National Right To Carry Reciprocity Bill Introdued In US House

FlashBack said:
National Right-to-Carry
Reciprocity Bill Introduced In U.S. House

Article here:
Link Removed

Take Action..Contact Your Representatives:
http://www.capwiz.com/nra/dbq/officials/
Click to expand...

I like it but it'll probably never become reality. The Supreme Court would shoot it down (no pun intended) in a heartbeat as a violation of 10A, and it's not so important an issue for the Fed to use the old carrot-and-stick method like they did with the states concerning the legal age to purchase alcohol.
 
B2Tall said:
I like it but it'll probably never become reality. The Supreme Court would shoot it down (no pun intended) in a heartbeat as a violation of 10A, and it's not so important an issue for the Fed to use the old carrot-and-stick method like they did with the states concerning the legal age to purchase alcohol.
Click to expand...

Actually, the 10th Amendment doesn't apply in this case.

US Constitution, Article IV, Section I

"Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof."

This is one power Congress does have. They can require states recognize the 'public acts' (in this case conceal carry permits) of another state. For example marriage licenses, drivers licenses, and so on.

Haven't been able to read this bill yet, but as I understand it if a state issues a carry permit or allows carry then that state would be required to recognize the permit of another state. Restrictions would be dependant on the laws of that state as reciprocity agreements are now.
 
I wonder if the law would adress the school zone issue? Any bill to allow nationwide reciprocity needs to change the school zone law. I do support national reciprocity but whatever bill introduced needs to be looked at closely.
 
DannyBear71 said:
US Constitution, Article IV, Section I

"Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof."
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm aware of Article IV. So is the Supreme Court, and they've spent the last 200 years applying it more towards individual court judgements than to state laws. The right to CC is a state law, not a court's decision.

People have mentioned that states already recognize each other's driver's licenses and marriages and that's true, but the laws that govern the details of driving and marriage often vary from state to state. (Example: In 2013, the Michigan legal blood alcohol content for driving is scheduled to go up to .10. That will not give people with a Michigan DL the right to legally drive with a BAC of .10 in other states .)

For quite some time now the Supreme Court has viewed the right to simply own a gun as sufficient fulfillment of 2A (i.e. owning = bearing). They've always left the details such as CC up to the individual states. Don't expect that to change any time soon.

It would be nice if my CCW was accepted everywhere but I'm not holding my breath.
 
B2Tall said:
Yeah, I'm aware of Article IV. So is the Supreme Court, and they've spent the last 200 years applying it more towards individual court judgements than to state laws. The right to CC is a state law, not a court's decision.

For quite some time now the Supreme Court has viewed the right to simply own a gun as sufficient fulfillment of 2A (i.e. owning = bearing). They've always left the details such as CC up to the individual states. Don't expect that to change any time soon.

.
Click to expand...

hasn't that changed in the post mcdonald world; in that scotus defined "to keep = own,,to bear = carry....
 
ccwnj said:
hasn't that changed in the post mcdonald world; in that scotus defined "to keep = own,,to bear = carry....
Click to expand...

Apparently not. If it had then all 50 states would be "Shall Issue" or at least all 50 would have to allow open carry. SCOTUS has always upheld the law-abiding individual's right to own guns, yet they've sided with the states (and cities) with regards to how those guns may be restricted. It's been that way for a long time....through Democrats and Republicans, pro-gun, anti-gun, liberals, moderates, conservatives, etc. etc. I don't look for it to change any time soon.
 
LET's ROLL!!!!

And if we all just continue to sit on our hands and not let those who represent us know how we feel about these issues, CONSTANTLY, things will never change and we just have our apathetic selves to blame...come on people...so much negativity:lazy:
 
National Laws

We DO NOT want allow the fed involved in any gun control! If it happens on any level they will soon attrmpt to cortrol (ban) all gun laws. Let the states do their thing. Think about it!!!
 
I think that if this legislation passes it will have the same effect in states like New York that FOPA does. The state will still prosecute persons for carrying firearms against their state laws, and the case will have to go to the Federal level to get the conviction overturned. Average Joe Citizen simply won't have the resources to carry their defense to the Federal level.
 
For all practical purposes reciprocity is a moot point. States will be forced to face reality. Individuals have a Constitution right to own and carry firearms for self-defense. A right, states will find very hard to get around, although I have no doubt some will try very hard.

Heller v District of Columbia

“we find they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation”

“The inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right,”

States have little choice in the matter. Even Justice Ginsburg recognized that a firearm that is required to be unloaded renders it useless for self-defense.

States MUST allow the carry of loaded firearms by all citizens except felons and mental defectives. States only real choices are the manner in which they carry: open or concealed, and which places they choose to designate as "sensitive places". Which the court made clear must be "narrowly defined."

Given this new standard the Guns Free School Zone Act of '95 is clearly unconstitutional. While I believe the court will allow states to prohibit firearms in schools and possibly on school property a Federal or State law which makes it a crime to exercise a constitutionally protected right by carrying firearm within a 1,000' (ie.. walking on a public sidewalk, driving on a public road, or on ones own property) of school property will never pass a "strict standard of review". So, even the Commerce Clause arguments about whether Congress had the power to make the law in the first place are equally moot.

For the ney sayers here I will add one final point. Lawsuits are currently underway in NY, NJ, MD, IL, and CA over this very issue. None have been dismissed despite repeated attempts and extremely poor arguments. Its obvious the Defendants know they're fighting a loosing battle. And its only a matter of time before the anti-gun states are forced to face reality.
 
Last edited:
DannyBear71 said:
For all practical purposes reciprocity is a moot point. States will be forced to face reality. Individuals have a Constitution right to own and carry firearms for self-defense. A right, states will find very hard to get around, although I have no doubt some will try very hard.

Heller v District of Columbia

“we find they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation”

“The inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right,”

States have little choice in the matter. Even Justice Ginsburg recognized that a firearm that is required to be unloaded renders it useless for self-defense.

States MUST allow the carry of loaded firearms by all citizens except felons and mental defectives. States only real choices are the manner in which they carry: open or concealed, and which places they choose to designate as "sensitive places". Which the court made clear must be "narrowly defined."

Given this new standard the Guns Free School Zone Act of '95 is clearly unconstitutional. While I believe the court will allow states to prohibit firearms in schools and possibly on school property a Federal or State law which makes it a crime to exercise a constitutionally protected right by carrying firearm within a 1,000' (ie.. walking on a public sidewalk, driving on a public road, or on ones own property) of school property will never pass a "strict standard of review". So, even the Commerce Clause arguments about whether Congress had the power to make the law in the first place are equally moot.

For the ney sayers here I will add one final point. Lawsuits are currently underway in NY, NJ, MD, IL, and CA over this very issue. None have been dismissed despite repeated attempts and extremely poor arguments. Its obvious the Defendants know they're fighting a loosing battle. And its only a matter of time before the anti-gun states are forced to face reality.
Click to expand...

I hope that this does come about. It would seem that a federal law that requires states to honor out of state permits adresses the school zone issue. But as I do not trust ATF I would like it to be in writting as part of the national reciprocity act stating that reciprocity applies to the school zones.
 
DannyBear71 said:
Heller v District of Columbia

“we find they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation”

“The inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right,”
Click to expand...

You need to understand the difference between rationale and holding in a court opinion. The portion you quoted was not the court's holding. It was merely the court's "finding" of the meaning of all of the relevant texts that had been reviewed by the court. It was part of the court's rationale for its holding, but it was not the holding of the court.

Moreover, that quote doesn't give operative meaning to the right. that right still has to be given concrete meaning. in so doing the court noted that the right did not mean anyone could possess any weapon any place they desired.

The court's holding is the operative definition of the right that it found. No more, no less. Subsequent decisions might expand on that definition, but Heller goes no further than this:

"In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment , as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense. Assuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home."
Click to expand...

New York law presents a good test case for further expansion of the right. Presently, New York is a "shall issue" state for home self defense purposes. For all other purposes it is a "may issue" state. Someone denied a concealed carry permit in New York could make the argument you have posited. But there is yet no certainty as to the outcome.
 
As with other changes to "established" wrong-headed laws, persistence is the key. We must keep pressing our case. Day after day, week after week, year after year. Quoting Churchill, "“Never give in, never give in, never; never; never; never - in nothing, great or small, large or petty - never give in except to convictions of honor and good sense."

We once had a little Cocker Spaniel. That 20 lb dog could move my 185 lb body across the room as I groomed him. Because he didn't like the clippers, he'd constantly lean away from me and I'd have to move a little to be able to reach him. In not too long a time, I'd be at the end of the clipper cord. The dog's persistent pressure was effective.

Once the legislators recognize that the issue and it's supporters are not going to get bored and give up, they will respond. Of course the initial response will be to ignore, then to mock, then you win.
 
FlashBack said:
And if we all just continue to sit on our hands and not let those who represent us know how we feel about these issues, CONSTANTLY, things will never change and we just have our apathetic selves to blame...come on people...so much negativity:lazy:
Click to expand...

Conditioning and Compromise... They will be the death of the 2nd Amendment and freedom as well. Thinking, writing and saying "it's never gonna happen"...

Get off your 4King arse and make it happen. Don't accept no...:biggrin:
 
nogods said:
You need to understand the difference between rationale and holding in a court opinion. The portion you quoted was not the court's holding. It was merely the court's "finding" of the meaning of all of the relevant texts that had been reviewed by the court. It was part of the court's rationale for its holding, but it was not the holding of the court.

Moreover, that quote doesn't give operative meaning to the right. that right still has to be given concrete meaning. in so doing the court noted that the right did not mean anyone could possess any weapon any place they desired.

The court's holding is the operative definition of the right that it found. No more, no less. Subsequent decisions might expand on that definition, but Heller goes no further than this:



New York law presents a good test case for further expansion of the right. Presently, New York is a "shall issue" state for home self defense purposes. For all other purposes it is a "may issue" state. Someone denied a concealed carry permit in New York could make the argument you have posited. But there is yet no certainty as to the outcome.
Click to expand...

Blah Blah Blah...

Charlie Sheen sounds more sane...:sarcastic: Funny how that works...

You have to be a NY lawyer?

New York is a liberal cesspool and infringes on the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms... Shall issue?? Same crap here in MA... Some get and some do not... Bullshite... Why is it that no non resident permits will be issued to citizens of the U.S. who reside in other sates yet visit NY perhaps on business or vacation? Of course we can drive our cars on the NY toll roads, and spend our $$ in the state, but God forbid we would want to exercise our rights while doing these things... Trampling rights, plain and simple...

And we had that moron Bloomberg, dancing across state borders with his anti-gun agenda... Pure fool...

"In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment , as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense. Assuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home."

So only in ones home can one expect to exercise a right of self defense with a weapon of ones choosing? Being assaulted outside of ones home, out of luck? Really?? And you agree with this?

"that right still has to be given concrete meaning". Still waiting for them to tell you what it means?
 
nogods said:
......
"In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment , as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense. Assuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home." .......
Click to expand...

That right there should also allow the SCOTUS to again strike down the latest laws from Chicago. What didn't Chicago understand about not being required to make any legally owned gun non-operable? But yet they went ahead with the only one operable gun in the home rule.
 
drose40 said:
As with other changes to "established" wrong-headed laws, persistence is the key. We must keep pressing our case. Day after day, week after week, year after year. Quoting Churchill, "“Never give in, never give in, never; never; never; never - in nothing, great or small, large or petty - never give in except to convictions of honor and good sense."

We once had a little Cocker Spaniel. That 20 lb dog could move my 185 lb body across the room as I groomed him. Because he didn't like the clippers, he'd constantly lean away from me and I'd have to move a little to be able to reach him. In not too long a time, I'd be at the end of the clipper cord. The dog's persistent pressure was effective.

Once the legislators recognize that the issue and it's supporters are not going to get bored and give up, they will respond. Of course the initial response will be to ignore, then to mock, then you win.
Click to expand...

The real issue, go look at this poll...

Poll: Do You Support Nation Wide Constitutional Carry?

Trying to figure out why there are NO votes?? 39 at last count..

Can't get the gun owners to agree on anything. I've read and heard some that make statements about needing restrictions and regulations. How they argue the right is "not defined until the courts say it's so"... How compromise is the way to get our rights back...

Get the gun owning community to make a unified and cohesive statement and stand their ground and you'll have a chance at making a change. Imagine if we all pulled in the same direction... The cord would get short really fast..

Allow compromise to be the tool used to get "a little further ahead" and we will never be free from infringement on the right...

It's up to us... What say you all?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New Threads

Members online

No members online now.
Total: 717 (members: 0, guests: 717)

Latest posts

Forum statistics

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

Share this page

Back
Top