Bill Would Let Legal Gun Owners Carry Weapons Around Country

[CharlesMorrison]

I agree that navylcdr's scenario is 1possible outcome. However, some people here treat it as it were gospel. I liken it to the doomsday predictions of "blood in the streets" that the anti-gun crowd always holler whenever new gun friendly legislation is introduced.

This bill doesn't allow the federal government to control our permits. It forces the states to recognize permits from other States.

Have you ever tried to get a non resident permit from NJ or MD? Not happening! So why should I be disarmed when traveling to and through those states? If I DO arm myself, I risk jail. Then who takes care of my family? You? The state? This bill removes that problem.

Sent from my XT907 using USA Carry mobile app

Link RemovedLink Removed

 

[Saltheart Foamfollower]

Despite chicken little and company, I still see this as a positive step. I don't subscribe to the "all or nothing" mentality. Our rights weren't lost overnight, but over the course of the last 100 years or so. We won't get them back overnight either.

As for bluesstringer, I don't understand your screen name either, but it doesn't HAVE to make sense to me, only to you.

Sent from my XT907 using USA Carry mobile app

 

[NavyLCDR]

The Federal government has interpreted the Commerce clause to mean they can regulate (control) and tax anything that crosses State lines.

So... food for thought....

If the Federal government has decreed that all States must allow concealed carry permitees to carry their concealed firearms (and their concealed carry permits!) across State lines would the fact that the Feds are now involved, even if slightly, in the carrying of firearms across State lines under the authority of a carry permit give the Feds the power to regulate (control) and tax said permits and such carrying... under the umbrella of the commerce clause?

It goes beyond that Bikenut. In Wickard v. Filburn the US Supreme Court upheld that the Federal government can regulate and control anything - whether it crosses state lines or not, under the Interstate Commerce Clause. The phrase is "has moved in or affected interstate commerce".... you are a Montana resident and buy a gun that was produced in Montana by a Montana company. The Federal government claims that affected interstate commerce because you didn't buy it out of state and if thousands of Montana residents only bought guns produced in Montana that would have a cumulative affect on interstate commerce.

"The Court decided that Filburn's wheat growing activities reduced the amount of wheat he would buy for chicken feed on the open market, which is traded nationally (interstate). Although Filburn's relatively small amount of production of more wheat than he was allotted would not affect interstate commerce itself, the cumulative actions of thousands of other farmers just like Filburn would certainly become substantial. Therefore according to the court, Filburn's production could be regulated by the federal government."

 

[Bikenut]

Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
The Federal government has interpreted the Commerce clause to mean they can regulate (control) and tax anything that crosses State lines.

So... food for thought....

If the Federal government has decreed that all States must allow concealed carry permitees to carry their concealed firearms (and their concealed carry permits!) across State lines would the fact that the Feds are now involved, even if slightly, in the carrying of firearms across State lines under the authority of a carry permit give the Feds the power to regulate (control) and tax said permits and such carrying... under the umbrella of the commerce clause?

It goes beyond that Bikenut. In Wickard v. Filburn the US Supreme Court upheld that the Federal government can regulate and control anything - whether it crosses state lines or not, under the Interstate Commerce Clause. The phrase is "has moved in or affected interstate commerce".... you are a Montana resident and buy a gun that was produced in Montana by a Montana company. The Federal government claims that affected interstate commerce because you didn't buy it out of state.

"The Court decided that Filburn's wheat growing activities reduced the amount of wheat he would buy for chicken feed on the open market, which is traded nationally (interstate). Although Filburn's relatively small amount of production of more wheat than he was allotted would not affect interstate commerce itself, the cumulative actions of thousands of other farmers just like Filburn would certainly become substantial. Therefore according to the court, Filburn's production could be regulated by the federal government."

And yet there are those who think handing the Feds a toe hold just to gain a privilege is a positive step towards regaining the right to bear arms. Alas.... that is how we got to where we are today.

Edited to reflect NavyLCDR's full post.

 

[Leader]

Ummm...

Originally Posted by maybejim View Post
There are people who like to live in the land of delusion and people who like to live in the real world. The real world has laws about firearms. This law would be a begining of returning to Constitutional law. It's not the best but a step in the right direction.

OK I'll give you that one.

But considering how things have been going with states allowing carry & shall issue permits and all the other pro gun laws, it just might be.

I sure don't see the Fed getting more restrictive laws passed when they couldn't do it after Newton or VA Tech.

 

[r1derbike]

Despite chicken little and company, I still see this as a positive step. I don't subscribe to the "all or nothing" mentality. Our rights weren't lost overnight, but over the course of the last 100 years or so. We won't get them back overnight either.

As for bluesstringer, I don't understand your screen name either, but it doesn't HAVE to make sense to me, only to you.

Sent from my XT907 using USA Carry mobile app

I got his username right on the first try, and also one of his favorite blues guitarist (who died in a helicopter crash) as well. It should be obvious, by now, but if not, google is your friend.

Hell, it might even make sense to you, then.

 

[NavyLCDR]

Someone posted that it would be just like driver's licenses and marriage license. That can't be true. The reason why the Federal government ruled that driver's licenses and marriage licenses must be honored in all states is because (until the legalization of same sex marriages anyway), the difference in requirements state to state to obtain driver's licenses and marriage licenses was insignificant enough to not be a concern. That isn't true of concealed carry permits/licenses. That is one of the big reasons why the Federal government has not required reciprocity for concealed carry permits/licenses to this date. Therefore, it follows to reason that if the Federal government is going to require reciprocity, it won't be long before they require concealed carry requirements to become equally similar to the extent that driver's license requirements are. And do you honestly think that similarity is going to gravitate towards the requirements in Vermont - or towards the requirements of California, New York, New Jersey and Illinois?

 

[Bikenut]

OK I'll give you that one.

But considering how things have been going with states allowing carry & shall issue permits and all the other pro gun laws, it just might be.

I sure don't see the Fed getting more restrictive laws passed when they couldn't do it after Newton or VA Tech.

Yes... the privilege to exercise the right to bear arms (with the fantastic exception of a few States that went full on Constitutional carry) has been gaining ground in the STATES but so far the Feds don't have an "in" that gives them a chance to regulate over State's authority. Anything that gives the Feds some kind of umbrella authority should be looked upon as scary as hell simply because of who, and what agenda, is currently in power in the Federal government.

 

[CharlesMorrison]

Nothing in this bill gives the Fed anymore power then they already have.
And no one has said they think it has anything to do with "regaining the right to bear arms".
Just that we should be able to carry through any state if we already have a permit in our home state.

And YES, most of us agree we shouldn't NEED a permit to carry anywhere.

You soft sack of wet dog shyte,
Go blow smoke up someone else's ass because you aren't making any friends here with your bend over and take it up the shyter for MORE Guberment control.

If you don't have the balls to stand up for your God affirmed Rights, then go sit in the corner and let us adults handle this issue...
I can assure you, you do not speak for me in this matter. You are a selfish libtard who is also a whinny little girl, all sad and grumpy cause big daddy gubment is so mean to you!

Here's a thought! Put on your big girl panties and go take a stand! Move forward, NOT backwards...

You are weak and it shows.

Link Removed
Link Removed

 

[r1derbike]

Same place it is for any standing reciprocal agreement between states now.
That law says "Knowingly" within 1000', and when is the last time you saw ANYONE stopped and charged with only this offence?
Not being able to go within 1000' of a school bothers you so much you would restrict everyone else in the country from carrying a gun anywhere in that state?

Strange. You seem to be OK with the 1000' law while carrying, because to your knowledge, nobody has been charged with it, and in your post directly below it, regarding mine, you point-out all other laws that people may be charged with.

In two subsequent posts (#72,#73) you have produced an oxymoron.

 

[NavyLCDR]

Strange. You seem to be OK with the 1000' law while carrying, because to your knowledge, nobody has been charged with it

I'll bet you some states would start charging people. Stopped for 22 mph in a 20 mph school zone (for the children, of course), first question Officer Friendly asks, "Are you carrying a firearm or other weapons today?" And since you passed the 20 mph school zone speed limit sign, there goes the excuse of "I didn't know it was a school zone".

 

[Leader]

Strange. You seem to be OK with the 1000' law while carrying, because to your knowledge, nobody has been charged with it, and in your post directly below it, regarding mine, you point-out all other laws that people may be charged with.

In two subsequent posts (#72,#73) you have produced an oxymoron.

I don't see it that way.
Post #71 was responding to your question about the the Fed rule about carrying around schools and how it would be the same as it is now in any state.
Post #72 is responding to obeying any law in any state.

Am I ok with the gun free school zone law? Nope, I think it's stupid but we don't have a bill repealing that yet so I can't help change it.
We do have this bill that will be a small step forward and I just don't see where it gives the Fed any more opportunity to regulate guns then they already have.
It has been said before, gun travel through interstate commerce, they can do whatever they want with them.

 

[Leader]

I'll bet you some states would start charging people. Stopped for 22 mph in a 20 mph school zone (for the children, of course), first question Officer Friendly asks, "Are you carrying a firearm or other weapons today?" And since you passed the 20 mph school zone speed limit sign, there goes the excuse of "I didn't know it was a school zone".

Does that happen now?
I carry in many states & have never had it happen to me.

 

[r1derbike]

I don't see it that way.
Post #71 was responding to your question about the the Fed rule about carrying around schools and how it would be the same as it is now in any state.
Post #72 is responding to obeying any law in any state.

Am I ok with the gun free school zone law? Nope, I think it's stupid but we don't have a bill repealing that yet so I can't help change it.
We do have this bill that will be a small step forward and I just don't see where it gives the Fed any more opportunity to regulate guns then they already have.

OK, clarification noted.

The problem with federal reciprocity is all our eggs are in one basket. Feds may grab that basket at any time and make scrambled eggs.

The highlighted part of your post brought-up a memory of typical, liberal deflection that our former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said about Obamacare, "We have to pass the bill to see what's in it".

Granted the reciprocity bill is not as lengthy as Obamacare, but anytime the feds get their dirty little hands involved in anything, it is a bad thing. Trust me.

 

[NavyLCDR]

Does that happen now?
I carry in many states & have never had it happen to me.

New York and Maryland (and other states I am sure) have records of arresting tourists for illegal possession of firearms in their no gun zone which just happens to encompass the whole state. If the bill passes and they can no longer arrest for mere possession because the tourist has an out of state permit, what do you think they are going to do? Just shrug their shoulders and give up? I predict they will make more no guns zones than those that exist now and/or start targeting the existing no guns zones. The school zones are the prime candidates because it so easy to speed through one.

 

[BluesStringer]

Would you equate this to the way he Fed has taken over all aspects of being able to drive? Or all aspects of being married?

I believe strongly that DUI checkpoints violate the search and seizure provisions of the 4th Amendment. I see nowhere in the Constitution where the federal government is given any authority over such an issue, except to say that it was the Supreme Court's solemn duty to quash the practice the first chance they got. Instead, they weakened our 4A protections and codified the practice on the basis that the intrusion was insignificant in comparison to the safety concerns to the public of drunk drivers, another caveat conspicuously absent from the 4A or other parts of the Constitution for that Court to have based its ruling on.

Within the next few months the Supremes will most likely make another ruling for which no jurisdiction is afforded them in the Constitution concerning gay marriage. Marriage is quite clearly, constitutionally-speaking, a state issue by virtue of the 10th Amendment. The Supremes have no constitutional basis for even hearing cases concerning marriage issues, except, like above, to spank lower federal courts that intrude on a state's right to make and enforce law on the issue as they, and their citizens, see fit.

The federal government from every level and branch doesn't give a crap about the Constitution. I do, and it is on that basis that I oppose such laws as the one you're advocating for.

You not wanting the Fed to change the laws in YOUR state doesn't extend to other states?

Hey pal, you want to carry in my state? Come on down! You can open carry with no permission slip of any kind from any state, or Alabama accepts permits from every state that issues them. If you got one where you live, you're good to go here. Any more questions about why I don't want the fed screwing things up in my state for me and everybody else across the country who visits here?

You want your license privileges in my state?

I likely already have them, but if I don't, you live in a state that I would refuse to patronize with my tourist dollars anyway. See how that works? I live where I have a somewhat tolerable amount of freedom, and don't go where state governments pass laws that alienate me by restricting my freedoms.

And following the laws of carrying in another state has nothing to do with the requirements to get a permit in those states, it just means you can carry in that state just like a resident un restricted permit holder.

Well, that's interesting. What requirements exist in a state that has either a "restricted permit" or an unrestricted one? Because here, I pass a NICS check and get my permission slip on the spot that authorizes concealed carry in every single place and situation as every single other permission slip holder. So now you're saying that I'd have to be licensed here with some kind of "unrestricted" stamp of classification in order to be able to carry in such states? Nevermind. I won't be visiting such states anyway. This bill doesn't help me, nor does it help visitors to my state because it sounds like even a "restricted" permission slip holder would have much more freedom crossing into Alabama than they have in their own home state right now!

And you guys call this a step in the "right direction???" How do you figure?

Well there you go, just like the Fed's have taken over the requirements to get a Driver's Licence they would do the same with Carry Permits. The Fed's do set the training and tests required for a Driver's License that they require all states to recognize don't they?

I have a Class A CDL, and yes, you can bet your ass the fed has control over training and testing requirements for getting one.

Oops.

Indeed.

Of course it is the Constitution that requires all States to recognize other states Driver's Licenses (which should apply to Carry Permits). It blows me away that the all or nothing bunch are our biggest enemy.

I'm the guy who went to Montgomery several times to get the law passed that allows permission slip holders from anywhere in the country to carry here. That same new law (as of 2013) allows anybody who is not a prohibited person to open carry with no permission slip from here or anywhere else at all. Instead of tagging me as your enemy, a little grace, and possibly some gratitude, should be forthcoming. You can stick that federal boot-lickin' attitude where the sun don't shine, and if you ever do visit down here, leave it at home because there's some good ol' boys down here who know first-hand how tyrannical the federal government can be, and Homey don't play dat crap down here.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317 (an Obama-Phone apparently) using USA Carry mobile app[/QUOTE]

Despite chicken little and company...

FuQ b!tch.

Sent from my XT907 (an Obama-Phone apparently) using USA Carry mobile app

Blues

 

[NavyLCDR]

We do have this bill that will be a small step forward and I just don't see where it gives the Fed any more opportunity to regulate guns then they already have.

OK, clarification noted.

The problem with federal reciprocity is all our eggs are in one basket. Feds may grab that basket at any time and make scrambled eggs.

The highlighted part of your post brought-up a memory of typical, liberal deflection that our former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said about Obamacare, "We have to pass the bill to see what's in it".

Granted the reciprocity bill is not as lengthy as Obamacare, but anytime the feds get their dirty little hands involved in anything, it is a bad thing. Trust me.

Seems like I recall when Obamacare was passed someone made a promise similar to, "You can keep your present doctor and keep your present health care plan!" Yeah. And I have bridge for sale in my back yard if anyone wants to buy it. How soon will it be before we hear, "You can keep your current concealed carry permit.....oh, well... we meant unless it doesn't meet our standards."

 

[Leader]

Well BS.... I suggest you write your Congress Critter & tell him/her you don't want this to happen.

I don't share your fears and see this as a positive so I have encouraged mine to do everything they can to make it happen.
However you will be happy to hear, mine are VERY anti Gun, Anti American Dem-o-craps and will never vote for this (Unless of course Obummer comes out for it)

 

[Leader]

Seems like I recall when Obamacare was passed someone made a promise similar to, "You can keep your present doctor and keep your present health care plan!" Yeah. And I have bridge for sale in my back yard if anyone wants to buy it. How soon will it be before we hear, "You can keep your current concealed carry permit.....oh, well... we meant unless it doesn't meet our standards."

As I recall, that was an entirely different group of people. Most of which have been voted out of office.

 

[Saltheart Foamfollower]

I got his username right on the first try, and also one of his favorite blues guitarist (who died in a helicopter crash) as well. It should be obvious, by now, but if not, google is your friend.

Hell, it might even make sense to you, then.

Yes, it might. But I don't care.