maybejim
Maybejim
The Feds would be less involved in your CCW than they are in your driver's license.
Bill Would Let Legal Gun Owners Carry Weapons Around Country
- Thread starter 1-LM
- Start date
The Feds would be less involved in your CCW than they are in your driver's license.
Axeanda45
Banned
The language of the Bill is now posted in another thread... http://www.usacarry.com/forums/conc...-carry-reciprocity-act-2015-a.html#post562186
SR9
New member
So, the state is ok? Even though they can report to the Fed?
Firefighterchen
OC for Tactical Advantage
S&W645
NRA Life Member
The only law that would count is a very simple one.
"Any firearms law that infringes upon the 2nd Amendment is null and void."
That is the only Bill that needs passed. Example of infringement are, type, size, methods, how, you may own or carry. 1 gun per month laws, concealed carry only with permit/license, open carry with permit/license, needing a Federal Law to allow you to carry or buy across state lines are infringements which the 2nd A ban.
"Any firearms law that infringes upon the 2nd Amendment is null and void."
That is the only Bill that needs passed. Example of infringement are, type, size, methods, how, you may own or carry. 1 gun per month laws, concealed carry only with permit/license, open carry with permit/license, needing a Federal Law to allow you to carry or buy across state lines are infringements which the 2nd A ban.
Saltheart Foamfollower
New member
Hello. I'm new to posting, but I've been reading the forum foa a while. I have a question for those who oppose this bill.
If you're against this as a federal infringement of our 2A rights, what do you see as a logical, and likely step in the right direction? I understand those who want all limits removed, but the reality is that probably won't happen in our lifetimes. That being the case, you'd rather stay where we are now?
That doesn't make sense to me. If the current situation is as bad as some of you complain about, why not change it? How is it a step in the wrong direction to open up concealed carry where we can't carry now? If the State of NJ forbid free speech, and it took the federal government to bring them to heel, isn't that a good thing.
When Illinois and DC refused to allow concealed carry, it took federal lawsuits to bring them in line. I agree that constitutional carry is what we should work towards, but it isn't going to happen right now, and not all at once. So, lets get what we can, and keep working towards the rest.
If you're against this as a federal infringement of our 2A rights, what do you see as a logical, and likely step in the right direction? I understand those who want all limits removed, but the reality is that probably won't happen in our lifetimes. That being the case, you'd rather stay where we are now?
That doesn't make sense to me. If the current situation is as bad as some of you complain about, why not change it? How is it a step in the wrong direction to open up concealed carry where we can't carry now? If the State of NJ forbid free speech, and it took the federal government to bring them to heel, isn't that a good thing.
When Illinois and DC refused to allow concealed carry, it took federal lawsuits to bring them in line. I agree that constitutional carry is what we should work towards, but it isn't going to happen right now, and not all at once. So, lets get what we can, and keep working towards the rest.
What we can see happening with this type of bill is that states like New York, California, Illinois, New Jersey and Texas will complain about having to recognize other states permits which have no requirements other than not being prohibited by Federal law from possessing a firearm (like Washington's). When those powerful states in Congress complain about it, the Federal government will institute a Federal standard for the issue of permits which will be much more restrictive than those in the more free states have now and, once again, the majority of law abiding citizens will have more hurdles that they have to clear and more taxes that they have to pay in order to exercise a right which is supposed to be protected by the 2nd Amendment.
Firefighterchen
OC for Tactical Advantage
To make it short and sweet, when we are digging ourselves into a hole, it's best we stop digging before we are so deep we can't climb out...
I suppose if we are there now...what do we do when we are that deep? If the hole is just in our imagination...I suppose we choose just to be outside the hole...carry whatever whenever wherever we want to right now.
Sent from my D6616 using USA Carry mobile app
BluesStringer
Les Brers
I would, yes. The trend throughout the states in recent years has leaned heavily in the "right" direction. States that have passed highly restrictive bills (CT, CO, NY, MD, WA etc.) are the small minority compared to states like mine (AL) that have eased restrictions during the same period. National reciprocity gets passed, and every state will look like CA, CT, CO, NY, MD, WA etc., because government will always "compromise" towards more government powers and fewer citizen liberties.
Your name doesn't make sense to me. We're even.
What most of us who oppose a national reciprocity bill "complain about" is that the federal government has exactly zero constitutional authority to make any laws about keeping and bearing. It's the Constitution that we don't want changed. We are not ends-justify-the-means kinda gun owners. How about you?
So you really believe that Congress can wave a magic wand and turn CA into AZ, AK, VT, WY or other highly gun-friendly states as-regards carry issues? Or do you think the latter list would be forced to look more like CA? Though recognizing that even the more gun friendly states aren't perfect by any stretch, we don't trust the federal government to broker where and how the compromises are forced on any given state.
If it were the case that the Supreme Court actually enforced the Constitution upon NJ in that scenario, then yes, that type of federal government intervention would be a good thing. The 2nd Amendment however, imposes prohibitions upon Congress from infringing on the right to keep and bear, and so that's not a good thing since they have no constitutional jurisdiction to meddle in how, when, where, why or if an individual citizen decides to carry. The only role I see articulated within the Constitution for the federal government to be involved would be if the Supremes spanked the federal government by overturning NFA34, GCA68, the Hughes Amendment, and every other piece of unconstitutional gun control legislation across this nation, but under no circumstances would I support them adding more on the phony premise that this one proposal won't enure to more restrictions either immediately or on down the line.
Do you have any idea what the process and/or cost of "legally" buying a handgun in WA DC is? For all intents and purposes, Heller was meaningless. You still can't buy a gun there without spending hundreds of dollars in the permitting process, and I challenge you to cite a case of a citizen being issued a carry permit there. Heller was decided in '08 and that still never happens to this day. I believe Chicago is basically in the same boat, though I'm not positive about that, and though the gains made in the rest of Illinois is moderately encouraging, SCOTUS has shown no interest in enforcing its own rulings in Heller and McDonald to the rest of the states through incorporation, which would be the constitutional way to effect expanded gun rights. Congress simply ain't the constitutional way to go about it.
Blues
Saltheart Foamfollower
New member
In the mish mosh of replies, I may have missed the answer to my first question. What do you see as the logical, and LIKELY next step in restoring our 2A rights?
In response to firefighterchen, for myself, I prefer to stay OUT of jail. I have a family to feed and a disabled wife to care for. I prefer to stay within the law and be as effective as I am able. There are a lot of people in prison who are convinced that they are right.
As for my screen name, Google is your friend.
Sent from my SCH-i705 using USA Carry mobile app
In response to firefighterchen, for myself, I prefer to stay OUT of jail. I have a family to feed and a disabled wife to care for. I prefer to stay within the law and be as effective as I am able. There are a lot of people in prison who are convinced that they are right.
As for my screen name, Google is your friend.
Sent from my SCH-i705 using USA Carry mobile app
Saltheart Foamfollower
New member
I think you are making an assumption. Yes, it may be based on past behavior, but if the "tide is turning" in our direction, then I don't see freedom loving states taking away our rights in order to come into line with CA and NJ. What I DO see is restrictive states being made to recognize my right to carry a firearm. All 50 states and DC have some kind of process in place for the issuance of a concealed carry license. (except Vermont) If those states are forced to recognize my right to carry, why would MY state tighten restrictions?
It seems to me that your distrust of the federal government is blinding you to the positive aspects of this bill. IMHO.
Sent from my SCH-i705 using USA Carry mobile app
It seems to me that your distrust of the federal government is blinding you to the positive aspects of this bill. IMHO.
Sent from my SCH-i705 using USA Carry mobile app
CharlesMorrison
Banned
B
Bikenut
Guest
What is the next logical step? Since the tide is turning already it would seem logical for us as individuals to get off our arses and work for Constitutional carry within our own State and to support the efforts of those who are doing the same in other States instead of taking the easy way out by trying to get Daddy Fed's permission.
Looking at the "positive" aspects of national carry? Ummm... there is only one short sighted so called positive aspect and that is to have the selfish convenience of having permission to cross State lines. The negative long term effect of giving Daddy Fed the power to control concealed carry permits should scare the hell out of any clear thinking gun owner who purports to support the right to bear arms.
Remember... a concealed carry permit (a permit means having to ask permission) IS the very infringement of government control over the ability to exercise the right to bear arms that "shall not be infringed" was supposed to stop. So why are folks asking, hell... not just asking but begging!.... Daddy Fed to please infringe some more?
I keep saying that for those folks who need/want to travel there already is the ability to get non resident carry permits from other States that, when combined with the permit from their State of residence, are recognized in almost all States enabling folks to take it upon themselves to get those permits instead of wanting to saddle the entire population with yet another concealed carry scheme that the government controls. And if a person needs/wants to travel to one of the most restrictive States I ask:
What have you done to support any/all efforts to change those restrictive laws in those most restrictive States?
Why would your State change it's concealed carry process if Daddy Fed took over? As NavyLCDR said....
Firefighterchen
OC for Tactical Advantage
Saltheart Foamfollower
New member
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
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
It would appear to me that those that oppose this bill are those that live west of the worst offending states & don't travel.
I travel and have to cross through these states & risk EVERYTHING just trying to legally get my gun from one side of the state to the other.
I DO NOT see anything in this bill that allows the Fed to "control" concealed carry permits.
I see no chance that the less restrictive states will allow the Fed to pass any of the stricter regulations that the worst states have been trying to get for many years now.
I travel and have to cross through these states & risk EVERYTHING just trying to legally get my gun from one side of the state to the other.
I DO NOT see anything in this bill that allows the Fed to "control" concealed carry permits.
I see no chance that the less restrictive states will allow the Fed to pass any of the stricter regulations that the worst states have been trying to get for many years now.
BluesStringer
Les Brers
Utter nonsense. This "constitutional carry" bill is so egregiously dishonest in just its name that to take it seriously after knowing that proves the person doing so is delusional.
This bill would only mandate that permits be honored across state lines, but within the confines of the existent law in the state being visited. In other words, your home permission slip may give you lots of privileges while in your home state, but cross into NJ or CA and your privileges under that permission slip are no better than a resident of NJ or CA. In fact, they're identical, which, in both states, the requirements to even qualify for one are so restrictive that they're nearly unheard of for anyone except LEOs or ex-LEOs under LEOSA. Meanwhile, pass this law and insert the federal government between you and two or more states when you sue over being denied your rights under a phony "constitutional carry" federal law, and I'll guaran-damn-tee ya that things will get worse in gun friendly states rather than better in the anti-gun states. If you think I'm wrong, cite one federal program that inserted federal regulation across the states concerning issues that were previously controlled at each individual state level that didn't eventually result in added expense, limiting freedom, solidifying central control and/or violating the Constitution. I'm thinking education here, or the kind of extortion by the fed through denying highway funds to states unless they conform to federal standards etc.
The federal government is a beast, and it feeds off of our labor and our freedoms. Your platitudes to the contrary don't impress me. I'm not paranoid, I'm aware and I'm prepared for this country to go full-on tyranny. I will never support any law that the Constitution says the federal government has no business passing or enforcing. That you do is more indicative of either your naivete, or your ambivalence towards our eroding freedoms, or that perhaps you're a federal shill, but it sure doesn't support the notion that you are four-square in favor of gun rights as-written in the Second Amendment.
Blues
As far as your quip that "Google is your friend" in relation to my not knowing what your name means, no, Google is not my friend. I don't use Google any more than I have to, just like I don't use the federal government any more than I have to, and mostly for the same reason(s). They are both overly-intrusive in our lives, and like the N R A and BATFE, are literally involved in an incestuous relationship where neither can perform their valid functions on behalf of their customers or citizens respectively. If you picked that weird name because it's meaningful to you, either ignore the query about it, or just explain it, but don't tell me to go figure it out myself using a company that I believe strongly works against my best interests.
I'd like for you to substantiate that DC has an attainable process for a citizen to acquire a concealed weapons permit. I do believe that you are mistaken on that score.
Blues
