Bill Would Let Legal Gun Owners Carry Weapons Around Country

[NavyLCDR]

Ok... So states rights have nothing to do with this?

I'll have to go back & look but I thought you mentioned that before.
Maybe it was one of the other people explaining why this is so bad.

Anything the states decide to "license" will automatically exclude the Fed.
If the states licensed schools, they could require schools prohibit Native Americans from attending and it would then be ok.

States' rights have everything to do with the proposed bill and here's how it has worked in the past.

18 USC 922 (b)(3), Federal Law:
18 U.S. Code § 922 - Unlawful acts
(b) It shall be unlawful for any licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector to sell or deliver—
(3) any firearm to any person who the licensee knows or has reasonable cause to believe does not reside in (or if the person is a corporation or other business entity, does not maintain a place of business in) the State in which the licensee’s place of business is located, except that this paragraph (A) shall not apply to the sale or delivery of any rifle or shotgun to a resident of a State other than a State in which the licensee’s place of business is located if the transferee meets in person with the transferor to accomplish the transfer, and the sale, delivery, and receipt fully comply with the legal conditions of sale in both such States (and any licensed manufacturer, importer or dealer shall be presumed, for purposes of this subparagraph, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, to have had actual knowledge of the State laws and published ordinances of both States), and (B) shall not apply to the loan or rental of a firearm to any person for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes;

This law was amended in 1986 to read what it does now. In the previous 1968 version this law used to make it legal for an FFL to transfer a rifle or shotgun to an out-of-state resident only if the two states involved were contiguous (shared a border) and the laws of the states specifically made it legal to do so. So, before the amendment the guy from Wyoming could buy rifles/shotguns in 6 states because Wyoming had a law that said he could. Did California care? Nope. All they had to do was not have a law in their state laws granting permission and they could continue to regulate rifle/shotgun purchases of their own residents.

In 1986 the amendment did away with the requirement for the states to be contiguous and did away with the requirement for the states to have laws that specifically granted permission for the purchase. Now the guy from Wyoming can buy guns in about 45 different states. Good deal, right? What can be bad about it? Read the part in bold in the new law. What did that part in bold do? It allows California to enforce their ridiculous state laws regarding rifles and shotguns outside the state of California. No FFL outside the state of California can comply with California DROS requirement for firearms transfers. So if a Nevada FFL were to sell a rifle/shotgun to a California resident, because of the Federal law in place California can extend it's state law beyond the state border and the FFL in Nevada could be convicted for it.

What's going to happen when New York or California complains that the Federal government is forcing them to allow Vermont residents to carry handguns in their state when their own New York or California residents have to jump through all the hoops to get a permit? My bet is that the Federal government will amend the concealed carry reciprocity law in the same way they amended the GCA of 1968 which will allow New York and California laws concerning concealed carry permits to extend outside the borders of New York and California and screw everyone else in the US.

 

[Leader]

So.. you're saying that because the law change only allowed the dealer to buy or sell in 45 states rather then in the 6 he could do business in before it is bad law?
The change didn't allow the Fed a foothold to change CA law? Why didn't this firearm law give the Fed the power to change any State firearm law they wanted to if the National Reciprocity will?
And somehow if people are allowed to carry in all states it will allow the Fed more power to change State law then they have now?

 

[NavyLCDR]

So.. you're saying that because the law change only allowed the dealer to buy or sell in 45 states rather then in the 6 he could do business in before it is bad law?
The change didn't allow the Fed a foothold to change CA law? Why didn't this firearm law give the Fed the power to change any State firearm law they wanted to if the National Reciprocity will?
And somehow if people are allowed to carry in all states it will allow the Fed more power to change State law then they have now?

Try to follow this. I will type real slow, just for you.

1. Reciprocity law goes into effect, Delaware is required to accept all other states concealed carry permits.

2. A Delaware resident is required to publish their application to carry a concealed deadly weapon in a newspaper for 10 days, fingerprints within 45 days, 5 reference questionnaires completed by same county residents, have the application notarized, submit it with 2 photographs, submit an original and copy of everything to the state, and possibly have a personal interview with the attorney general's office.

3. Delaware will be forced to allow a Washington resident who only has to fill out one form and 1 set of fingerprints to carry a firearm when the Delaware resident has to jump through all the hoops above. Delaware says that just ain't fair. Or Texas is forced to allow Washington residents to carry firearms who might have misdemeanors that would disqualify them from getting a Texas permit.

4. The Federal government agrees with Delaware and tells Washington - hey, Washington you have to make allowances for Delaware's strict concealed weapons license requirements because we are forcing Delaware to allow your residents to carry in Delaware. Oh, and California's, Illinois', and New York's and Texas' requirements too...

Some states are going to have to give up something - and who do you think the Federal government is going to side with? Is the Federal government going to tell California and New York that they have to relax their requirements? Or s the Federal government going to tell Vermont they need to make theirs more restrictive? Which states did the Federal government protect in 18 USC 922 (b)(3) - those with the strictest firearms laws.

 

[Leader]

Try to follow this. I will type real slow, just for you.

1. Reciprocity law goes into effect, Delaware is required to accept all other states concealed carry permits.

2. A Delaware resident is required to publish their application to carry a concealed deadly weapon in a newspaper for 10 days, fingerprints within 45 days, 5 reference questionnaires completed by same county residents, have the application notarized, submit it with 2 photographs, submit an original and copy of everything to the state, and possibly have a personal interview with the attorney general's office.

3. Delaware will be forced to allow a Washington resident who only has to fill out one form and 1 set of fingerprints to carry a firearm when the Delaware resident has to jump through all the hoops above. Delaware says that just ain't fair. Or Texas is forced to allow Washington residents to carry firearms who might have misdemeanors that would disqualify them from getting a Texas permit.

4. The Federal government agrees with Delaware and tells Washington - hey, Washington you have to make allowances for Delaware's strict concealed weapons license requirements because we are forcing Delaware to allow your residents to carry in Delaware. Oh, and California's, Illinois', and New York's and Texas' requirements too...

Some states are going to have to give up something - and who do you think the Federal government is going to side with? Is the Federal government going to tell California and New York that they have to relax their requirements? Or s the Federal government going to tell Vermont they need to make theirs more restrictive? Which states did the Federal government protect in 18 USC 922 (b)(3) - those with the strictest firearms laws.

Or.... De, Ca, & the others tell their state law makers they won't stand for this any longer & want their laws loosened up.
Those states have already been trying for decades to get Washington to outlaw guns everywhere anyway.
It hasn't happened yet, in fact more & more states now allow carry,and more are becoming shall issue rather then may issue, and some are even going Constitutional carry.

Everything points to this being the next step to true Const. Carry for the entire nation.

 

[S&W645]

Try to follow this. I will type real slow, just for you.

1. Reciprocity law goes into effect, Delaware is required to accept all other states concealed carry permits.

2. A Delaware resident is required to publish their application to carry a concealed deadly weapon in a newspaper for 10 days, fingerprints within 45 days, 5 reference questionnaires completed by same county residents, have the application notarized, submit it with 2 photographs, submit an original and copy of everything to the state, and possibly have a personal interview with the attorney general's office.

3. Delaware will be forced to allow a Washington resident who only has to fill out one form and 1 set of fingerprints to carry a firearm when the Delaware resident has to jump through all the hoops above. Delaware says that just ain't fair. Or Texas is forced to allow Washington residents to carry firearms who might have misdemeanors that would disqualify them from getting a Texas permit.

4. The Federal government agrees with Delaware and tells Washington - hey, Washington you have to make allowances for Delaware's strict concealed weapons license requirements because we are forcing Delaware to allow your residents to carry in Delaware. Oh, and California's, Illinois', and New York's and Texas' requirements too...

Some states are going to have to give up something - and who do you think the Federal government is going to side with? Is the Federal government going to tell California and New York that they have to relax their requirements? Or s the Federal government going to tell Vermont they need to make theirs more restrictive? Which states did the Federal government protect in 18 USC 922 (b)(3) - those with the strictest firearms laws.

I think it might go a little differently Navy. I think it will go just like it does now with transporting a gun thru NYC. The Feds will write the law and then ignore it or fail to enforce until such time as they get around to doing your scenario. Meanwhile, NYC will steal people's firearms as they pass thru. MD will harass Floridians with licenses even if they don't have a gun with them. And CT will take your guns. And file felony charges against any who don't take a plea deal. Even though they are following Federal Law. Which neither the Feds or the State/City has a legal right to do in the first place.

 

[S&W645]

Or.... De, Ca, & the others tell their state law makers they won't stand for this any longer & want their laws loosened up.
Those states have already been trying for decades to get Washington to outlaw guns everywhere anyway.
It hasn't happened yet, in fact more & more states now allow carry,and more are becoming shall issue rather then may issue, and some are even going Constitutional carry.

Everything points to this being the next step to true Const. Carry for the entire nation.

Please tell me how the Federal Law allowing you to travel with your guns is working out in NYC. Get stuck at the airport and have to claim your bags and face arrest. While the Feds do nothing to help the traveler. Works real well doesn't it. Just like our immigration laws that DHS refuses to enforce. Which by the way, is in the same Executive Branch as the DOJ and is over BATFE.

 

[Leader]

Please tell me how the Federal Law allowing you to travel with your guns is working out in NYC. Get stuck at the airport and have to claim your bags and face arrest. While the Feds do nothing to help the traveler. Works real well doesn't it. Just like our immigration laws that DHS refuses to enforce. Which by the way, is in the same Executive Branch as the DOJ and is over BATFE.

This administration isn't here forever.

 

[S&W645]

This administration isn't here forever.

But judges appointed by him are in many cases. And that is just as bad.

 

[CharlesMorrison]

Or.... De, Ca, & the others tell their state law makers they won't stand for this any longer & want their laws loosened up.

Bravo cupcake! You chose the correct answer.... For once!

Those states have already been trying for decades to get Washington to outlaw guns everywhere anyway.
It hasn't happened yet, in fact more & more states now allow carry,and more are becoming shall issue rather then may issue, and some are even going Constitutional carry.

So of course that must mean we don't need this pos legislation, right?

Everything points to this being the next step to true Const. Carry for the entire nation.

Actually, this just points out how dense you really are.....



Link Removed

 

[BluesStringer]

Please tell me how the Federal Law allowing you to travel with your guns is working out in NYC. Get stuck at the airport and have to claim your bags and face arrest. While the Feds do nothing to help the traveler. Works real well doesn't it. Just like our immigration laws that DHS refuses to enforce. Which by the way, is in the same Executive Branch as the DOJ and is over BATFE.

This administration isn't here forever.

The case that 645 refers to in the bold text was that of Greg Revell, who was Link Removed5 while Bush and Alberto Gonzales controlled the DOJ. FOPA, the law that NYC has always violated with impunity since its passage, became law in 1986, so Reagan, Bush 41 and Bush 43 all sat idly by while a gun "friendly" law was ignored, and an illegal local statute put people in jail regularly and routinely.

This administration is hardly the only problem for gun owners, nor is the Democrat Party. Name me a Republican politician whom you consider passes your own personal litmus test for being a "conservative" or "gun friendly," and I'll show his/her voting record that contradicts you. That's why we're so distrusting of government, not "this administration" and not only Dems/libs.

And many of us have even stronger disdain for the N R A than we do for government, so please don't hold up their support for national reciprocity as a cudgel to get us to see things your or their way. National reciprocity is nothing less than a Trojan horse foisted on the gun carrying public by both Democrat/liberal and Republican/conservative power-hungry traitors to their oaths, just like every loss of liberty the citizens of this country have suffered since shortly after the ink was dry on the Constitution.

Blues

 

[NavyLCDR]

Or.... De, Ca, & the others tell their state law makers they won't stand for this any longer & want their laws loosened up.
Those states have already been trying for decades to get Washington to outlaw guns everywhere anyway.
It hasn't happened yet, in fact more & more states now allow carry,and more are becoming shall issue rather then may issue, and some are even going Constitutional carry.

Everything points to this being the next step to true Const. Carry for the entire nation.

or Bloomberg and his fellow billionaire crony ASSociates will pay $$$ Billions to run TV ads and glossy mailers and buy votes fueled by emotional ignorance like they did last year in Washington state while the pro-gun organizations sat around and did next to nothing and then get all excited and pee themselves when the government tosses a table scrap their way like lost puppies.

 

[maybejim]

Well, I believe it is covered in the bill to make it more illegal for the states to pull that nonsense. Right now, it is unclear about stop overs. This bill (at least what I have heard) clarifies it in addition to recognizing carry permits.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317 using USA Carry mobile app

 

[S&W645]

Well, I believe it is covered in the bill to make it more illegal for the states to pull that nonsense. Right now, it is unclear about stop overs. This bill (at least what I have heard) clarifies it in addition to recognizing carry permits.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317 using USA Carry mobile app

But then you'd have to trust the DOJ to enforce it. Again, the same branch of the gov't that has given us Fast and Furious, BATFE raids, Benghazi, illegal alien amnesty, Operation Choke Point, VA Scandal, ........... No thanks.

Here is the webpage to the Branch and its agencies, foundations, commissions, etc.....
Federal Executive Branch | USA.gov
You won't find many of them anywhere in the Constitution.
African Development Foundation, what does that have to do with our country?
National Labor Relations Board, a place where the current occupier of the WH illegally appointed members who are anti-employee/employer and whose votes are subject to being struck down. Found to be illegal appointees by the SCOTUS.

 

[BluesStringer]

Well, I believe it is covered in the bill to make it more illegal for the states to pull that nonsense. Right now, it is unclear about stop overs. This bill (at least what I have heard) clarifies it in addition to recognizing carry permits.

So you're basing your opinion of this overreach of federal authority only on what you've "heard?" And we're supposed to quit being your enemies and take your word that what you say is in the bill is really there? How about you cite the pertinent sections confirming the veracity of what you've "heard" before you start making us out to be enemies of freedom? With all of the solid constitutional analysis of this bill in this thread, as well as the historical perspective of the fed using any shithouse excuse they can get passed the traitorous Supreme Court to further usurp the Constitution and limit our freedoms, it's starting to look like the proponents are just pushing a selfish agenda so they can carry in places like CA, MD, DE and the like at the expense of future carriers' liberties. There's not one thing you guys have said in support of this bill that hasn't been countered with reasonable, articulate and truthful counter-point, yet we're the enemies of gun owners? Cite that which supports your position, or leave our federalist form of protecting freedom alone.

Blues

 

[SR9]

Do I trust the Government? NO. But, this is the closest we can get to a National Reciprocity Law. Because this doesn't change any states rights. Each state still has it's own laws you will have to be aware of and follow. States that don't have any concealed carry permit, still will not have a permit. I think as far as having a National Concealed Carry Federal Permit, that will never happen, because you will never get 50 states to agree on it.
(or in the case of Obama land 57 states)

 

[maybejim]

Well there you go no matter what happens you're against it because something could change or go bad or not be followed. But if we have the law we have a chance in court. No law no chance.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317 using USA Carry mobile app

 

[Firefighterchen]

Just keep swimming just keep swimming....

Sent from my D6616 using USA Carry mobile app

 

[NavyLCDR]

Because this doesn't change any states rights.

Doesn't change any states' rights? Really? So what you are saying is that a state has no right to determine who qualifies to carry a concealed firearm in that state and who doesn't (not that I disagree with that)? If this passes, in some states non-residents who would not qualify for that state's permit will be legal to carry concealed firearms. Take Texas for example. A Washington resident convicted of a misdemeanor can still qualify for the Washington CPL and Texas will be forced to allow them to carry concealed in Texas, whereas a Texas resident won't be able to qualify for the Texas permit because of that same misdemeanor conviction. But this doesn't change states' rights according to you. Tell New York and California and about 10 other of the non-2A honoring states that this won't affect their states' rights.

 

[Bikenut]

Well there you go no matter what happens you're against it because something could change or go bad or not be followed. But if we have the law we have a chance in court. No law no chance.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317 using USA Carry mobile app

More laws that control the right to bear arms (even laws that today grant a privilege but tomorrow add restrictions to that privilege) equals less chance of regaining the actual right to bear arms because it is yet another law that time, energy, and money, must be spent in order to take it down.

 

[Leader]

Well there you go no matter what happens you're against it Snip..........................

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317 using USA Carry mobile app

Now you got it figured out.