Remember that all except one of the states that have what is referred to as Constutitional carry ALSO issue permits for reciprocity with other states. Therefore it will not change a thing if anybody wants to get a permit for reciprocity. Further these same states 30 years ago were 'may issue or no issue' regarding the handing out of permits. It was viewed by many of us as a step toward easing of gun laws then and history has proven us correct. The National Reciprocity bill will do the same thing. Look I think the permit system sucks, so cut out the crap that I support it. The biggest issue with Natinal Reciprocity is proving it to wavering political leaders and citizens. Just like the 'shall issue' blood on the streets idea was proved wrong, as time goes by when people see that National Reciprocity idea works, so why should there be a need for permits? With or without permits there are several states that will not give up 'may issue' despite what we hope and work for, if we wait for them it will be a very long wait. Look most of us who support the National Reciprocity bill look at it as a step to show the country that people carrying guns isnt the problem. Some people are concerned that large states may try to force changeing the bill in a negative way once it passes. There are right, BUT as the number of states like Arizona (which still issues permits for RECIPROCITY) goes to Constutitional Carry it becomes MUCH MORE likely that the permit requirememt will be done away with. Look you guys hash out how those of us who support the bill are wrong, thats your priviledge. But contrary to what you may think we ARE on the same side.
National Right to Carry Reciprocity Act of 2012” introduced in U.S. Senate
- Thread starter Bttbbob
- Start date
B
Bikenut
Guest
I am beginning to think that supporters of strengthening the permit system by getting the Feds involved do not understand the difference between a "right" and a "privilege".. and "privilege" is spelled... I N F R I N G E M E N T.
Sadly I believe that the supporters of the LIE that is being pushed as the "National Right to Carry Reciprocity Bill" are being exceedingly short sighted and are focusing on pushing for the selfish convenience of a government controlled "privilege" over protecting "rights".
Even the name of the bill itself is a freaking LIE! since a permit to carry is government given permission (which is that infringement thing..ya know?) to carry... not the "Right to Carry".
I said this in a post above... and I stand by it...
Bikenut said:
BluesStringer
Les Brers
No, that is our right, and this quote exposes quite clearly the degree of difficulty you have in distinguishing between rights and privileges. You support a bill that expands the government's role as the gatekeeper of privileges.
We oppose it because it infringes on our rights. The argument boils down to being just that simple.
Thanks for making the dividing line between our respective positions so blatantly stark, accidental and unwitting though it was.
I think not. Aren't you the one that every time someone deigns to make a cogent argument against 822, you resort to equating them to members of the "Brady Bunch?" You've done it across at least two threads now, and just a few posts up you did it again:
And thanks again for so clearly stating your selfish position in that last all-caps line. If you "will be able" to carry more places, it's not an infringement. But if the Commerce Clause gets further bastardized, or if people who live in the five free states now suffer more regulation, screw it, you "will be able" to carry more places. And don't you get that saying you "will be able" to carry more places than you are able to carry now is just another way of describing a government-authorized privilege, as opposed to your God-given right? You're fighting for privileges that you obviously believe is government's to grant or deny. We're demanding our rights that the Framers recognized as deriving from God Himself. And you have the audacity to spew accusations towards us for being Brady shills? And now claim we're on the same side?
I've said it before, but it bears repeating; you're insane.
Blues
ETA: Anyone who would like to see the premier performance of santa's new and exciting dance, "The Brady Mish-Mash," look here. I can't believe that after being so thoroughly trounced in that thread, that he's back here with the exact same song and dance. It's incessant, obsessive and freakin' insane.
mutchlerbj
New member
National Right to Carry
Completely agree. The General Government dictating to States about gun laws only opens the door for further usurpation of States Rights. Just because I agree with the law now doesn't mean that they won't try something that I don't agree with in the future. Given the current state of Government, that day is inevitable.
Completely agree. The General Government dictating to States about gun laws only opens the door for further usurpation of States Rights. Just because I agree with the law now doesn't mean that they won't try something that I don't agree with in the future. Given the current state of Government, that day is inevitable.
S&W645
NRA Life Member
The US Constitution says the Feds can't make infringing gun laws. That right is reserved to the people and the States. The Feds can enforce the permits being accepted under the Commerce Clause. States can't legally prevent or charge someone for traveling with a gun as that is interfering in interstate commerce. That is what needs driven into the heads of the politician's heads in NYC. And that is what the Federal rules allow if it is legal in both the starting and ending states.
B
Bikenut
Guest
Perhaps the point being missed is that the permits themselves... the entire concept of government requiring folks to qualify for a permission slip called a "permit"...
is not the right to carry but is the infringement upon the right to carry!
and folks are running to the government begging it to please protect the infringement!!!!
Oh... and has anyone noticed what the Feds Historically do with anything and everything it decides the Commerce Clause gives it power over? Why bother to "enact" when all that is necessary is to "regulate"?
Axeanda45
Banned
Nope, the States and local government are bound to the Constitution also, it is they (the states) who ratified it... It binds them also.
ANY law, ANYWHERE in these UNITED States that has ANYTHING to do with firearms is UNCONSTITUTIONAL!
Yep, and any woman anywhere who says "no" to you really means "yes, oh yes..."
I guess that there are some people on this site that never learned how to read. They take things out of context and then when confronted with fact use deflection as a way of hiding that they are wrong. For example I ask the question "Why would a anti gun group such as the Brady Bunch oppose this bill IF it is so bad for gun owners?" and not one person has chosen to answer, choosing instead to deflect and change the subject. Small children do this all the time. As far as what the bill will do oppenents are not being entirely forthcomming using words such as 'mabye, could, possibly' among others and presenting them as fact. Like it or not the permit system is a fact of life. The FEDERAL school zone law ALREADY recognizes state permits as relevant, so why the crying about the easing of the restrictions in National Reciprocity? I do NOT like the permit system, it is a waste of time and BGs could care less. But like it or not the permit system is here and realistically it will take years if ever to change this considering states like California. You guys go ahead with the attitude 'Its my way or the highway' and we will see how many decades it takes for your way to happen. If you really believe that the National Reciprocity bill is so wrong, AND the bill passes, DONT take advantage of it and practice what you preach.
Yes, Bikenut, pretty much agree concerning the "reciprocity bill". My belief is that, just as there are restrictions on free speech when it can cause panic there has to be some practical common sense applied to our freedoms. The very fact when it becomes impractical or unreasonable is, I believe, a bigger threat to our 2A freedoms that some commons-sense requirements such as background checks, etc. When they can say it is unreasonable or against common-sense or even dangerous, they have a good argument for passing laws that really infringe our rights more than they already are.
On a side note: I live in SC, only 10 mi. from the Georgia State line. SC requires 8 hours of handgun training including testing and actually shooting, demonstrating that the person is can do it in a safe manner and a State Law Enforcement Division (SLED) background check and FBI fingerprint check. The CWP cannot be denied if the person passes the handgun course and the background checks.
On the other hand, 10 miles away in Georgia, to get carry permit in Georgia, one only has to go to a local magistrate and fill out an application and agree that they can do a background check if they want to. There is no testing or mandatory BG check in GA.
I have a lot of friends in GA who carry but do not know basic gun safety (how to protect the public, themselves or their families from firearm accidents) and just like everyone who doesn't know, they don't know that they don't know.
I DO like it that Georgia only restricts carrying in a building while court is being held and on school grounds except in your car, while in SC we cannot carry in/on any government property and anywhere alcohol is consumed.
So, actually I believe my state is too restrictive in some points and my neighboring state, where I spend a lot of time, should have mandatory background checks and testing. Georgia residents could probably have reciprocity with SC and some other if other states saw that they know basic gun safety and are not a public menace.
SC & GA do not have reciprocity. I can carry in GA because I have also have an AZ non-resident permit. SC does not recognize any non-resident permits except a SC non-resident and one can only get that if they own property in SC. So there is no way a Georgia resident can carry legally in SC unless they have property in SC and get a SC NonRes permit.
I am not aware of, and would like to know if there any states in the USA that have absolutely no restrictions on who, where, when or how one can carry a firearm. Are there any?
If you take the argument to the logical end -- If there were absolutely no restrictions, infringements, or gun laws of any kind, anywhere as many say is the way 2A proscribes, I believe the feds or even the Supreme Court could have a good case for more severe federal infringement. I'd much rather the states do it than the Feds and definitely don't want to open the door further, as this bill does, for more Federal power over firearms.
It is interesting that in SC, no permit is required, when you would otherwise be allowed to carry, if you are fishing or traveling directly to/from your fishing spot. But the three big lakes between GA & SC (on the line) Lakes Hartwell, Russell & Thurmond which are all U.S. Army Corps. of Eng. lakes and the USACE does not allow firearms on their property. I would really like to see that changed. The remote USACE boat ramps are high crime areas due to the many car/truck break-ins at the ramps.
B
Bikenut
Guest
This bill has nothing to do with folks wanting to carry across State lines... nor does it have anything to do with why they want to...
It has everything to do with handing the Federal government the power to control the State's permit systems under the all powerful...... Commerce Clause where there is no need to "enact" when all that is needed is to "regulate".
And I am dismayed...that otherwise intelligent folks are falling for the BS that a bill involving the government controlled permit privilege (the actual infringement!) has anything to do with the right to bear arms.
I am also disgusted that some would throw the right to bear arms under the bus in exchange for a little convenience by handing the very entity, the government, the power to regulate the carry of guns that the 2nd Amendment says "shall not infringe."
B
Bikenut
Guest
Please consider the danger in what you consider "practical"...
The problem isn't the right itself... no matter what the right is. Problems arise when folks engage in harmful actions while exercising the right. And we have plenty of laws that punish folks who cause harm already... why do we also have to punish the right?
Free speech... you most certainly DO have the right to yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater. But if you exercise that right irresponsibly and yell "FIRE" when there is no fire you will run afoul of the laws regarding causing riot, or causing property damage, or causing injuries. So why do we need to restrict the right to...yell "FIRE"?
Guns... we have the right to bear arms... and we have many laws that punish those who do harm while exercising the right to bear arms. Why do we need to punish the right itself?
Now... on to your premise that control is needed because restricting the right will prevent harm to others. Please... your posts show you to be an intelligent person so I must ask... do you really believe any law ever stopped a criminal from committing a crime?
The only folks laws stop are the folks who wouldn't be engaging in the behaviors that law controls anyway. Law abiding folks do not commit crimes so how does restricting the right to bear arms in any way... stop criminals from bearing arms?
While it seems logical to require everyone to be equally trained because that might prevent accidents... the real danger is more insidious... because...
Who gets to decide what level of training is.. "acceptable"? Or "reasonable"? Or "appropriate"? Or "practical"? Or fits "common sense"?
The danger is quite simple... the definition of "practical", "acceptable", "reasonable", and "appropriate" changes when those in power... those who have control... change.
As an illustration ...
You have your opinion of what is "practical", "acceptable", "reasonable", "appropriate", and "common sense"...
The guy down the street has his opinion of what is "practical", "acceptable", "reasonable", "appropriate", and "common sense"...
I have my opinion of what is "practical", "acceptable", "reasonable", "appropriate", and "common sense"...
The anti gunner has his opinion of what is "practical", "acceptable", "reasonable", "appropriate", and "common sense"...
And none of them are the same...........
But what is important is... the opinion of what is "practical", "acceptable", "reasonable", "appropriate", and "common sense"... of the folks in government that have the power to require all of us to obey the "practical", "acceptable", "reasonable","appropriate", and "common sense" laws they put in place.
And make no mistake.. the days when the voice of the people influenced the laws enacted by the politicians has long passed.
So even considering that a right should be subject to what someone thinks, someone's opinion of, what is "practical", "acceptable", "reasonable", "appropriate", and "common sense" is arguing that it is acceptable that someone should be in charge of a right... and if there is someone in charge then it isn't a right but is a privilege granted, or denied, by the one in charge.
Instead of punishing the right, any right, with restrictions and laws... all that is necessary is to punish the individual who caused harm while exercising the right, any right.
BluesStringer
Les Brers
BluesStringer
Les Brers
Ahh, so 8 hours of training from an assembly-line instructor who teaches people how to pass tests is what makes you more deserving of the full measure of your 2nd Amendment protections than someone in GA (or AL for that matter, as our system is at least as easy and non-intrusive as GA's)? If you have "a lot" of friends in GA who do not know basic gun safety because of GA's lack of requirements for attaining same, why the heck don't you teach them? Why should your multitudes of "friends" need the government to see to their gun safety education, when their friends from SC all have this magical 8-hour training course under their belts that makes them not only so much safer, but they know that they're so much safer and the GA "friends" don't?
You do realize, I hope, that 8 hours of training is nothing, right? The vast majority of us have been through most of NRA's basic courses, and many of us have been through extensive professionally-mandated and elective advanced training as well, and we're still learning. Your eight hours doesn't trump a GA or AL citizens' 2nd Amendment rights. Not in safety issues or in knowledge, and if you really do have "a lot" of friends whose safety practices are lacking, it's only because you or other of their friends haven't stepped up to the plate and had a "come to Jesus" moment with them concerning their, their families' and your safety when they shoot. That eight hour class ain't gonna do nothin' for them, anymore than the NRA basic pistol class that I voluntarily went through when I was still a teenager prepared me for a gun fight.
Forgive my bluntness, but what makes you think it matters a wit what you "DO like" or what you don't when it comes to the free exercise of constitutional rights by people other than yourself?
So GA concealed carriers are a public menace because they aren't required to attend eight hours of basic safety training and don't have to subject themselves to an anal exam (FBI check) just so they can exercise their rights? That's some amazing commentary right there. And I bet you think of yourself as "pro-2nd Amendment," don't you? As "pro-2nd Amendment" as, oh, say, Joe Manchin? Or maybe as "pro-2nd Amendment" as Mark Begich? Do you aspire to be as "pro-2nd Amendment" as Max Baucus?
Those are the three sponsors of the Senate version of 822, S. 2188. All three Democrats, all three with abysmal 2nd-Amendment voting records, and all three beholden to Harry Reid for their committee assignments and chairmanship positions. These are the people you expect true 2nd Amendment advocates to trust to serve our interests? Good Lord, when will you people WAKE UP!!!!
Has it ever occurred to you that Georgians prefer their rights be protected by their state government over inviting the federal government in to force them or SC to abide by more .fedgov bastardization of the Commerce Clause? SC is the only Southern state that I cannot carry in also, and guess what? I'm fine with that if my only other choice is to further weaken the Constitution through federal intrusion so that I don't have to work within my state system to push for better cooperation between neighboring states. The fact is, I know without a doubt that AL would sign a reciprocity agreement right now if SC would work with us. As long as they don't though, it is they who are in the wrong, not my state, which makes it infinitely easier and less expensive to attain legal carry status than any of the other three states in which I have held a permit previously.
Red herring. Who cares? Just because laws in various states have varying degrees of regulatory red tape doesn't mean it's prudent to invite federal intrusion to standardize that red tape.
Wait a minute, now I'm confused. Are you for or against the Manchin/Begich/Baucus reciprocity bill?
Whatever, I wonder if you're aware that GA is one of the states considering constitutional carry legislation? I have to assume you'd be against that since it will put them even farther away from SC's big-time, safety-conscious, reasonable and practical training requirements for all your unsafe, unreasonable and impractical "friends" in GA who don't know that they don't know how to handle guns safely, right?
Look, I'm all for extensive training. Before I started carrying a gun for a living, I acquired extensive training through an actual shooting academy, which far surpassed any training requirements my employer provides or demands of their armored transport personnel. I encourage every novice shooter I encounter to constantly upgrade their training, and when I'm at the outdoor, mostly-unsupervised range that I frequent, and I encounter novices that obviously need some help and advice, I offer it in as friendly and non-confrontational way as I know how. If they tell me to piss off, I pack up and go home. If they accept the advice, great, I've contributed to the shooting community and passed along lessons that I've learned from others who either offered them the same way, or whom I've paid dearly to impart to me and my wife for our own edification. But I will NEVER suggest that my rights are enhanced beyond anyone else's rights simply because I'm better-trained or better-educated in the safe handling of firearms. The ONLY reason I am trained and educated is BECAUSE I have the unalienable RIGHT to pursue it. And I'll see your eight measly hours and raise you about 500 hours, and I STILL believe that every American's rights are just as unalienable and just as important to protect and uphold as mine.
Blues
"
When I say practical, common-sense, etc. I'm facing the reality that someone or some state or federal body is going to put some regulations on firearms (actually the 2A says "...right of the people to keep and bear arms..." not just firearms. There are many restrictions of knives, pepper spray, tasers, etc.
This statement is quoted on many websites, 'The Second Amendment holds the distinction of being the only amendment to the Bill of Rights that essentially goes unenforced. The U.S. Supreme Court has never struck down any piece of legislation on Second Amendment grounds, in part because justices have disagreed on whether the amendment is intended to protect the right to bear arms as an individual right, or as a component of the "well-regulated militia."'
We both agree that the Feds will gain more gun control power from this bill. I do not believe we are going to get a Supreme Court Ruling reiterating our 2A rights (of absolutely no infringement) or get anti-2A types to do anything that would even appear to comply with the 2A.
I know is sounds like a cop-out but I say it is the reality of the situation. Our right to bear arms is going to be regulated is some way, everywhere. Because of that, I prefer it to be the states rather than the Feds.
I think I've read that George Washington, fighting his own British dictatorship was the origin of the "...necessary to the security of a free State...". It wouldn't have made any more sense for G. Washington to think the British should have a say-so in his bearing of arms than it does for us to say our power seeking government should have more control over our bearing of arms.
I would prefer the states have a more consistent approach, but that is highly unlikely. It is probably just wishful thinking to believe all states will ever comply with the wording of the 2nd Amendment.
From what I've read about how the laws were changed in Georgia, a well organized statewide movement and some sympathetic legislators can make a lot of progress but not 100%. Even though I'll remain hard-nosed wishing they had safety training and BG checks. You may find the following link on how some gun laws in Georgia were changed and why they existed in the first place, very interesting: http://www.georgiacarry.org/cms/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/racist-roots-of-ga-gun-laws.pdf
When I say practical, common-sense, etc. I'm facing the reality that someone or some state or federal body is going to put some regulations on firearms (actually the 2A says "...right of the people to keep and bear arms..." not just firearms. There are many restrictions of knives, pepper spray, tasers, etc.
This statement is quoted on many websites, 'The Second Amendment holds the distinction of being the only amendment to the Bill of Rights that essentially goes unenforced. The U.S. Supreme Court has never struck down any piece of legislation on Second Amendment grounds, in part because justices have disagreed on whether the amendment is intended to protect the right to bear arms as an individual right, or as a component of the "well-regulated militia."'
We both agree that the Feds will gain more gun control power from this bill. I do not believe we are going to get a Supreme Court Ruling reiterating our 2A rights (of absolutely no infringement) or get anti-2A types to do anything that would even appear to comply with the 2A.
I know is sounds like a cop-out but I say it is the reality of the situation. Our right to bear arms is going to be regulated is some way, everywhere. Because of that, I prefer it to be the states rather than the Feds.
I think I've read that George Washington, fighting his own British dictatorship was the origin of the "...necessary to the security of a free State...". It wouldn't have made any more sense for G. Washington to think the British should have a say-so in his bearing of arms than it does for us to say our power seeking government should have more control over our bearing of arms.
I would prefer the states have a more consistent approach, but that is highly unlikely. It is probably just wishful thinking to believe all states will ever comply with the wording of the 2nd Amendment.
From what I've read about how the laws were changed in Georgia, a well organized statewide movement and some sympathetic legislators can make a lot of progress but not 100%. Even though I'll remain hard-nosed wishing they had safety training and BG checks. You may find the following link on how some gun laws in Georgia were changed and why they existed in the first place, very interesting: http://www.georgiacarry.org/cms/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/racist-roots-of-ga-gun-laws.pdf
jrs
New member
All I can say is WOW...
most of us realize the differences between a "right" and a "privilege". I choose to exercise my rights as a gun owner, but I am also a realist that my state grants me the privilege of carrying by issuance of an unrestricted carry "permit". I am a realist.....and while it is an infringement on my "rights", this is a document which I can present to law enforcement if necessary, which will allow me to avoid going to a jail cell while the time consuming investigation of whether I legally own and can carry my weapon is completed.
It's interesting that dialogue surrounding this issue quickly becomes a conversation of all of the alterior motives of the government.
While I believe that government has overstepped its powers on many occasions, and DO NOT want the government to gain even more power over us, we have to be realists and work within the laws and regulations as they exist.
A national reciprocity would extend our priveleges to carry in other states which, for whatever reason, do not recognize our rights as a US citizen. In the example I gave earlier in this forum where I was forced to make a decision to violate a lesser V&T law, rather than cross a state border and become an instant felon, this would have not been a problem...or even a choice I had to make (and thank you to the poster who stated that I "should pay attention"...never thought of that one. In truth, poorly marked signage).
Another poster referred to this solving only my "selfish" interests for my own convenience. I would ask...How many millions of dollars are spent in this country in Non-Resident permit fees, as well as the individual state required training courses, required to legally carry your weapon across state lines.
Yes, it would be more convenient to me to be able to travel to Florida without having to spend money on a non-resident permit...pack my guns and ammo in seperate locked containers when approaching states which do not recognize my home state resident permit or other non-resident permits...then unpack them and carry when I leave that state....only to do it again a few states away.
It would also be more convenient NOT to spend the extra cash on non-resident permits.
I can see the response coming....we shouldn't need any permits PERIOD!!!!
I agree, but even with all the lobbying and pleading on the state level, we will never see it in my or my childrens lifetimes....so why don't we play the cards we're dealt.
We can distrust everyone, the State and Federal Governments, the NRA...and the list goes on.
I can see it now.....lets assume that the Supreme Court ruled that we hav an inalienable right to carry without restriction, and that all of the states agreed and abolished all state and local permit laws....so we have no infringement on our rights....we would still hear the voices sounding to the rafters...."THERE HAS TO BE AN ALTERIOR MOTIVE!!!!" THE GOVERNMENT IS TRYING TO TRICK US SOMEHOW!!!
Lets get real...the permit system is here to stay, and we can work on making it better and easier to navigate for the law-abiding gun owner. Or, we can argue all day about how the current BAD situation should stay in place, just in case "they" want to trick us.
most of us realize the differences between a "right" and a "privilege". I choose to exercise my rights as a gun owner, but I am also a realist that my state grants me the privilege of carrying by issuance of an unrestricted carry "permit". I am a realist.....and while it is an infringement on my "rights", this is a document which I can present to law enforcement if necessary, which will allow me to avoid going to a jail cell while the time consuming investigation of whether I legally own and can carry my weapon is completed.
It's interesting that dialogue surrounding this issue quickly becomes a conversation of all of the alterior motives of the government.
While I believe that government has overstepped its powers on many occasions, and DO NOT want the government to gain even more power over us, we have to be realists and work within the laws and regulations as they exist.
A national reciprocity would extend our priveleges to carry in other states which, for whatever reason, do not recognize our rights as a US citizen. In the example I gave earlier in this forum where I was forced to make a decision to violate a lesser V&T law, rather than cross a state border and become an instant felon, this would have not been a problem...or even a choice I had to make (and thank you to the poster who stated that I "should pay attention"...never thought of that one. In truth, poorly marked signage).
Another poster referred to this solving only my "selfish" interests for my own convenience. I would ask...How many millions of dollars are spent in this country in Non-Resident permit fees, as well as the individual state required training courses, required to legally carry your weapon across state lines.
Yes, it would be more convenient to me to be able to travel to Florida without having to spend money on a non-resident permit...pack my guns and ammo in seperate locked containers when approaching states which do not recognize my home state resident permit or other non-resident permits...then unpack them and carry when I leave that state....only to do it again a few states away.
It would also be more convenient NOT to spend the extra cash on non-resident permits.
I can see the response coming....we shouldn't need any permits PERIOD!!!!
I agree, but even with all the lobbying and pleading on the state level, we will never see it in my or my childrens lifetimes....so why don't we play the cards we're dealt.
We can distrust everyone, the State and Federal Governments, the NRA...and the list goes on.
I can see it now.....lets assume that the Supreme Court ruled that we hav an inalienable right to carry without restriction, and that all of the states agreed and abolished all state and local permit laws....so we have no infringement on our rights....we would still hear the voices sounding to the rafters...."THERE HAS TO BE AN ALTERIOR MOTIVE!!!!" THE GOVERNMENT IS TRYING TO TRICK US SOMEHOW!!!
Lets get real...the permit system is here to stay, and we can work on making it better and easier to navigate for the law-abiding gun owner. Or, we can argue all day about how the current BAD situation should stay in place, just in case "they" want to trick us.
