Nationwide Carry- Sign the Petition!
- Thread starter tngunowner
- Start date
mikestone967
Banned
We already have National Reciprocity, it's called the Second Amendment and least I be mistaken, the Federal Government has no authority to infringe upon it.
Now, if people would wake up and realize this, things would go so much smoother..
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
Now, if people would wake up and realize this, things would go so much smoother..
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
BluesStringer
Les Brers
XD40scinNC
New member
NOPE!
Only idiots want to give control to a federal law enforcement agency as to when and where they can carry a gun, and where they CANNOT carry their gun.
Only idiots want to give control to a federal law enforcement agency as to when and where they can carry a gun, and where they CANNOT carry their gun.
B
Bikenut
Guest
First of all National Reciprocity is being sold as the lie that it has something to do with the right to bear arms. Consider this, if a person must ask permission from the government to carry concealed then carrying concealed isn't a right but is a privilege granted by the government. And the government that grants a privilege can revoke that privilege whenever it wants to.
If the Federal government passes a law that decrees all states must honor each other's carry permits the Federal government will have just given itself the power to standardize what the criteria are to qualify for a permit and also where it is legal, and where it is illegal, to carry. Rest assured the most restrictive states like California will demand the Federal government adopt qualifying criteria and restrictions that are the most restrictive. That means ALL the states will eventually end up with the same restrictions that the most restrictive states have.
Is that just fear mongering? Well remember that "elections have consequences" and then imagine what would happen if someone like Hillary were elected in 2020 and there were an existing law on the books that the Federal government can ... reinterpret... what that reciprocity law really means.
There is another thing to consider. Folks who want that nationwide reciprocity because they travel will cause everyone who doesn't travel to suffer new restrictions. And as it stands right now there are plenty of non resident permits available to allow state to state travel in almost all states. So... to my mind... those who travel need to accept the responsibility to go through the hassle and expense of getting those non resident permits because it is they who travel... not everyone who doesn't travel.
Think beyond the promise of the convenience of carrying across state lines and carefully consider the possible pitfalls of handing this, or a future, administration an easy way to seize total control of the carry permit process.
If the Federal government passes a law that decrees all states must honor each other's carry permits the Federal government will have just given itself the power to standardize what the criteria are to qualify for a permit and also where it is legal, and where it is illegal, to carry. Rest assured the most restrictive states like California will demand the Federal government adopt qualifying criteria and restrictions that are the most restrictive. That means ALL the states will eventually end up with the same restrictions that the most restrictive states have.
Is that just fear mongering? Well remember that "elections have consequences" and then imagine what would happen if someone like Hillary were elected in 2020 and there were an existing law on the books that the Federal government can ... reinterpret... what that reciprocity law really means.
There is another thing to consider. Folks who want that nationwide reciprocity because they travel will cause everyone who doesn't travel to suffer new restrictions. And as it stands right now there are plenty of non resident permits available to allow state to state travel in almost all states. So... to my mind... those who travel need to accept the responsibility to go through the hassle and expense of getting those non resident permits because it is they who travel... not everyone who doesn't travel.
Think beyond the promise of the convenience of carrying across state lines and carefully consider the possible pitfalls of handing this, or a future, administration an easy way to seize total control of the carry permit process.
National Carry
YOUR ARE WRONG! How many of your carry rights have been changed since the Federal Government passed HR218 in 2004? The Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act was passed in 2004 that allows Law Enforcement Officers (Active & Retired) to carry in all 50 states and US possessions with some restrictions. This law did not affect CCW in any state.
It is not that a law could not affect your CCW, but it does not have to. It all depends on how the law is written. As an example, we are not allowed to carry anywhere a state does not allow it's CCW holders to carry. We can not carry guns not allowed or large capacity mags. Orginially in 2004 we could not carry restricted ammo (hollow points in NJ), but they revised the law in 2008 and now it has been exempted also.
Each state could still have their "No Gun Zones", restrictions on age, alcohol, you name it. They would just have to accept the CCW permit holder. He would have to know the states restricrtions just like now.
YOUR ARE WRONG! How many of your carry rights have been changed since the Federal Government passed HR218 in 2004? The Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act was passed in 2004 that allows Law Enforcement Officers (Active & Retired) to carry in all 50 states and US possessions with some restrictions. This law did not affect CCW in any state.
It is not that a law could not affect your CCW, but it does not have to. It all depends on how the law is written. As an example, we are not allowed to carry anywhere a state does not allow it's CCW holders to carry. We can not carry guns not allowed or large capacity mags. Orginially in 2004 we could not carry restricted ammo (hollow points in NJ), but they revised the law in 2008 and now it has been exempted also.
Each state could still have their "No Gun Zones", restrictions on age, alcohol, you name it. They would just have to accept the CCW permit holder. He would have to know the states restricrtions just like now.
bofh
Banned
Oh, good. Yet another National Reciprocity thread. I was already worried when we fell to have only one. Let's discuss the same topic in as many threads as possible.
Seriously though, Blues already posted the links to y=the two previous threads, one of them is still active (excluding the trolling by a certain forum member): National Firearms Reciprocity Bill JUST Introduced.
To those who simply don't get it, under which Constitutional authority is the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017 supposed to work. Hint, it is not the 2nd Amendment.
Seriously though, Blues already posted the links to y=the two previous threads, one of them is still active (excluding the trolling by a certain forum member): National Firearms Reciprocity Bill JUST Introduced.
To those who simply don't get it, under which Constitutional authority is the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017 supposed to work. Hint, it is not the 2nd Amendment.
XD40scinNC
New member
The naivety of those that don't see the danger of having the federal government controlling carry when the next anti-gun zealot administration comes into power is stunning.
B
Bikenut
Guest
The reason the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act didn't affect concealed carry permits in any state is because that law specifically states it applies to only the narrow group of law enforcement officers and not carry permits in general. And it was intentionally written that way so as not to be able to be reinterpreted to apply to all concealed carry folks.
You are correct that it all depends on how the law is written as I mentioned in my reply above in reference to law enforcement officers. But not only does it depend on how the law is written but also depends on how a poorly written law is interpreted. And whether the interpretation is that a law that affects all concealed carry permit holders in the entire country allows the government the authority to extend that law to include instituting more restrictions upon those permit holders depends on the agenda of who is reading it. And who is reading it depends on the next election. That is the danger I am pointing out.
However the most restrictive states like California are not going to be happy if someone from a state where it is easy to get a carry permit can now carry without having to qualify under the most restrictive state's criteria. And those restrictive states for sure will complain loudly for Daddy Fed to use it's Commerce Clause authority to step in and make all carry permit criteria/restrictions standardized nationwide.
And if/when a future election results in rabid anti gunners interpreting the law that, as you said and I quote: "It is not that a law could not affect your CCW, but it does not have to." into:
-- This law can be interpreted so that, even if it doesn't have to affect carry permits, we (the new anti gun government) can use it as a legal basis to institute restrictions upon carry permits to satisfy the concerns some states have with folks from other states who didn't qualify for a carry permit under their more restrictive laws."--
It is that part of.... can use it as a legal basis .... that is the danger.
Please understand I am saying that considering how Daddy Fed has used the authority of the Commerce Clause in the past there is a clear danger that once there is a national reciprocity law on the books a future anti gun administration will use it in ways never intended but certainly more restrictive.
Let us not let the carrot of the convenience of carrying across state lines blind us to the danger of handing Daddy Fed the power to become the entity that controls all carry permits nationwide.
Really? From your link:
"Congress has already authorized US citizens the right to bear arms."
Congress did not authorize US citizens the right to bear arms. And here's a shocker for you, neither does the Constitution of the United States! The Constitution prohibits government from infringing upon the right to keep and bear arms. The Constitution protects the right that was preexisting to it. The very first sentence of your petition is a complete and utter FAIL!
The second sentence:
"Therefore the current president, through executive action, should put in place an identification system which authorizes holders to carry a concealed firearm for self defense in all 50 states."
Really? Sure, let's enact a national registry of armed citizens. You bet! What do you want to next - make people show a Federal government issued identification document to vote? Oh, no, we couldn't do that because that would infringe upon the right of people to vote - even when they are not legal to vote in this country to begin with. Maybe make it a law that if you want to carry a gun you must wear a yellow badge on your chest? Look that one up.
I don't know who T.C. is who started this petition, but they should move to Seattle. They would be right at home with all the other liberal progressive morons there that want the Federal and state governments to control every aspect of their lives. You really want us to sign a petition that completely nullifies the 2nd Amendment in it's first two sentences? But I'll bet SR9's is one of the first signatures on it.
mikestone967
Banned
Wow! Epic truth! I'm going to borrow this... (please!)..
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
bofh
Banned
I guess I should have read the petition to find out what an epic fail it is. There is only one signature on it, so it is safe to assume that this is the OP's product.
The OP just joined this forum and this is his/hers first post. What are the chances that the OP is not from TN and not a gun owner?
The OP just joined this forum and this is his/hers first post. What are the chances that the OP is not from TN and not a gun owner?
mikestone967
Banned
My vote goes to Troll...
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
corneileous
Active member
So, which is it, bofh? First you complain for having another nationwide reciprocity thread by being facetious when you said let's have as many "nationwide reciprocity" threads as possible to discuss, then you once again act like your so broken-hearted that the one that got closed that you act like is my fault so again, which is it? Make up your mind.
corneileous
Active member
You know what pal, how's about you just take a long walk off a short pier? Now it all makes sense why you foolishly assumed and accused me over in the Does anyone conceal carry a full size pistol thread of starting a petition about this nonsense. You really are a tool, pal.
bofh
Banned
You don't seem to understand sarcasm.
corneileous
Active member
I know all about sarcasm buddy, don't be a smartarse, I'm just trying to figure out which part you're being sarcastic about because you seemed to be fairly butthurt and was pretty quick to blame me and only me about that other "2 year going" reciprocity thread that got closed due to the other half of the senseless and needless bickering that in my opinion had a lot to do with the thread getting shut down.
B
Bikenut
Guest
I can see where this discussion is likely going to end up and it will go there for the same reason as the other threads .....
corneileous
Active member
Yeah... with a post like that, I can see someone gearing up for another game of bickering and arguing.
B
Bikenut
Guest
Unfortunately there are many folks who do not understand that the Bill of Rights, including the 2nd Amendment that specifies the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, is NOT a list of things the government grants (gives) to "we the people" but really is a list of things "we the people" have decreed the government has no power to control.
Instead of begging the government for it's permission to bear arms across state lines with a petition "we the people" really need to demand the government honor the Bill of Rights 2nd Amendment that specifies the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed and get rid of all gun control laws.
History has shown that "we the people" are not made safer by gun control laws. For example, the city of Chicago with it's numerous extremely strict gun control laws has a horribly high crime rate along with an extremely disturbing death rate from criminals using guns to harm victims.
And yet, with high crime rates despite all the gun control laws on the books the government still cannot admit that gun control doesn't work. I submit that the only thing that actually works to make people safer is criminal control. Criminals, by definition, do not obey laws whether they be robbery, murder, or gun control laws yet an incarcerated or dead by capitol punishment criminal doesn't have access to innocent people they can victimize. Preventing the criminal access to people they can victimize prevents them from harming more victims while gun control laws only cause the criminal to commit yet another crime in order to get a gun so he can harm another victim.
As an aside:
I also think it is sad that this discussion has already gone the way of other discussions with posts that detract from what could be a polite and informative discussion.
And, as in the other threads, folks can compare who's posts are filled with insults and ridicule towards others and make up their own minds as to why discussions become argumentative.
Instead of begging the government for it's permission to bear arms across state lines with a petition "we the people" really need to demand the government honor the Bill of Rights 2nd Amendment that specifies the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed and get rid of all gun control laws.
History has shown that "we the people" are not made safer by gun control laws. For example, the city of Chicago with it's numerous extremely strict gun control laws has a horribly high crime rate along with an extremely disturbing death rate from criminals using guns to harm victims.
And yet, with high crime rates despite all the gun control laws on the books the government still cannot admit that gun control doesn't work. I submit that the only thing that actually works to make people safer is criminal control. Criminals, by definition, do not obey laws whether they be robbery, murder, or gun control laws yet an incarcerated or dead by capitol punishment criminal doesn't have access to innocent people they can victimize. Preventing the criminal access to people they can victimize prevents them from harming more victims while gun control laws only cause the criminal to commit yet another crime in order to get a gun so he can harm another victim.
As an aside:
I also think it is sad that this discussion has already gone the way of other discussions with posts that detract from what could be a polite and informative discussion.
And, as in the other threads, folks can compare who's posts are filled with insults and ridicule towards others and make up their own minds as to why discussions become argumentative.
New Threads
-
-
Mystic Seaport Museum, Shelburne Museum Vermont
- Started by Harry45255
- Replies: 0
-
-
Reloading Newbie Here—What’s the Real Cost Advantage?
- Started by michaelstrahan
- Replies: 4
-
