This could be a very good thing.

[Road Toad]

Just saw this and had to share it.

Link Removed

 

[sdprof]

This rep has put forth the same bill before. It's died in committee.

Perhaps this time it will get some traction.

There's also one, HR 86, that is to REPEAL the GFSZA. I'd like to see that one move forward as well.

You can follow the bills at: https://www.congress.gov/ Just put "firearm" in the search box and you'll find the two above, and others.

There are several BAD bills already introduced, those need to be defeated if they ever come out of committee.

 

[NavyLCDR]

They will have to repeal or amend the gun free school zone act because otherwise reciprocity means nothing as far as carrying a loaded gun.

 

[BluesStringer]

A federal reciprocity bill is decidedly not a good thing for gun owners. Once the feds get their hooks in the issue, any such bill will "evolve" into centralized federal control of all carry requirements and/or restrictions on issuance.

The only constitutional authority the feds are given "control" over re: gun issues, is found in totality within the Second Amendment. Those of us who know that our respective states overreach their constitutional authority in requiring permission slips to carry in the first place, are going to be many times more tyrannized by the violations the fed rains down on us if they are allowed to control any aspect of carry issues. Right now there are a wide majority of states whose requirements, while still violative of the 2A, make it fairly easy to obtain permission to carry. You let the fed's beastly nose under that tent, and eventually the whole country will look like CA.

I know people will disagree with me on this point. All I ask is that when you do, please provide a constitutional basis for that disagreement. Anything that relies on "trusting" any part of the federal government, whether Republican or Tea Party or the N R A or any other ostensibly "pro-gun" group or party, will be dismissed as coming from people too dense and/or too blind to understand the nature of the beast we are fighting.

Blues

 

[r1derbike]

A federal reciprocity bill is decidedly not a good thing for gun owners. Once the feds get their hooks in the issue, any such bill will "evolve" into centralized federal control of all carry requirements and/or restrictions on issuance.

The only constitutional authority the feds are given "control" over re: gun issues, is found in totality within the Second Amendment. Those of us who know that our respective states overreach their constitutional authority in requiring permission slips to carry in the first place, are going to be many times more tyrannized by the violations the fed rains down on us if they are allowed to control any aspect of carry issues. Right now there are a wide majority of states whose requirements, while still violative of the 2A, make it fairly easy to obtain permission to carry. You let the fed's beastly nose under that tent, and eventually the whole country will look like CA.

I know people will disagree with me on this point. All I ask is that when you do, please provide a constitutional basis for that disagreement. Anything that relies on "trusting" any part of the federal government, whether Republican or Tea Party or the N R A or any other ostensibly "pro-gun" group or party, will be dismissed as coming from people too dense and/or too blind to understand the nature of the beast we are fighting.

Blues

Makes perfect sense. Put all eggs in one basket, and that basket is very easily beaten into scrambled eggs.

 

[BC1]

I don't think it has any chance. An Obama veto is a certainty.

 

[BluesStringer]

I don't think it has any chance. An Obama veto is a certainty.

But with so many gun owners/carriers seemingly enthralled with the notion of a national reciprocity bill, the issue extends well beyond 2016. Sooner or later a phony "pro-gun" candidate will assume the presidency, national reciprocity will pass, and most gun owners/carriers will celebrate the fact that they just supported handing over control of their rights to the fed under the pretzel logic that the bill they supported buttresses their rights under the same 2nd Amendment that prohibits the fed from having any control in the first place!

People have to start looking beyond the Obammunist. The Constitution sho' 'nuff doesn't count to him, but anyone pushing for national reciprocity proves that it doesn't count for them either.

Blues

 

[Bob_M]

A federal reciprocity bill is decidedly not a good thing for gun owners. Once the feds get their hooks in the issue, any such bill will "evolve" into centralized federal control of all carry requirements and/or restrictions on issuance.

The only constitutional authority the feds are given "control" over re: gun issues, is found in totality within the Second Amendment. Those of us who know that our respective states overreach their constitutional authority in requiring permission slips to carry in the first place, are going to be many times more tyrannized by the violations the fed rains down on us if they are allowed to control any aspect of carry issues. Right now there are a wide majority of states whose requirements, while still violative of the 2A, make it fairly easy to obtain permission to carry. You let the fed's beastly nose under that tent, and eventually the whole country will look like CA.

I know people will disagree with me on this point. All I ask is that when you do, please provide a constitutional basis for that disagreement. Anything that relies on "trusting" any part of the federal government, whether Republican or Tea Party or the N R A or any other ostensibly "pro-gun" group or party, will be dismissed as coming from people too dense and/or too blind to understand the nature of the beast we are fighting.

Blues

Perfect!! No disagreement here. You have a way with words, Blues. :smile: This is exactly what I thought when I saw the OP's post. Can't let the Feds get total control on this.

 

[NotTwoShure]

Yes, on the top it may sound good but as Blues states, Feds should have no other bills or rules about our rights. Great post, thanks.

Perfect!! No disagreement here. You have a way with words, Blues. :smile: This is exactly what I thought when I saw the OP's post. Can't let the Feds get total control on this.

 

[vernsimpson]

As others have said here, this sounds like a back door run on 2A. I have gotten to the point where when anything our "wonderful and caring" gubment does that sounds like a good idea, it can not be so.

We should look at all "gift horses" in the mouth!

 

[BC1]

Would it even be legal? Don't "states rights" prevail over the feds mandating a state must allow carry? Can the feds even tell a state they must allow carry? I think it's a whole new kind of problem.

 

[Bob_M]

As others have said here, this sounds like a back door run on 2A. I have gotten to the point where when anything our "wonderful and caring" gubment does that sounds like a good idea, it can not be so.

We should look at all "gift horses" in the mouth!

And that it is. This very thing has been talked about in other forums......Same conclusion. :smile:

I am from the government and here to help. <----- The nine words that should strike primal fear into your heart.

Don't believe it? Just ask any Indian. :biggrin:

 

[vernsimpson]

Would it even be legal? Don't "states rights" prevail over the feds mandating a state must allow carry? Can the feds even tell a state they must allow carry? I think it's a whole new kind of problem.

Once upon a time this was true. But with obummer that seems to have fallen. If a state tries to do their own thing obummer, Holder and all the rest of his minions fall on the state to bring them in line with obummer's view of things!

 

[longslide10]

I don't think it has any chance. An Obama veto is a certainty.

Unless it had some other sneaky bill attached like registration or AW ban

 

[ezkl2230]

A federal reciprocity bill is decidedly not a good thing for gun owners. Once the feds get their hooks in the issue, any such bill will "evolve" into centralized federal control of all carry requirements and/or restrictions on issuance.

The only constitutional authority the feds are given "control" over re: gun issues, is found in totality within the Second Amendment. Those of us who know that our respective states overreach their constitutional authority in requiring permission slips to carry in the first place, are going to be many times more tyrannized by the violations the fed rains down on us if they are allowed to control any aspect of carry issues. Right now there are a wide majority of states whose requirements, while still violative of the 2A, make it fairly easy to obtain permission to carry. You let the fed's beastly nose under that tent, and eventually the whole country will look like CA.

I know people will disagree with me on this point. All I ask is that when you do, please provide a constitutional basis for that disagreement. Anything that relies on "trusting" any part of the federal government, whether Republican or Tea Party or the N R A or any other ostensibly "pro-gun" group or party, will be dismissed as coming from people too dense and/or too blind to understand the nature of the beast we are fighting.

Blues

As I posted quite a while ago, when the reciprocity bill came out a couple of years ago, I wrote to my rep, Justin Amash, asking him to support the bill. In his response, he reminded me that such a bill tramples the Tenth Amendment rights of the individual states, in addition to addressing some of the very concerns you also raised.

 

[NavyLCDR]

Would it even be legal? Don't "states rights" prevail over the feds mandating a state must allow carry? Can the feds even tell a state they must allow carry? I think it's a whole new kind of problem.

Transcript of the Constitution of the United States - Official Text
Article IV, Section 1 of the US Constitution:

Article. IV.

Section. 1.

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.

For example, under the Full Faith and Credit clause every state must recognize any other states' driver's license unless such person becomes a resident of the state and only then can that state require they obtain an in-state driver's license.

 

[ezkl2230]

Transcript of the Constitution of the United States - Official Text
Article IV, Section 1 of the US Constitution:



For example, under the Full Faith and Credit clause every state must recognize any other states' driver's license unless such person becomes a resident of the state and only then can that state require they obtain an in-state driver's license.

Very good. So that should seem to include the carry rights of out-of-staters as well.

 

[NavyLCDR]

Very good. So that should seem to include the carry rights of out-of-staters as well.

It should, but a Federal court has not declared it to be so yet. One problem is the greatly varying requirements for the different states permits. Driver's licenses are basically the same from state to state.

 

[ezkl2230]

Boston Globe - carry rights should cross state lines like drivers licenses.

A license to carry, like a license to drive, should cross state lines - Opinion - The Boston Globe

 

[jrs]

As I understand it, after reading a synopsis of the bill the other day, HR 131 is not a reciprocity bill... rather, it strengthens and clarifies FOPA to allow stops in states like NY, NJ and MD who will arrest you if you stop during your travels, even if your car breaks down, you stop for gas, food or lodging....even if you stop overnight for safety reasons..... even if your guns are properly secured per FOPA.