Law does not exist or is not enforceable.
    SHOW ME where this is just my opinion.
    Name the 3 things listed in “The Letter” needed to be done to comply with this FED LAW.
    I’ve shown what Texas has done to COMPLY to this law (after it was written)… with 29 states.
    And… in your opinion…
    You say NOBODY CAN comply.
    Would you agree that it was legal if TX and each of these 29 states gave each permit holder from the other states a permit?
    They do by law.
    I don’t know if any other states have done this.
    I know only these 29 meet this standard for this with TX.
    I don’t even know if these 29 states have done this with any other states.
    I know TEXAS has with these 29.
    If or When TEXAS tells me different…
    I will still follow ALL LAWS.

    Be safe
    Bear

  8. [quote=Bear75135;181572]
    I’ve shown what Texas has done to COMPLY to this law (after it was written)… with 29 states.[\QUOTE]

    A reciprocity agreement does nothing to comply with the Federal statute.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bear75135
    And… in your opinion…
    You say NOBODY CAN comply.
    I never said that at all. I said that reciprocity does not fulfill the requirements of the Federal law.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bear75135
    Would you agree that it was legal if TX and each of these 29 states gave each permit holder from the other states a permit?
    Yes, absolutely. Because that would fulfill the requirements of Federal law. If Oklahoma did the background check on a Texan, and Oklahoma issued the permit to the Texan, and that permit stated on it "Issued by the State of Oklahoma" - it would fulfill the requirements of the Federal Gun Free School Zone Act in Oklahoma and only in Oklahoma. If you got a permit from Iowa, it would fulfill the requirements in Iowa and only in Iowa.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bear76135
    They do by law.
    No, they haven't. You have no permit or license issued by any other state in your possession. You were licensed by Texas. That's the only state that has licensed you - until you submit an application and pass the background check and receive a license from another state you have been licensed BY the state of Texas and only the state of Texas. It is, for some reason, impossible for you to comprehend the difference between being licensed BY a state, and possessing a license that is RECOGNIZED in a state.

    I am licensed to drive BY the state of Wyoming. That is the only state that has licensed me. I am still legal to drive in all other 49 states because they RECOGNIZE my Wyoming driver's license. But I have not been licensed to drive BY any other state because I have not made any other applications, taken any other exams nor received in the mail or in person any license from any state other than Wyoming.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bear76135
    I don’t know if any other states have done this.
    There are hundreds of reciprocity agreements between states:
    http://www.handgunlaw.us/documents/USReciprocity.pdf

    However, the Federal Gun Free School Act says that a person must be licensed BY the same state the school is in. There is NO exemption in the Federal law for possessing a license that is merely RECOGNIZED in the state the school is in. Again, that's the difference that you cannot comprehend.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bear76135
    I will still follow ALL LAWS.
    Yeah right. With only a Texas CHL in your possession, anywhere you travel within 1000' feet of a school in any other state other than Texas your gun must be unloaded and cased. So, you will either follow that Federal law requirement, or you will not leave the state of Texas, or you will apply for and receive permits from the other states that you travel in.

  9. #208
    Quote Originally Posted by Bear75135 View Post
    Yes… you have/can not show me where it’s wrong.
    You simply say Fed Law beats State Law.
    I’m not arguing that!
    Show me where in any of my posts that I say this Fed Law does not exist or is not enforceable.
    Show me where in any of my posts that I say that TEXAS said this Fed Law does not exist or is not enforceable.
    SHOW ME where this is just my opinion.
    Name the 3 things listed in “The Letter” needed to be done to comply with this FED LAW.
    I’ve shown what Texas has done to COMPLY to this law (after it was written)… with 29 states.
    And… in your opinion…
    You say NOBODY CAN comply.
    Would you agree that it was legal if TX and each of these 29 states gave each permit holder from the other states a permit?
    They do by law.
    I don’t know if any other states have done this.
    I know only these 29 meet this standard for this with TX.
    I don’t even know if these 29 states have done this with any other states.
    I know TEXAS has with these 29.
    If or When TEXAS tells me different…
    I will still follow ALL LAWS.

    Be safe
    Bear
    I guess I am confused as to what you are trying to say, honestly. If you are saying that your TX permit is good in all states that have reciprocity with TX that is correct. But this post is about the fact that this school zone act simply requires you to have a permit from each state in which you may pass a school within 1,000 ft, nothing more nothing less. Or lock away your firearm in the trunk each time you pass a school. That's the case for your TX permit in any state TX has reciprocity with or for any state my UT permit has reciprocity with. While this act does not TECHNICALLY cancel reciprocity it simply makes it EFFECTIVELY close to impossible to comply since most of the times you would not even know you are entering a school zone when travelling in an unfamiliar area.

    Nobody's trying to talk down your TX permit or your state. At least I am certainly not.

  10. Once again, there are three separate requirements that must all be met in order to qualify for the permit exception in The Federal Gun Free School Zones Act of 1995.


    1: Licensed to do so by the state in which the school is in.

    2: The law of the state in which the school is located requires that their law enforcement conduct a background check before an individual receives a license.

    3. The law-enforcement authorities in the state in which the school is located actually conducted the required background check before the license was issued.


    Even if you convince a federal judge you are "licensed" in another state as a result of reciprocity, that only satisfies the first criteria in the law. Criteria #2 and #3 are not met by reciprocity agreements.


    Also, if the judge rules during pre-trial that you do not qualify for the permit exception, it is highly unlikely the federal jury would ever know about your permit, as this "extraneous information" would be suppressed by the prosecution.

  11. #210
    I see that point that Bear is trying to get across. Instead of issuing out thousands of Id's to different people from different states a "Texas permit" its like a catch all, trying to save time, money and resources. It's not neccessarily a Rec. law just a "law" stating that we her by give a a Texas permit without the physical card with a pretty picture of you on the front of it.

    Im not agreeing to disagree with anyone.but the school zone law is messed up and I have called and will send a letter for the sake of it beinng changed for other states and CYOA.
    A lot of things posted are redundant. Now you're beating a dead horse.
    Cant wait to see how this latest violation goes. Sorry for the person who has to go through it though.

Page 21 of 31 FirstFirst ... 111920212223 ... 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