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


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?"
Hang on there .... It is a bit disingenuous to paint groups of folks with such a broad brush...

If I, and many old farts like me (Tea Party anyone?), only cared about ourselves and not our grandkids we would not be politically active but would be fishing and playing cards all day.

And if you, and many other youngsters, only cared about yourselves and not old farts then you youngsters wouldn't be fighting in the military either...

And yet I must agree that there are entirely too many short sighted and selfish members of both groups who have the attitude of "What's in it for ME!" And that is a sad commentary on our entire society.
 

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


Thank you, thank you, thank you for those links. that was the well written version of what i was attempting to say about the grammer aspects but even more.
I have saved the links and text for future use.
mspt
 
Thank you, thank you, thank you for those links. that was the well written version of what i was attempting to say about the grammer aspects but even more.
I have saved the links and text for future use.
mspt
You are very welcome. I hope many folks take the time to follow those links ... and perhaps expand upon them with further 'net searches...
 
Battle Raging on Capitol Hill
with regard to Concealed Carry




If you have ever questioned whether your emails and phone calls make a difference, then stop wondering.

Your activism on the concealed carry bills in the U.S. Senate is doing a bang-up job!

Gun Owners of America has been working with the sponsors of the soon-to-be-introduced Thune-Vitter reciprocity bill, and we can report that there are at least 15 cosponsors on the bill!

By contrast, the Begich-Manchin Democrat compromise bill (S. 2188) has only one additional cosponsor.

Senators John Thune (R-SD) and David Vitter (R-LA) plan to introduce their bill early next week -- and thus, their bill won’t receive a number until then.

But we need a whole new round of emails to get even more original cosponsors on their bill. Again, the Thune-Vitter legislation will not only allow permit holders to carry out-of-state, but NON-PERMIT HOLDERS from constitutional carry states, as well.

Sadly, we have been receiving emails from our grassroots activists showing that the NRA is taking aim at our position on these two bills.

Hence, we would like to make the following points in order to prevent any confusion.

1. NRA POSITION: “There is no Thune-Vitter bill because one hasn’t been introduced. Therefore, it is impossible to ‘support the Thune-Vitter bill rather than the Democrat-sponsored S. 2188.’”

GOA RESPONSE: As stated above, Senators Thune and Vitter are currently gaining cosponsors before the actual introduction of their bill. This is a common practice that legislators use in order to make a “big splash” with a large number of original cosponsors. For anyone who works on Capitol Hill to claim ignorance of this process is, quite honestly, laughable.


2. NRA POSITION: The Begich-Manchin bill “does not undermine or abandon permitless carry. Groups suggesting this are simply lying or incapable of reading the bill. Residents of Vermont, or any other ‘Constitutional Carry’ state, who wish to carry out of state could simply obtain a nonresident permit (just as they do now) and enjoy the benefits of S. 2188.”

GOA RESPONSE: Subsection (c)(2)(B) of S. 2188 requires that anyone benefiting from carry reciprocity possess “a valid license or permit that ... permits the individual to carry a concealed firearm.”

In other words, S. 2188 fails to protect NON-PERMIT HOLDERS in constitutional carry states -- and these gun owners represent the MAJORITY of law-abiding citizens who can carry.

There are currently five states where citizens can carry without the government’s permission: Vermont, Alaska, Arizona, Wyoming, and most of Montana. And the South Dakota Governor currently has a bill sitting on his desk to enable citizens to carry guns without prior government permission.

In addition to all of this, there are eleven states which are seriously considering “constitutional carry” legislation: Colorado, Iowa, Georgia, Kentucky, Maine, New Hampshire, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina and Virginia.

Many more states will move in this direction after the beginning of the year.

But what if the federal government holds up an enormous “carrot” for pro-gun activists to obtain permits, irrespective of whether their states require it? The answer is that the incentive for these activists to push for “constitutional carry” will vanish.

S. 2188 will snub non-permit holders in “constitutional carry” states, while the Thune-Vitter bill will grant reciprocity to them.

Unless one thinks that New York’s crime problems result from “vicious killers” from Vermont, Alaska and the other constitutional carry states, then there shouldn’t be a problem enabling average citizens to carry concealed without permits. After all, criminals don’t line up for carry licenses.


3. NRA POSITION: “S. 2188 would not ... impose national standards.”

GOA RESPONSE: Well, GOA never said it did. And thankfully, this is an issue where GOA can claim victory, as previous reciprocity bills over the past several years have included such “national standards.” But this is just another example of how your activism makes a real difference!


Both Begich and Manchin HAVE YET TO CAST A PRO-GUN VOTE during this Congress. (You can check this out by viewing their voting records on the GOA website.) So why would we trust them to do the right thing on gun legislation? Is this just an attempt to reelect Democrats and keep Harry Reid in power?

ACTION: Please click here to urge your U.S. Senators to cosponsor the Thune-Vitter bill over the Begich-Manchin bill.
 
All of you that oppose the bill introduced and HR822 are in the end helping the Brady Bunch kill National Reciprocity. IF these bills are so bad for gun owners WHY IS THE BRADY BUNCH TRYING SO HARD TO DEFEAT THEM? ANSWER THAT! So far all Ive heard from opponents of the bill is- mabye it will do -, could do -, might do- , perhaps it will-, or will do-, ect, yet nobody can show it in writting where it says that in the bill! And IF this bill(s) passes HOW CAN THE FACT THAT I WILL BE ABLE TO CARRY MY GUN IN MORE PLACES BE MORE OF AN INFRINGEMENT?
 
IF the bill passes and National Reciporocity passes it will NOT affect anyone visiting a so called "Constutitional Carry state'. Except IF I read Wyoming law correctly AND if they didnt change it permits are not required for residents but ARE for non-residents. And ALL these states still issue permits for their citizens for RECIPROCITY!
 
You guys supporting this bill seem to be totally unaware of how similar laws started off and a government that wants power and money (yes, that is the history of our government) will tell you a new law is not going to affect this, and not do that, and will be very limited, and only gives a little power over this one little thing and and as soon as they get their foot in the door with a little bit of power, they start amending it by striking and replacing words, sentences, even paragraphs, until the law no longer resembles what the people wanted. It becomes what they want not us! And most of this happens in secret and the public is not aware until it is too late. If this passes it it will eventually become federal gun control adding more limitations and restrictions than freedoms! That's it in a nut shell. If you don't learn any thing from history, it will be repeated with our gun rights.

If you think virtually every lifetime federal legislator does not want more power, including power over your firearms, you need to study the process so you will be capable of seeing why a bill like this is so dangerous. The first thing the British did during as the Revolution approached was to try to take away our guns. History shows all governments who want to remove democracy first make gun ownership illegal. Knowing that, HOW DUMB IS IT TO GIVE THE THESE PEOPLE POWER OVER YOUR RIGHT TO CARRY. Anyone who does not believe they will use this bill to get more and more power over our right to carry does not realize how the power brokers in congress operate. You want to let them start regulating what is meant to deter them from taking our freedoms. DUH!!!

Leave it to the individual states. If you don't like you state laws, move or get active in your state and change your states laws. I'm content with my states concealed carry policy and by having one more permit as a non-resident of another state, I can carry in most states -- every state I ever expect to visit. I'm sorry if your state doesn't have reciprocity or too restrictive. If I was in that situation and really wanted to carry my state or other states, I would start organizing to get the laws changed in that individual state.

It has to be practical, using common-sense. Times have changed since my great grandpa took his gun to school (one room), setting traps and shooting squirrels/rabbits on the way home for supper. That's why I'm for background checks, training, testing and some common sense. If we refuse to be practical and avoid mayhem, we'll loose our rights completely.

It appears that to many of the posters on this thread, that infringement means anything that prevents anyone from taking a gun anywhere. Think about it.

I would never want to give any more power the the federal government. They already have too much power.

"All political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The communist party must command all the guns, that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party."
Mao Tse Tung (Problems of War and Strategy, Nov 6 1938)

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in Government."
Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826)
 
What is the aggregate population of Vermont, Alaska, Arizona, Wyoming, and most of Montana? It's a helluva lot more than the current population of legal concealed carriers in the remaining 45 states, all of whom have to ask permission of their states to exercise their God-given constitutional right to keep (with them) and bear arms right now. In the above-mentioned states, every single one of the millions of adults who isn't a felon or a mental patient has their constitutional rights protected by their respective states, not by legislative fiat, but by not placing state government between its citizens and their federal constitutional rights. 822 would treat them differently than everyone else without legislative action by their respective states putting more restrictions on their right to carry than they enjoy now. And supporters of this crap sandwich, the NRA being at the top of that diabolical list, are trying to pass this off as a good thing? As "pro 2nd Amendment?" You supporters are willfully blind. Purposely obtuse. You are supporting blatant gun control, not pro 2nd Amendment or pro Constitution legislation. Why anyone would believe that two Democrats would write a bill favorable to concealed carriers in this day and age defies credulity.

Both Begich and Manchin HAVE YET TO CAST A PRO-GUN VOTE during this Congress. (You can check this out by viewing their voting records on the GOA website.) So why would we trust them to do the right thing on gun legislation? Is this just an attempt to reelect Democrats and keep Harry Reid in power?

Show us one reason why either of these traitors to the Constitution should be trusted to act in gun-owners' best interests. Because Manchin had a campaign ad with him shooting a rifle in the woods? Wake the f**k up.

At this moment, the largest majority of citizens who can legally carry a loaded weapon are spread across the five above-mentioned states. In order to enjoy the same "benefits" as everyone else that are claimed by supporters of this crap sandwich, that large majority of legally-authorized carriers will have to have restrictions placed on the freedoms they now enjoy without government intrusion/control/influence of any kind. Supporters of this crap sandwich are the true shills for the Brady Bunch, and wouldn't understand the Constitution if James Madison himself rose from the dead and explained it to them.

Blues
 
I live in NY and was recently faced choices which no law-abiding citizen should have to make....which laws do I violate.
During the course of my business, I was working near the Pennsylvania border. I was driving on a divided highway and realized that I had missed my exit...the last exit in New York State.
Ahead was the sign welcoming me to Pennsylvania, which does not offer reciprocity to NY.

You can see where I'm heading. I had to choose which law to break...I could cross the median, considered unsafe and illegal under vehicle and traffic law...OR... continue to the next exit, located approximately 200 yards ahead in PA. Obviously, I chose NOT to become a felon, so I crossed the median in NY state.

I figured that an understanding State Trooper might show some empathy and let it slide, but if not, at least I'd leave with only a traffic summons, not with a shiny pair of bracelets.

The other choice is unacceptable! We shouldn't have to even think about making this kind of choice!

And NO, I don't think this will adversely affect our rights to posess weapons.
 
All of you that oppose the bill introduced and HR822 are in the end helping the Brady Bunch kill National Reciprocity. IF these bills are so bad for gun owners WHY IS THE BRADY BUNCH TRYING SO HARD TO DEFEAT THEM? ANSWER THAT! So far all Ive heard from opponents of the bill is- mabye it will do -, could do -, might do- , perhaps it will-, or will do-, ect, yet nobody can show it in writting where it says that in the bill! And IF this bill(s) passes HOW CAN THE FACT THAT I WILL BE ABLE TO CARRY MY GUN IN MORE PLACES BE MORE OF AN INFRINGEMENT?
With respect Sir...

First of all please look beyond what the bill says to the implications of having such an open door means to the government.

Secondly... Please, please, for God's sake PLEASE! understand that a "permit" is NOT the right to carry a gun!!!!! It is the freaking infringement itself! Instead of getting in line and sucking up to support strengthening the infringement system... errr... permit system stand up and fight to get rid of the permit system entirely! Other States have done it and now have Constitutional Carry...

Now.... as difficult as it is to change the laws within a State ... how difficult do you think it will be to change a Federal law?

Thirdly... anything the government giveth... the government can taketh away.

One other thing... the States are not powerless against the Feds. The Feds can say to the State... "You WILL recognize all other CC permits." and the State can say... "We read the bill too.. and it doesn't affect any State that does not issue permits. So we just repealed our permit system and our State no longer issues CC permits. In fact, we passed laws that make CC completely illegal. Now nobody can CC in this State, not even our own residents who used to be able to CC."

Dude... look past what you want and see the dangers that are actually there.
 
I live in NY and was recently faced choices which no law-abiding citizen should have to make....which laws do I violate.
During the course of my business, I was working near the Pennsylvania border. I was driving on a divided highway and realized that I had missed my exit...the last exit in New York State.
Ahead was the sign welcoming me to Pennsylvania, which does not offer reciprocity to NY.

You can see where I'm heading. I had to choose which law to break...I could cross the median, considered unsafe and illegal under vehicle and traffic law...OR... continue to the next exit, located approximately 200 yards ahead in PA. Obviously, I chose NOT to become a felon, so I crossed the median in NY state.

I figured that an understanding State Trooper might show some empathy and let it slide, but if not, at least I'd leave with only a traffic summons, not with a shiny pair of bracelets.

The other choice is unacceptable! We shouldn't have to even think about making this kind of choice!

And NO, I don't think this will adversely affect our rights to posess weapons.

Your choice to impose permit requirements on multitudes of people who currently can legally carry without any such requirements, in order for them to realize the same "benefits" from this crap sandwich as you will gain, is what's unacceptable. I have a better solution to your problem: Pay freakin' attention when you're driving!

Good grief, the solution to the illegal denial of your rights in your state or neighboring states is not to impose illegal denial of rights on those who live where their rights are fully upheld! Do you really not see that's what you're advocating? People simply can't be that dense in such large numbers. The only other explanation is that they favor gun control, because that's exactly what's going to have to be imposed on the largest majority of legal carriers in this nation if this crap sandwich passes. But then, that should be no surprise to anyone paying attention either, as every supporter of this obvious gun control legislation is a virtual blind, sycophantic follower of the greatest gun control organization in the history of man, the NRA:

America's largest gun control organization

On Jan. 16, 1968, in an address to the New York State University law school in Buffalo, Sen. Robert Kennedy, D-N.Y., stated: "I think it is a terrible indictment of the National Rifle Association that they haven’t supported any legislation to try and control the misuse of rifles and pistols in this country."


NRA Executive Vice President Franklin L. Orth took great umbrage at this remark in the October 1968 issue of the NRA’s magazine, The American Rifleman, terming Sen. Kennedy’s accusation "a great smear of a great American organization." Mr. Orth then went on to point out, "The National Rifle Association has been in support of workable, enforceable gun control legislation since its very inception in 1871."

And there's a ton more evidence of that premise than just that one utterance too, and everyone who's paying attention and is honest, knows it.

I am so sick to death of being called a shill for the Brady Bunch by spineless sheep who would follow the NRA into the freakin' ovens while defending them, when the provable and undeniable fact of the matter is that it is they (and their sheep-like followers) who are the gun-grabbers. Opponents of 822 are supporting the Constitution as written. Try following it, instead of your marching orders from the gun control organization known as the NRA.

Blues
 
-snip-

It has to be practical, using common-sense. Times have changed since my great grandpa took his gun to school (one room), setting traps and shooting squirrels/rabbits on the way home for supper. That's why I'm for background checks, training, testing and some common sense. If we refuse to be practical and avoid mayhem, we'll loose our rights completely.

It appears that to many of the posters on this thread, that infringement means anything that prevents anyone from taking a gun anywhere. Think about it.

I would never want to give any more power the the federal government. They already have too much power.

-snip-

Please bear in mind I am in agreement with darn near all of your post that I cut this snippet from... and I think darn near all of it was very well done... however....

It isn't that some posters think infringement means anything that prevents anyone from taking a gun anywhere.... it is that the 2nd Amendment says "shall not be infringed". And that means there shall not be any governmental restrictions on the right to bear arms anywhere.

And, anything, including background checks, mandatory training, testing, and what some call "common sense" are all infringements simply because someone is in charge of how the background checks are done and what they look for giving them the power to deny anyone they want according to standards that can change at any time... mandatory training also puts someone in charge and in control of what the training consists of, how much it costs (eliminating poor folks) and what the standards are for completion... same with testing... and.......

Exactly who gets to decide what constitutes "common sense"? The government?

Not to mention that even if a person agrees with an infringement... it is still an infringement and just on that basis it should not be.

Like it or not... the right to bear arms "shall not be infringed" and should remain so regardless of who thinks what about it... or how much times change because the need to be armed for defense of self and freedom will never ever change.

As for bad guys, nuts, and the irresponsible... there is no need to control their right to bear arms... we have laws enough to deal with the crimes they might commit while bearing arms.
 
We all know what the 2nd amendment says and I do wish that government at ALL levels would read it and obey it. However a step at a time our gun rights have been lost. The people of this country have allowed it because at any time they could have used the ballot box to throw out the gun-grabbers, for example the New York or California Senators. Unfortuneately the people keep electing them. Once in awhile a gun-grabber loses but not often enough. In the 1980s' a 'Right to Carry' movement began and over the next 20 years most (not all) states that used to be 'may issue or right denied' became 'shall issue'. Look at a map of the United States in the 1980's and compare it to now. Nearly ALL states were 'may issue or right denied'. Despite dire predictions from the anti-gunners things have gone well. Now a movement called 'Constutitional Carry' is starting. We all know the states where it has passed and where it will, might, or won't pass. Part of the reason why 'Constutitional Carry' has been so successfull is the success of the 'Right To Carry or Shall Issue' movement proving how wrong the gun-control crowd is. Now with National Reciprocity looming here is a chance to again show the doom and gloom anti-gunners how law abiding 99.999% of us are. In my and many others' opinions this WILL lead to Constutitional carry everywhere eventually. I agree with you Bikenut. I dont like government deciding who is good enough to own a gun. I do NOT like the permit system at all. BUT I look at the bills you oppose as a chance to prove that we as gun owners are in fact good citizens. Our gun rights were lost a little at a time and we will take them back a little(or alot) at a time. I do have a permit where I live in Washington and in several other states. I have the permits not because I believe in them (the bad guys sure dont) but because if I am ever caught without a permit I could go to jail. I am just being realistic. I believe that when this National Reciprocity bill passes it AND as the 'Constitutional Carry' movement gains ground in the states, it will lead to fewer gun laws. One last thing MOST of the States that have or are thinking about going to Constutitional Carry' were in fact 'may issue or right denied' states and have one step at a time gone back to the way it should be. This shows wavering leaders in politics pro-gun people are right.
 
Santa...
If you and I sat down over a cuppa coffee I have no doubt we would agree on many more things than what we would disagree on.

But one thing we do disagree on is this reciprocity bill.

However... I will always address any and all instances where folks use the word "permit" as if it equates to the "right".

And just the very name of the bill

"National Right to Carry Reciprocity Bill"

tells me there is something very wrong with it since it is being spun right from the get go as if a carry permit is the right to carry.

And sadly many folks who are usually wise enough to recognize a snow job when they see it are falling for the idea that carry permits are somehow the right to carry.

Not only do I find that extremely disturbing... but it is a sad commentary on just how out of touch gun owners are about what a "right" really is.

Not to mention I am dismayed to see so many folks being willing to settle for the illusion (the LIE!) of furthering gun rights that this bill offers instead of fighting for Constitutional Carry throughout the U.S. one State at a time.... and keeping the Feds controlled by that "shall not be infringed" thing that helps hold our power hungry government in check.
 
I oppose the Bill in principle because the Federal Gov't is forbidden to make any gun laws per the Constitution. That is a right of the States and local governments. That also means all the ones defining what you can have too are illegal if done by the Feds. But I approve of it also as the States like New York, Illinois, and California need to drop their rules against other State's permits not being good in their State. And in the case of IL, needs to be forced into accepting that people have the right to self defense even in that State.
 
I oppose the Bill in principle because the Federal Gov't is forbidden to make any gun laws per the Constitution. That is a right of the States and local governments. That also means all the ones defining what you can have too are illegal if done by the Feds. But I approve of it also as the States like New York, Illinois, and California need to drop their rules against other State's permits not being good in their State. And in the case of IL, needs to be forced into accepting that people have the right to self defense even in that State.
If folks live in a State that restricts their right to bear arms let them get off their asses and require their government officials to change the laws. And if folks want reciprocity with that State let them get off their asses and join with the residents of that State and change the laws.
 
I know many people are opposed because the bill Might be amended in a harmful way someday. But it MIGHT also be amended in a good way. My point to you Bikenut and others is that like the 'Right to Carry or Shall issue' cause of 26 years ago that morphed into Constutitional Carry, so can the National Reciprocity bill. When the people and polititians see how well it works a call will go out to scrap the permit system altogether. Of course it is already happening. Some states are passing Constutitional Carry, others not yet. California and other states will take time and with few exceptions their citizens dont seem to care. Just keep the government handouts comming they say. Bikenut we may disagree on a few things, but you stand up. Its too bad you dont live in The Peoples Republik of Kalifornia, mabye you could get them going. I mean this in a nice way.
 
Santa, and perhaps others, are completely missing, or purposely avoiding, the main point of opposition to this crap sandwich. That being, that the people with the most freedom on carry issues right this very second, will end up with the least freedom when crossing state lines, unless their respective states pass "permission slip" legislation for them to continue to exercise their rights. That is my issue, and I live in a "May Issue" state. My stand on this is wholly on constitutional principle, while the supporters' stand is based in selfish considerations that will benefit themselves at the expense of others' freedoms. It is a despicable stand to take, and anything but supportive of the premise of equal treatment under the law. You will force the freest states in the nation on gun issues to pass gun control legislation, or leave their constituents flopping in the wind, unable to take advantage of the so-called "freedoms" the reciprocity bill affords permission-slip holders in the already-controlled remaining 45 states. Simply despicable, utterly selfish, and the aplomb with which you avoid this issue as you talk about progress that has been made with permission slip tweaks is stunning. If there is any progress in gun issues in this country, it can be found in the five states that have full constitutional carry as their starting point. States that are considering going to that model are also examples of progress. One more federal gun control bill that makes constitutional carry unattractive because it quashes more freedoms in that environment than it supports, is hardly progress, unless progress towards more tyranny is the ultimate goal. Period.

Blues
 
If folks live in a State that restricts their right to bear arms let them get off their asses and require their government officials to change the laws. And if folks want reciprocity with that State let them get off their asses and join with the residents of that State and change the laws.
There are some states that will never allow people from other states to carry in their state unless this Bill passes. One of those States will barely even allow its own citizens to have them due to big city vs rest of the State mentality. And I don't mean NY/NYC.
 
There are some states that will never allow people from other states to carry in their state unless this Bill passes. One of those States will barely even allow its own citizens to have them due to big city vs rest of the State mentality. And I don't mean NY/NYC.
I find it interesting that folks will get all excited and scream for the government to leave gun rights alone... and then run to that same government screaming to have government protect the very infringement on gun rights that a carry permit represents!
 

New Threads

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
49,543
Messages
611,260
Members
74,964
Latest member
sigsag1
Back
Top