Bill would allow concealed weapons across state lines.

Those who think some kind of reciprocity scheme that would allow folks to carry across State lines is a good thing do not realize that the restrictions on carrying itself would end up being the same as the most restrictive State simply because the most restrictive States are not going to let folks from other States carry unless they also meet the restrictive State's requirements. That would mean all States would end up the same as the most restrictive State. Anyone want to trade the criteria/fees/hassle they have to meet now in their State for the requirements from say... California?

And then there is this...

Once the Federal government has anything, anything at all, to do with controlling carrying across State lines it won't be long before the Federal government will be in total control of all permits.

Please folks... think about what you are asking for! Are you really willing to end up having the most restrictive State set the standards for a permit and/or let the Feds get a chance to control all carry permits just so some folks who travel (regardless of how that would negatively impact those who do not travel) have the convenience of not applying for permits from other States?

After all... if one does a bit of research it is possible to get non resident permits from several States giving reciprocity between many States making it possible to travel to almost all States now without any added legislation from the Feds. Some info is in the following links....

Concealed Carry Permit Reciprocity Maps - USA Carry

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

I personally would prefer that each State be left alone to exercise it's own State's right to make it's own firearm laws (and for all of us to work in each State to gain Constitutional carry until no permits are required in any State) than to let the Federal government get any kind of toe hold on being able to be in control of carry permits.

Think carefully about letting the Federal government have any power over carry permits..... just think about Obama (or someone just like him) being in charge of who is "allowed" to have a carry permit.

One last thing... concealed carry permits controlled by the government are NOT the right to bear arms but are the exact kind of gun control that "shall not be infringed" was supposed to stop. If we have the right then we would not need to ask permission... but if we have to ask permission then all we have a privilege controlled by the government.
 
Bikenut said:
Those who think some kind of reciprocity scheme that would allow folks to carry across State lines is a good thing do not realize that the restrictions on carrying itself would end up being the same as the most restrictive State simply because the most restrictive States are not going to let folks from other States carry unless they also meet the restrictive State's requirements. That would mean all States would end up the same as the most restrictive State. Anyone want to trade the criteria/fees/hassle they have to meet now in their State for the requirements from say... California?

And then there is this...

Once the Federal government has anything, anything at all, to do with controlling carrying across State lines it won't be long before the Federal government will be in total control of all permits.

Please folks... think about what you are asking for! Are you really willing to end up having the most restrictive State set the standards for a permit and/or let the Feds get a chance to control all carry permits just so some folks who travel (regardless of how that would negatively impact those who do not travel) have the convenience of not applying for permits from other States?

After all... if one does a bit of research it is possible to get non resident permits from several States giving reciprocity between many States making it possible to travel to almost all States now without any added legislation from the Feds. Some info is in the following links....

Concealed Carry Permit Reciprocity Maps - USA Carry

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

I personally would prefer that each State be left alone to exercise it's own State's right to make it's own firearm laws (and for all of us to work in each State to gain Constitutional carry until no permits are required in any State) than to let the Federal government get any kind of toe hold on being able to be in control of carry permits.

Think carefully about letting the Federal government have any power over carry permits..... just think about Obama (or someone just like him) being in charge of who is "allowed" to have a carry permit.
Click to expand...

Although I could personally benefit from such a change, I agree with you in principle. In April, I will be traveling through several states on business and would like to have my self-defense tool with me but cannot due to the restrictions those states currently have. Yes, I know that a change would not pass nor become effective to help me on this particular trip. The only thing I want and expect from Uncle Sam is to tell the states that the Constitution has spoken and they cannot, under any circumstances, regulate anything that relates to firearm possession or ownership (including a registry).
 
Cowbilly32 said:
Although I could personally benefit from such a change, I agree with you in principle. In April, I will be traveling through several states on business and would like to have my self-defense tool with me but cannot due to the restrictions those states currently have. Yes, I know that a change would not pass nor become effective to help me on this particular trip. The only thing I want and expect from Uncle Sam is to tell the states that the Constitution has spoken and they cannot, under any circumstances, regulate anything that relates to firearm possession or ownership (including a registry).
Click to expand...
Please understand I'm just curious and there isn't any smart arsery or anything else in my next questions...

Have you checked for the possibility of getting non resident permits that would give you reciprocity in the States you are going to be visiting? Or are those States out of reach for any non resident permits? I'm not sure if there is enough time between now and April to get such a permit but it is a thought.
 
The proper solution to the current problem would be to incorporate the 2nd Amendment to the states via the 14th Amendment and do away with requiring the citizen to obtain any government's permission to bear arms.
 
Have you checked for the possibility of getting non resident permits that would give you reciprocity in the States you are going to be visiting? Or are those States out of reach for any non resident permits? I'm not sure if there is enough time between now and April to get such a permit but it is a thought.[/QUOTE]


I know for me, that is not a solution as 2 of the states I will have to go through to get to Wisconsin from the East Coast would be Maryland and Illinois.
They don't have a non-resident permit and I know Maryland doesn't accept anybody else's permit. I have two permits, covering 26 states, but that won't help.

The bill put in on the 12th of Feb. by Senator John Cornyn of Texas , the Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act, would do the trick. but as of now it has been sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee, of which he is a member.
 
In Illinois if you have a licence from your state (resident) you can now carry in your car. Doesn't apply to non resident licence. Don't get out of the car with it
 
I still wouldn't set foot in some states while armed, NY, MD, RI, CA, CT, to name a few. If they won't honor the US Constitution, why in hell would anyone expect them to honor some random law? They will find something to make your day go very badly, and trump up charges. Look how MD handled a FL gun owner whose guns were still in his home in FL, or the guy selling single cigarettes in NYC.
 
This was copied from Newsmax link below. This is what the NRA says about this bill. I do not want to get another CCW from another state. Why give the government more of my money? That is STUPID.

The National Rifle Association hailed the measure, calling it a "much-needed solution to a real problem for gun owners."

"The current patchwork of state and local laws is confusing for even the most conscientious and well-informed concealed carry permit holders. This confusion often leads to law-abiding gun owners running afoul of the law when they exercise their right to self-protection while traveling or temporarily living away from home," said Chris Cox, executive director of the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action.

"Our fundamental right to self-defense does not stop at a state's borders. Law abiding citizens should be able to exercise this right while traveling across state lines."

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com Bill Would Let Legal Gun Owners Carry Weapons Around Country
 
I'm another naysayer to this plan. Put all your eggs in one basket, and it is very simple for the feds to confiscate those eggs and scramble them.

Terrible idea. The N R A has lost their collective minds.
 
r1derbike said:
I'm another naysayer to this plan. Put all your eggs in one basket, and it is very simple for the feds to confiscate those eggs and scramble them.

Terrible idea. The N R A has lost their collective minds.
Click to expand...

Yeah, about 81 years ago now. Not sure about what "support" for gun rights they purport to have offered prior to NFA34, but I know for sure that they lost their minds in the run-up to that steamin' pile of bovine excrement by supporting it against the interests of their members and gun owners in general. As Charles said, the N R A has had their mitts in every major piece of gun control legislation for at least as long as any of us have even been alive. It baffles me to no end why so few present-day gun owners refuse to see it.

This is an excerpt from a post I made in reply to an N R A sycophant more than two years ago now:

Blues said:
The N R A is in bed with the feds. They make their living(s), and damned good ones at that, by compromising with feds over our supposedly unalienable rights. You can't compromise on something that is unalienable or inviolate, which means the N R A would cease to exist if the feds ever accepted that our rights are such. The N R A works with the feds within the structure of all-powerful government that issues permission-slips for when/how/where/why we will be allowed to exercise our "rights." Being *allowed* to exercise rights is a total contradiction in terms, an oxymoron for which the N R A uses to dishonestly separate you from your money. They are controlled opposition.
Click to expand...

I've been called every name in the book in the intervening two years, and was called names in that thread following that post, because I have the temerity to expose the truth about the phony gun "rights" organization known as the N R A. One doesn't have to go back to ancient history to discover the incestuous relationship with the BATF the N R A maintains and nurtures, yet many gun owners stick like Elmer's Glue to the notion that the .org can do no wrong. I'll never get it.

Blues
 
NavyLCDR said:
Here is the text of last year's bill:
https://www.congress.gov/113/bills/s1908/BILLS-113s1908is.pdf

I'll bet this year's is exactly the same.
Click to expand...
Does the following language contained within last year's bill mean that if it passed and if it were to subsequently be found to be unconstitutional the new law would still stand as law even though it was found unconstitutional? Or am I reading it wrong?

https://www.congress.gov/113/bills/s1908/BILLS-113s1908is.pdf

-snip-‘926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms.’’.
(c) SEVERABILITY
.—Notwithstanding any other pro-
18 vision of this Act, if any provision of this Act, or any
19 amendment made by this Act, or the application of such
20 provision or amendment to any person or circumstance is
21 held to be unconstitutional, this Act and amendments
22 made by this Act and the application of such provision
23 or amendment to other persons or circumstances shall not
24 be affected thereby. -snip-
Click to expand...
 
Amendments would decimate the bill. If the amendments don't pass to kill the bill, Obama will veto it. Waste of time,
 
waste of time!?!

How about unconstitutional?!
How about the Guberment get their slimy, fat little fingers off of my rights period?

Y'all lost your minds?!
The gubment has no authority over the Second Amendment period.

Link Removed
Link Removed

And you want to give it MORE?!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New Threads

Members online

No members online now.
Total: 144 (members: 0, guests: 144)

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
49,525
Messages
610,668
Members
74,995
Latest member
tripguru365

Share this page

Back
Top