National Right to Carry Reciprocity Act of 2012” introduced in U.S. Senate

[Axeanda45]

Now you know Im not the Easterbunny, so cut out the namecalling. National Reciprocity is all about EASING restrictions in carrying a firearm, not more infringements. Try reading the bill if you can. Oh again if your so sure of yourself tell a cop in a state that has a law that requires a permit to carry that you are carrying a gun without a permit. Im just being realistic, its not a perfect world.

Wow, talk about a 100% FALSE STATEMENT!!!! "National Reciprocity is all about EASING restrictions in carrying a firearm, not more infringements"

I call bullcrap! ANY INFRINGEMENT is an infringement!

This is nothing more than an ADDED infringement and it is an infringement on more than just the 2nd Amendment, it steps all over States rights also! Stay the heck out of "our" fight for firearms "Rights" if all you want is MORE INFRINGEMENTS!!! You are NOT helping our "cause", You are HINDERING IT!

Sure of myself? Why would I "tell" a cop something that is none of his darn business? I am very obviously much smarter than you, if that is what YOU would do in that situation...


BTW... I dont believe in santa (or any other fairies)..... So, any character of mythology or fantasy all means the same thing to me, and are interchangable....

 

[jager]

Come on people. Urge your senator to pass this act. S. 2188, the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2012.

 

[mspt_99]

Please, mr enlightenment, show me where I EVER SAID OR HAD AN IDEA THAT THERE IS OR WILL BE A COMPLETE ERADICATION OF FIREARMS LAWS.......

STOP putting words into others posts that ARENT THERE!!!

Making arguments about something that was not said does not paint a very good picture of your intelligence...


My stating that I would support such legislation does not make it magically appear out of thin air...........

here is your quote and I think I reponded appropriate to it:
"I already cancelled my membership in GOA over this bullcrap.. .and the ONLY "Law" or "Legislation" I will stand behind/fight for with a clear conscience is one that calls for a COMPLETE eradication of ALL firearms laws....... Anything less is still a compromise, no matter how pretty it is dressed.... "

please, its the in-fighting and name calling on these boards that isn't productive. My intelligence or lack thereof is not the topic. Neither is yours so stick to the topic. You want to support legislation ONLY if it eradicated all firearm laws. That is a lofty goal but impractical. legislation like that would never make it to the floor for a vote. Would be nice if it did.
mspt

 

[mspt_99]

UNTIL more of us REFUSE to follow these "fake" (UnConstitutional) "laws", and just do what the Constitution prohibits the Government from interfering with instead of getting permission slips, we will continue to have further infringements, because people like you settle for it.... Heck, some of you even fight for it(further infringements like this) and call your CONgress idiots and tell them to vote for it...


How are we EVER going to win if those like you keep throwing wrenches in the gears?????

I will take the back handed compliment so seriously thank you as compliments are hard to come by.
if there were gears that were moving to untrample the constitution then most of us would be behind it. There are no functional gears moving towards untrampling 2A. no legislation that would give us the clear rights that 2A allows. Nothing that uninfringes what we used to have or should have.
now if we could throw wrenches in progressive infringment then that is progress.
mspt

 

[mspt_99]

Then why not a federal law that prohibits states from prohibiting open and concealed carry of all firearms, period. Why bother with the gyroscopic type federal law that requires state A to recognize state B's permits? Why not just enact a law requiring state A and state B to allow residents and non-residents who aren't otherwise prohibited by federal law to carry firearms either open or concealed?

It can't be politics, because strict gun control states aren't going to be persuaded to vote for the bill - they want to keep denying most of their citizens the ability to carry firearms and they aren't going to be happy about having to let all non-residents carry just because they allow a few residents to carry.

Yes you are right. if we could get that sort of an ACT close to the floor of the Fed and even voted on it would be a great day indeed. I would support it whole heardedly.
mspt

 

[Matte Black]

I have read all the posts on this thread. You folks sure are bent on expressing your point of view. It's a Good thing to have such conviction...I say that for both sides of the argument.
As for me?...well, I am selfish. I am for whatever improves my present situation. Being a New Yorker (upstate not NYC) I have to say I hope this passes...but as someone else posted...it may be too good to be true. I received my concealed carry permit 32 years ago in 1980...man did I have to jump through hoops to get it. The way the law is presently I cannot travel to NYC or ant other state with my upstate New York CC permit. I am retired now and I would love to be able to travel cross country knowing I can carry my firearm.

As for whether or not this is a good law or just another infringement ...I say it doesn't matter...nosiree not one bit...The way our country is today the moneymen will have their say or buy it anyway they want it. Any effort to prove otherwise is not wise and is in vein.

 

[Bikenut]

Constutitional Carry is great. BUT to those who want to wait for it to pass everywhere, you will be long gone before or IF it passes. Oh try driving into New York or California and if you are pulled over by the cops use the "Constutitional Carry" arguement with the cop and see how long it will be before YOU ARE IN JAIL.

Unfortunately some folks are willing to settle for opening the door for the Feds to take control of the permit process while "waiting" for Constitutional Carry.. instead of demanding the NRA go for Constitutional Carry... or demand their representatives go for Constitutional Carry....

And if folks would stop "waiting" for Constitutional Carry and "Get 'er done!" State by State eventually there wouldn't be any BS in New York or California... but as long as folks "wait" there will be "control".

But then the NRA supports this turd of a bill and even touts it as somehow having some kind of a connection to the right to carry... when the only connection it has is to the infringement called carry "permits".

To those who dont support this bill. If it doesnt pass STOP COMPLAINING ABOUT NOT BEING ABLE TO CARRY ACROSS STATE LINES!

The only one's I see complaining about not being able to carry across State lines are the one's who are willing to open the door for Federal control of the permit process just for the convenience of not having to apply to each State for a non resident permit... or to do some research and see which States already recognize their State's permits or will recognize non resident permits.

 

[mspt_99]

I have read all the posts on this thread. You folks sure are bent on expressing your point of view. It's a Good thing to have such conviction...I say that for both sides of the argument.
As for me?...well, I am selfish. I am for whatever improves my present situation. Being a New Yorker (upstate not NYC) I have to say I hope this passes...but as someone else posted...it may be too good to be true. I received my concealed carry permit 32 years ago in 1980...man did I have to jump through hoops to get it. The way the law is presently I cannot travel to NYC or ant other state with my upstate New York CC permit. I am retired now and I would love to be able to travel cross country knowing I can carry my firearm.

As for whether or not this is a good law or just another infringement ...I say it doesn't matter...nosiree not one bit...The way our country is today the moneymen will have their say or buy it anyway they want it. Any effort to prove otherwise is not wise and is in vein.

honest opinions are good.
mspt

 

[Bikenut]

honest opinions are good.
mspt

Even a little spirited contention is good. If there wasn't any contention then either everyone agrees (never gonna happen) or everything is perfect (never gonna happen).

 

[tuts40]

That post is a perfect example of an UTTER FAILURE of "logic"

Where in the heck do you get a "legal right" out of a permit??? Your argument contradicts itself.....

The 2nd Amendment is our "Permit", PERIOD.... ANYTHING else is an infringement.

The above is a simple, the simple, truth and yet this discussion continued...

 

[Capt.Duck]

so you are saying this bill is "Bad" because the stringent standards of some states, which is an infringment of our rights, is preferable to states without such infringments and simply allow the right to carry based on the constitution?? OKEE. that doesnt' make sense. others on this thread don't like it because our 2A rights should give us the freedom to carry end of story which I would agree with but you are advocating that the law is bad because states need to make their citizen's "do what is required to gain it." that is messed up.
mspt

You describe reasonable standards as "stringent" and and "infringements". It is not UN-reasonable but rather, as stated in the 2A, "well-regulated" not to mention practical common-sense, to require that only law abiding citizens, no 4 year-olds, no completely blind people, no one who cannot show that they know how to safely handle and shoot a firearm, be allowed to carry as determined by the rights of (individual) states (AKA: State's Rights). This is "being necessary to the security of a free State", instead of opening the regulation of our firearms up to the "State", which means federal government which the 2A was designed to protect of from. Supporting this bill is the same as supporting having the fox guard the hen-house.

As for "infringement" this bill would be an infringement of the 10th amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.".

Makes me wonder why you contradict yourself by wanting less states rights and more federal control over our 2A rights when you so often quote Ronald Reagan, "Government is not a solution to our problem, government IS the problem."

 

[santa]

Wow, talk about a 100% FALSE STATEMENT!!!! "National Reciprocity is all about EASING restrictions in carrying a firearm, not more infringements"

I call bullcrap! ANY INFRINGEMENT is an infringement!

This is nothing more than an ADDED infringement and it is an infringement on more than just the 2nd Amendment, it steps all over States rights also! Stay the heck out of "our" fight for firearms "Rights" if all you want is MORE INFRINGEMENTS!!! You are NOT helping our "cause", You are HINDERING IT!

Sure of myself? Why would I "tell" a cop something that is none of his darn business? I am very obviously much smarter than you, if that is what YOU would do in that situation...


BTW... I dont believe in santa (or any other fairies)..... So, any character of mythology or fantasy all means the same thing to me, and are interchangable....

If you are so smart why are you on the same side as the Brady Bunch regarding this bill? Oh I think you might try reading the rest of the United States Constutition about the powers delegated to Congress. IF you are up to it.

 

[santa]

Unfortunately some folks are willing to settle for opening the door for the Feds to take control of the permit process while "waiting" for Constitutional Carry.. instead of demanding the NRA go for Constitutional Carry... or demand their representatives go for Constitutional Carry....

And if folks would stop "waiting" for Constitutional Carry and "Get 'er done!" State by State eventually there wouldn't be any BS in New York or California... but as long as folks "wait" there will be "control".

But then the NRA supports this turd of a bill and even touts it as somehow having some kind of a connection to the right to carry... when the only connection it has is to the infringement called carry "permits".


The only one's I see complaining about not being able to carry across State lines are the one's who are willing to open the door for Federal control of the permit process just for the convenience of not having to apply to each State for a non resident permit... or to do some research and see which States already recognize their State's permits or will recognize non resident permits.

Not ONE person has shown FROM THE EXACT WORDING of this bill how this particular bill will harm gun rights. Congress doesnt need this bill to pass further gun control. Congress could attatch a gun control bill to a energy bill. Oh in case you cant read many of us have not applied for a non-resident permit in a state we wish to go to because NOT ALL STATES ISSUE NON-RESIDENT PERMITS! And in case you havent read the laws, THERE ARE MANY STATES THAT WILL NOT RECOGNIZE ANY OTHER STATES' PERMITS. So I ask WHY ARE YOU SO OPPOSED TO THIS BILL WHEN THE BRADY BUNCH IS ALSO OPPOSING IT?

 

[Bikenut]

Not ONE person has shown FROM THE EXACT WORDING of this bill how this particular bill will harm gun rights. Congress doesnt need this bill to pass further gun control. Congress could attatch a gun control bill to a energy bill. Oh in case you cant read many of us have not applied for a non-resident permit in a state we wish to go to because NOT ALL STATES ISSUE NON-RESIDENT PERMITS! And in case you havent read the laws, THERE ARE MANY STATES THAT WILL NOT RECOGNIZE ANY OTHER STATES' PERMITS. So I ask WHY ARE YOU SO OPPOSED TO THIS BILL WHEN THE BRADY BUNCH IS ALSO OPPOSING IT?

Because the Brady Bunch opposes it that is reason enough to support it? Or are you trying to infer that because the Brady Bunch opposes it and I also oppose it then I must be the same as the Brady Bunch? FAIL!

And I have told you the wording of the bill doesn't give the Feds the power to regulate the permit process.. the fact that the bill (if passed) is there is what gives the Feds the foundation to build upon to begin to regulate.

Take a good hard look at what the Fed. government has used the Commerce Clause for..... and perhaps then you will understand why some folks are concerned this bill is the Commerce Clause for Federal control of the right to bear arms.

 

[FN1910]

Ignoring all the rhetoric about whether this in an infringement of rights or not those of you contacting you Senators need to be aware of some things.

S. 2188 is being touted as the companion to H.R. 822 but this is incorrect. S. 2188 is actually the companion bill to H.R. 2900 which failed to make it out of committee in the house. The introduction of S. 2188 is a publicity stunt as H.R. 822 is already in the Senate to be considered therefore another bill is not needed. If our energy is placed on S. 2188 then we will again have to work to get it through the House that has already rejected it once.

We can now focus our energies on a bill that has little chance of passage and forget about one that has a good chance or we can see through the smokescreen and work to get H.R. 822 passed in the Senate. The antis have devised a perfect divide and conquer scheme here in addition to the thought that any law involving guns is an infringement.

 

[mspt_99]

You describe reasonable standards as "stringent" and and "infringements". It is not UN-reasonable but rather, as stated in the 2A, "well-regulated" not to mention practical common-sense, to require that only law abiding citizens, no 4 year-olds, no completely blind people, no one who cannot show that they know how to safely handle and shoot a firearm, be allowed to carry as determined by the rights of (individual) states (AKA: State's Rights). This is "being necessary to the security of a free State", instead of opening the regulation of our firearms up to the "State", which means federal government which the 2A was designed to protect of from. Supporting this bill is the same as supporting having the fox guard the hen-house.

As for "infringement" this bill would be an infringement of the 10th amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.".

Makes me wonder why you contradict yourself by wanting less states rights and more federal control over our 2A rights when you so often quote Ronald Reagan, "Government is not a solution to our problem, government IS the problem."

so, you are using the term "state" from the 2A to refer to two different entities: each individual state and the fed. which is it?

the 2A is very clear is stating that this RIGHT shall not be infringed which means there is no room for states rights. Well regulated is not the point of that amendment but rather the reason for the amendment; what 2A says is the people's rights to bear arms shall not be infringed so that we can have a well regulated militia. Just because "well regulated" comes first in the sentence doesn't give it more power gramatically. The thrust of 2A gramatically is SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
Furthermore, well regulated does not mean gun laws otherwise the entire 2A makes no sense at all; Again the thrust of the sentence is SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. Therefore well regulated does not indicated infringing rules but rather something else. Here are the definitions of regulated:
reg·u·late (rgy-lt)
tr.v. reg·u·lat·ed, reg·u·lat·ing, reg·u·lates
1. To control or direct according to rule, principle, or law.
2. To adjust to a particular specification or requirement: regulate temperature.
3. To adjust (a mechanism) for accurate and proper functioning.
4. To put or maintain in order: regulate one's eating habits.

So putting these definitions into the context of 2A would give us: #1. control/direct according to rule/principle/law. well 2A a Federal RIGHT says NOT INFRINGED which supersedes anything. #2 would have same reasoning as #1. #3 is probably the most accurate definition ment by our founding fathers for 2A. in order for the US Fed, state or local goverment to have a functioning militia there has to be UNINFRINGED gun rights. By establishing a citizenry with unrestricted gun rights then the fed/state/local body could have an accurate and properly functioning or "well regulated" militia.

To summarize, the 2A does NOT give states the power to regulate our gun ownership. In your original post you indicated that states that had many rules was preferable to states with fewer rules and so I chose to use the words strict to summarize what you said. you are still indicating you prefer the states to have control and you even prefer states that have more rules when clearly the 2A provides all the guidance needed.

Yes, I like my Reagan quotes and don't feel I am advocating for more goverment intrusion into my life, simply the simple rights that 2A allows but states have perverted. I am siding with the fed on this to enforce its own 2A meaning, DO NOT INFRING; this doesn't make the fed bigger or a problem is by definition gets them out of my way. (now this ACT under discussion does NOT go far enough for my liking but I prefer it to how the states have been meddling.) I do NOT think that states should have control over gun rights. I do not like how state and local governments have INFRINGED, diminished and restricted my constitutional right to carry. I would prefer to keep my rights as listed under 2A. I would prefer even more to have this issue put to rest at the federal level by passing a constitutional carry type act instead of this proposed Act but I will take what I can get.

I would like for any english buffs out there to break down the 2A for us into its formal gramatical definitions. I have used words like "Thrust" and "point of" to indicate the parts of speach/ sentence structure of 2A but I KNOW there are MORE BETTER english words out there to break this Amendedment up into its gramatical parts. Can anyone help me out there with the proper sentence structure??

mspt

 

[Bikenut]

Here is an interesting article concerning the meaning of the 2nd Amendment.. and State's rights..

Link Removed

and another...

Link Removed

and another interesting article concerning the wording of the 2nd Amendment...

Link Removed

 

[lovethecoast]

Bikenut,

I agree with you to some extent. But you are missing something here. We already have infringement. And you can be locked up in other states for carrying. Why would you not agree with a bill that has a chance to get passed vs waiting forever to get no restrictions. For me, I'm for it. It will give me the legal right to carry in places I cant now. I would do it just to make Bloomberg and his ILK CHIT themselves.

This is exactly why we get bad bills passed. People think short-term and "something is better than nothing". That is not the case here. Bikenut (read all his posts both before and after this one) has laid out what is almost surely going to happen down the road should this bill pass.

Should this become law, we've allowed the anti-gun people a chance to royally screw us down the road.

 

[lovethecoast]

As for me?...well, I am selfish. I am for whatever improves my present situation. Being a New Yorker (upstate not NYC) I have to say I hope this passes...but as someone else posted...it may be too good to be true. I received my concealed carry permit 32 years ago in 1980...man did I have to jump through hoops to get it. The way the law is presently I cannot travel to NYC or ant other state with my upstate New York CC permit. I am retired now and I would love to be able to travel cross country knowing I can carry my firearm.

And this is a great example of why our laws and "entitlements" are what they are today -- for the most part, only older people vote, and they only care about themselves. They could give two hoots to the future for their own grandchildren -- all they care about is "what can you do for me today?"

 

[Bikenut]

You describe reasonable standards as "stringent" and and "infringements". It is not UN-reasonable but rather, as stated in the 2A, "well-regulated" not to mention practical common-sense, to require that only law abiding citizens, no 4 year-olds, no completely blind people, no one who cannot show that they know how to safely handle and shoot a firearm, be allowed to carry as determined by the rights of (individual) states (AKA: State's Rights). This is "being necessary to the security of a free State", instead of opening the regulation of our firearms up to the "State", which means federal government which the 2A was designed to protect of from. Supporting this bill is the same as supporting having the fox guard the hen-house.

As for "infringement" this bill would be an infringement of the 10th amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.".

Makes me wonder why you contradict yourself by wanting less states rights and more federal control over our 2A rights when you so often quote Ronald Reagan, "Government is not a solution to our problem, government IS the problem."

You know what is dangerous about thinking that it is "reasonable" to have any standard restricting the right to bear arms... ANY standard of any kind applied to anyone for any reason?

The danger lies in who gets to decide what the word "reasonable" means in reference to restrictions... and who is in a position of power to implement those "reasonable" restrictions.

Now let us have a look at

-snip-
no one who cannot show that they know how to safely handle and shoot a firearm
-snip-

Are you suggesting that a mandatory training program be satisfactorily completed before a person is "allowed" to bear a firearm? Because if you are then you are in favor of handing control of the right to bear arms to whoever decides what criteria is "reasonable" to be covered in that training... what is "reasonable" performance in meeting that criteria... and even what segment of society can/cannot access that training by setting the fee for the training.....

Now let me ask this.... How does having any government controlled system that must be satisfied before a person is "allowed" stand up to "shall not be infringed"?

As for your usage of "well regulated" to justify "reasonable" restrictions..... please follow the links I posted in my earlier post to discover what "well regulated" really refers to within the context of the 2nd Amendment.