National Concealed Carry Reciprocity Vote Imminent - Page 3
Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 67

Thread: National Concealed Carry Reciprocity Vote Imminent

  1. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by HootmonSccy View Post
    Call me paranoid, call me a bigot ( I do not believe I am either - IMHO)

    By the words "This provision will use the constitutional authority allowing Congress to enforce "full faith and credit" across the country, so that each state respects the "public acts, records, and judicial proceedings" of every other state (Article IV)." Can this later be used by gays to force other states to recognize their marriages???

    People can be gay if they want to be, I just don't think it is a protected right... each state's LEGISLATURE, not some single Judge should decide how its state should handle this issue, not the federal gov't. The founders were very careful to limit the federal government power and to let the states have most of the power over it's peoples... That is the way is should be kept, and to set any precedence otherwise, scares me!!!
    Not olny "Gay" marriages fall under this but how about common-law marriages and marriages of 12 year olds etc. I do not have ant details ot instances but I do know that those laws vary greatly. I think that many are readcing the full faith and credit clause incorrectly to justify their own agenda. As I say be careful of what you wish for, you just may get it.

  2.   
  3. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by Red Hat View Post
    I feel the same way. I'd like all states to recognize my CWP but on their own. We'll never see that though. The Gov has their hands in too much of my business and I trust them about as far as I can throw Hussein! However, in this case I'll still be happy if it passes.

    The way I read it is if they allow a citizen to have a permit even though it's almost impossible to get one like CA. You will be able to carry in that State. If a State allows one person to carry with a permit the should fall under that rule. I can see a few court cases on the horizon if it's made law.
    I see an Equal Protection suit the next day. If I can carry in California because I have a Florida Concealed License but a Californian cannot carry in his own state (and absent a California permit cannot carry in Florida either) that strikes me as a violation of the Equal Protection clause.
    John - KJ4NSE
    Member NRA | GCO | GOA | SAF | ARRL
    Why would God invent something like whiskey? To keep the Irish from ruling the world of course.

  4. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by johnsteele View Post
    I see an Equal Protection suit the next day. If I can carry in California because I have a Florida Concealed License but a Californian cannot carry in his own state (and absent a California permit cannot carry in Florida either) that strikes me as a violation of the Equal Protection clause.
    That Californian could get any NR permit, from ANY other state that issues NR permits, and then be able use it in his own state.
    The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first. - Thomas Jefferson

  5. #24
    Contact Your U.S. Senators TODAY And
    Urge Them To Support Your Right To Self-Defense
    The U.S. Senate is now considering the National Defense Authorization Act (S. 1390). As a part of the consideration of that legislation, Senators John Thune (R-SD) and David Vitter (R-LA) will offer an amendment on Monday to provide for interstate recognition of Right-to-Carry permits. There is a very high likelihood of a Senate floor vote on this important and timely pro-gun reform on Monday or Tuesday.
    While the right to possess firearms for self-defense within the home has long been respected under the law, for most of our nation's history, state and local governments have prohibited ordinary citizens from possessing firearms for self-defense in many settings outside the home. Recently, however, most state legislatures have taken steps to reduce those restrictions. In the last twenty years, the number of states that respect the right to carry has risen from 10 to 40 -- an all-time high.
    Now is the time for Congress to acknowledge these changes in state laws and recognize that the right to self-defense does not end at state lines. Under the Thune-Vitter amendment, an individual who has met the requirements for a carry permit, or who is otherwise allowed by his home state's state law to carry a firearm, would be authorized to carry a firearm for protection in any other state that issues such permits, subject to the laws of the state in which the firearm is carried.
    Contrary to "states' rights" claims from opponents who usually favor sweeping federal gun control, the amendment is a legitimate exercise of Congress's constitutional power to protect the fundamental rights of citizens (including the right to keep and bear arms and the right of personal mobility). States would still have the authority to regulate the time, place and manner in which handguns are carried.
    Expanding Right-to-Carry will enhance public safety, and certainly poses no threat to the public. Criminals are deterred from attempting crimes when they know or suspect that their prospective victims are armed. A study for the Department of Justice found that 40 percent of felons had not committed crimes because they feared the prospective victims were armed.
    And, carry permit holders have demonstrated that they are more law-abiding than the rest of the public. For example, Florida has issued more carry permits than any other state (1.5 million), but revoked only 166 (0.01 percent) as a result of firearms-related crimes by permit holders.
    The Thune-Vitter amendment recognizes that competent, responsible, law-abiding Americans still deserve our trust and confidence when they cross state lines. Passing interstate Right-to-Carry legislation will help further reduce crime by deterring criminals, and—most important of all—will protect the right of honest Americans to protect themselves when deterrence fails.
    The Thune-Vitter Amendment represents a giant step forward in the protection of the basic right to self-defense. Its passage will recognize that the rights of law-abiding Right-to-Carry permit holders should be respected, even when they travel outside their home state.
    Please be sure to contact both of your U.S. Senators today, and urge them to cosponsor and support the Thune-Vitter amendment. E-mail them today and call them on Monday.
    To find contact information for your U.S. Senators, please visit NRA-ILA :: Action Center or call (202) 224-3121

    U.S. Senate: Senators Home



  6. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by utimmer43 View Post
    That Californian could get any NR permit, from ANY other state that issues NR permits, and then be able use it in his own state.
    Exactly why I am aagainst this bill. It is a cop out on the part of those introducing it and pandering to a select group. If they want to really do something the include all states in their bill and not just a few ho have slective reciprocity. As they say either doit or get off the pot and quit farting. I would rather have the feds completely control CCW than this as it is just covers a portion of hte states.

  7. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by FN1910 View Post
    Not olny "Gay" marriages fall under this but how about common-law marriages and marriages of 12 year olds etc. I do not have ant details ot instances but I do know that those laws vary greatly. I think that many are readcing the full faith and credit clause incorrectly to justify their own agenda. As I say be careful of what you wish for, you just may get it.
    You guys need to take off the tinfoil hats. Marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution. As such, the Fed has no standing to mandate what state honors what marriages. On the contrary, RKBA is SPECIFICALLY mentioned in the Constitution. This is exactly why I support this motion. If there was ever an issue that the Federal Government ought to be getting involved in, it is protecting the Constitution, in this case 2A.

    Quote Originally Posted by johnsteele View Post
    I see an Equal Protection suit the next day. If I can carry in California because I have a Florida Concealed License but a Californian cannot carry in his own state (and absent a California permit cannot carry in Florida either) that strikes me as a violation of the Equal Protection clause.
    Quote Originally Posted by utimmer43 View Post
    That Californian could get any NR permit, from ANY other state that issues NR permits, and then be able use it in his own state.
    Quote Originally Posted by FN1910 View Post
    Exactly why I am aagainst this bill. It is a cop out on the part of those introducing it and pandering to a select group. If they want to really do something the include all states in their bill and not just a few ho have slective reciprocity. As they say either doit or get off the pot and quit farting. I would rather have the feds completely control CCW than this as it is just covers a portion of hte states.
    Who is pandering to who? A Californian, (or even better example, a New Jersey-ite) could go to any of about 20 states that issues NR permits and be able to carry in any state other than IL or WI. Where is the pandering? Yes, I wish it included IL and WI. But I believe this will wake up the people of those states (at least WI) and convince them to elect people who will pass RTC legislation.
    The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first. - Thomas Jefferson

  8. #27
    Here's how I see it...

    anything related to marriage would have to be a state issue because it is something that is undefined, un-prohibited... 10th amendment...

    unless perhaps SCOTUS considers it at some point as a unalienable right along the lines of the "Pursuit of Happiness" clause then they would some how have to make it equal one way or another between all the states...

    I can't quite recall at the moment where it falls, but I believe that the Fed has a right to get involved in what might be normally considered a state issue, when things are not equal between various states... in other words privileges/rights by zip code...
    Or states infringements thereof...

    OR if kids are involved I do not think they should at a young age be raised in a homosexual environment, only because its truly unnatural, **** sapiens are not asexual...

    Once, the kids are 18, let them decide for themselves...

    that being said, I don't care if somebody wants to marry a fricking goat, or some peter puffer, its none of my business...

    And we have bigger things to worry about right now, like the fricking Socialist Gun Grabbing Usurper and Company that's spending any chance of our great-grand kids from having a future, or having to learn Chinese...

    life on the other hand is unquestionably a unalienable right in my view, protected by the constitution, although I think the jury is still out on when life begins...

    Although, California is a MAY ISSUE CCW state, its a challenge to get one if your not a cop... or hypocritical legendary Gun Ban Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA)...

    And the Republic of Kalifornia, pretty much ignores a crap load of federal laws anyway... so matter what the fed passes they are going to ignore it...

    And in excess of 15% of all the States firearms laws combined in the entire country are from California...

    Then there's New York... I have former Police officer friends from New York who state, there is no Second Amendment if you live in New York, and its a rare event if a police officer is allowed a CCW...

    The Real Problem as I see it is no Congressman has taken the initiative to say, wait a minute, the fact that the States that allow CCW, are requiring permits is in itself a Second Amendment Infringement...

    AND DEFACTO GUN REGISTRATION... A BACK DOOR TO SUBSEQUENT CONFISCATION...

    No where in the Second Amendment does it state open carry or concealed carry only...
    Jefferson was well known to always carry concealed and advocated being armed at all times...

    I do not believe the Fed or the States have any authority to require CCW or not... yet they BOTH continue to un-Constitutionally INFRINGE on what is supposed to be UNALIENABLE...

    I digress...

    This National Concealed Carry Reciprocity vote headed for the Senate Monday or Tuesday, is a big improvement on the fubar we have currently...

    Keep an open mind and give it a read, its a good thing all things considered...

  9. #28
    Most are focusing on CA laws but what about Hawaii. They don't have reciprocity with anyone and from my understand they have a permit program in place but have only issued a very few. Once this bill passes then HI is going to have to honor eveyones or they may just remove their permit program entirely. If they do away with their CWP program will they have to continue to honor other states permits? How about those from Vermont, will they just have to show their drivers license. Alaska does issue permits so will you have to have an Alaskan permit to carry in HI or will a drivers license be adequate?

  10. #29
    Emailed my Senators. While I really hope it passes I don't think it has much of a chance. We can always hope though.

  11. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by FN1910 View Post
    Most are focusing on CA laws but what about Hawaii. They don't have reciprocity with anyone and from my understand they have a permit program in place but have only issued a very few. Once this bill passes then HI is going to have to honor eveyones or they may just remove their permit program entirely. If they do away with their CWP program will they have to continue to honor other states permits? How about those from Vermont, will they just have to show their drivers license. Alaska does issue permits so will you have to have an Alaskan permit to carry in HI or will a drivers license be adequate?
    Yes, HI, NJ, and MD (those three being the hardest for their residents to get permits) would have to honor outside permits. And no, if they did do away with their RTC laws, then they would no longer have to honor any CWP. I don't think that would be such an easy thing to do, but even if that did happen, then the residents of those states are really no worse off than they were to begin with, since almost none of them can get a CWP to begin with. The ones who do have CWPs will take it to court, with the NRA, GOA, SAF, etc. behind them. This could be the beginning of a huge battle that ultimately results in banning all CWPs and reaffirming that carrying a weapon is a right, not a privlege, and that states have no business taxing, licensing, or in any other regulating or INFRINGING on that right.

    Oh, and yes, I would think that an Alaskan or Vermontan would just have to show their DL or some other form of I.D. that shows they are a resident of one of those states.
    The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first. - Thomas Jefferson

Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... 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