Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 67

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

  1. #1
    State Researcher Bill Starks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Nortonville, KY, USA
    Posts
    4,291

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

    March 13, U.S. Senators Mark Begich (D-Alaska) and Joe Manchin (D-West Virginia) introduced S. 2188, the “National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2012.” The bill is the Senate companion to H. R. 822,which was approved by the U. S. House last November by a vote of 272-154.
    S. 2188, like H.R. 822, would allow any person with a valid state-issued concealed firearm permit to carry a concealed handgun in any other state that issues concealed firearm permits, or that does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms for lawful purposes. A state’s laws governing where concealed handguns may be carried would apply within its borders.

    http://www.nraila.org/legislation/fe...us-senate.aspx






  2. #2
    Opt-Out Members BigDave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Yakima, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,463
    Write Your Senators
    Sure I know Murray and Cantwell are Anti Gun but still let them know where you stand.
    Last edited by BigDave; 03-14-2012 at 07:54 PM.
    • Being prepared is to prepare, this is our responsibility.
    • I am not your Mommy or Daddy and do not sugar coat it but I will tell you simply as how I see it, it is up to you on how you will or will not use it.
    • IANAL, all information I present is for your review, do your own homework.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Dave_pro2a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,227
    It's a state's Rights issue. The Feds will just screw it up.

    If it passes, then eventually we all get CA style Federal 'reasonable restrictions.' Not today or tomorrow, but eventually.

  4. #4
    Regular Member Metalhead47's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    South Whidbey, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,812
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave_pro2a View Post
    It's a state's Rights issue. The Feds will just screw it up.

    If it passes, then eventually we all get CA style Federal 'reasonable restrictions.' Not today or tomorrow, but eventually.
    Someone get Eeyore here some Prozac.
    It is very wise to not take a watermelon lightly.

  5. #5
    Regular Member Dave_pro2a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,227
    Quote Originally Posted by Metalhead47 View Post
    Someone get Eeyore here some Prozac.
    Sorry, is this better: "D.C. style 'reasonable restrictions.'

    or maybe "NY style 'reasonable restrictions."

    We'll see. I hope I'm wrong, but fear I won't be. The states handle this issue far too differently for this to work well, and the states with power/influence and the biggest population centers are all very liberal.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Metalhead47's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    South Whidbey, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,812
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave_pro2a View Post
    Sorry, is this better: "D.C. style 'reasonable restrictions.'

    or maybe "NY style 'reasonable restrictions."

    We'll see. I hope I'm wrong, but fear I won't be. The states handle this issue far too differently for this to work well, and the states with power/influence and the biggest population centers are all very liberal.
    uh huh. And all the states except Vermont that now have constitutional carry first had concealed permits. Your *constant* negativity is really quite tiring.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Last edited by Metalhead47; 03-14-2012 at 07:14 PM.
    It is very wise to not take a watermelon lightly.

  7. #7
    Regular Member wikieod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Chesapeake, VA
    Posts
    18
    I agree with Dave_pro2a, this is a states rights issue. The Feds have no business telling the states what they will or won't allow in regards to the 2A. Although I do disagree with some of the states reasoning for not allowing reciprocity (training, standards, vetting process, etc.), this still belongs to the individual states to decide. Believe me, I would love to be able to carry when I go to NY to visit my Dad, but once the Feds get a hold of this, nothing good can come of it.
    "To my mind it is wholly irresponsible to go into the world incapable of preventing violence, injury, crime, and death. How feeble is the mindset to accept defenselessness. How unnatural. How cheap. How cowardly. How pathetic."
    - Ted Nugent

  8. #8
    Regular Member Metalhead47's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    South Whidbey, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,812
    Quote Originally Posted by wikieod View Post
    I agree with Dave_pro2a, this is a states rights issue. The Feds have no business telling the states what they will or won't allow in regards to the 2A. Although I do disagree with some of the states reasoning for not allowing reciprocity (training, standards, vetting process, etc.), this still belongs to the individual states to decide. Believe me, I would love to be able to carry when I go to NY to visit my Dad, but once the Feds get a hold of this, nothing good can come of it.
    And there have already bee umpteen +1 threads debating this bill beyond nausium into ridiculousness. No need to start another. If you don't like the bill simply don't say anything and keep just this one thread for useful info on the subject.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    It is very wise to not take a watermelon lightly.

  9. #9
    Regular Member Squeak's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Port Orchard,
    Posts
    827
    Quote Originally Posted by BigDave View Post
    Write Your Representatives
    Sure I know Murray and Cantwell are Anti Gun but still let them know where you stand.
    Murray and Cantwell are Senators not Reps.

  10. #10
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,666
    Quote Originally Posted by wikieod View Post
    I agree with Dave_pro2a, this is a states rights issue. The Feds have no business telling the states what they will or won't allow in regards to the 2A. Although I do disagree with some of the states reasoning for not allowing reciprocity (training, standards, vetting process, etc.), this still belongs to the individual states to decide. Believe me, I would love to be able to carry when I go to NY to visit my Dad, but once the Feds get a hold of this, nothing good can come of it.
    Not since the 14th Amendment.
    Live Free or Die!

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    KC
    Posts
    1,012
    This would be a states' rights issue, if states had rights. Would you mind showing me where you've found states have rights?

    You also might want to read past the 10th amendment to the 14th, where you will learn that the federal government may force the states to follow the Bill of Rights, and the 2A amendment certainly qualifies.

    Sent from my T-Mobile G2 using Tapatalk

  12. #12
    Regular Member WOD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Onalaska WA
    Posts
    225
    Look back at the title of the thread, INTRODUCED TO SENATE, so contacting Murray and Cantwell (Senators) would be the best people to contact. Since this Bill has already passed the House. Also, look who reintroduced the Bill... see an 'R' or a 'D', by their names? Cantwell and Murray may be anti's but they do represent the voters of WA, the more we contact them on this, the more they'll see, it is in their best interest to vote accordingly.
    Be safe, be prepared, and carry on!

    Alle Ihre Basisstation jetzt zu uns gehφren

  13. #13
    Opt-Out Members BigDave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Yakima, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,463
    Quote Originally Posted by WOD View Post
    Look back at the title of the thread, INTRODUCED TO SENATE, so contacting Murray and Cantwell (Senators) would be the best people to contact. Since this Bill has already passed the House. Also, look who reintroduced the Bill... see an 'R' or a 'D', by their names? Cantwell and Murray may be anti's but they do represent the voters of WA, the more we contact them on this, the more they'll see, it is in their best interest to vote accordingly.
    Yes do contact them and I strongly support contacting them but I have no doubt they will not support this bill even though both of them have stated in previous replies that they support the 2nd Amendment but not how we understand it to be.
    • Being prepared is to prepare, this is our responsibility.
    • I am not your Mommy or Daddy and do not sugar coat it but I will tell you simply as how I see it, it is up to you on how you will or will not use it.
    • IANAL, all information I present is for your review, do your own homework.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Granite State of Mind
    Posts
    4,508
    Quote Originally Posted by gogodawgs View Post
    Not since the 14th Amendment.
    If we fully apply the 14th, then every restriction on carry is unconstitutional and invalid. Given that the federal government is more restrictive on carry rights than all but a couple of states, I don't expect to see the 14th properly and fully applied to gun rights any time soon.

    Until it is, the power to regulate carry remains reserved to the states. And until then, we do not want federal-style restrictions on where we can carry applied to the states.

  15. #15
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,666
    Quote Originally Posted by KBCraig View Post
    If we fully apply the 14th, then every restriction on carry is unconstitutional and invalid. Given that the federal government is more restrictive on carry rights than all but a couple of states, I don't expect to see the 14th properly and fully applied to gun rights any time soon.

    Until it is, the power to regulate carry remains reserved to the states. And until then, we do not want federal-style restrictions on where we can carry applied to the states.
    Federal carry restrictions are not applied to the states. In this bill the power to regulate carry is reserved to the states. Read the bill.
    Live Free or Die!

  16. #16
    Regular Member WOD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Onalaska WA
    Posts
    225
    OK, I see you edited the post to fix the rep/sen thing... sorry.
    Be safe, be prepared, and carry on!

    Alle Ihre Basisstation jetzt zu uns gehφren

  17. #17
    Regular Member Dave_pro2a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,227
    Quote Originally Posted by Metalhead47 View Post
    And there have already bee umpteen +1 threads debating this bill beyond nausium into ridiculousness. No need to start another. If you don't like the bill simply don't say anything and keep just this one thread for useful info on the subject.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Ahhhh. The old "if you don't agree with me, then shut up" approach to politics.

    Awesome.

  18. #18
    Regular Member Dave_pro2a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,227
    Quote Originally Posted by gogodawgs View Post
    Federal carry restrictions are not applied to the states. In this bill the power to regulate carry is reserved to the states. Read the bill.
    Today yes. Tomorrow... perhaps not so much.

  19. #19
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    The old foot in the door of trick.

    14th amendment applies the bill of rights to the states it doesn't equal giving permission slips.

    A better way is for the SCOTUS to decide that permitting is unreasonable but that won't happen.

    This doesn't mean I won't take advantage of this Bill if it passes. Maybe doing so will get states to realize they need to de"nationalize" it's citizens.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    usa
    Posts
    343
    I think Dave's point here is that although the Bill states one thing today, How easy will it be in 6 months, a year, 5 years, for an anti gun member of the Senate or House to add in a small amendment, tagging along some larger bill that just HAS to pass.

    States like New York, New Jersey, California are going to raise holy hell over this but will bide their time, waiting for the right moment to add in "reasonable" restrictions to this Law, turning it into something that is NOT reasonable at all, at least not for us.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    KC
    Posts
    1,012
    I don't know how hard it is, but why do you think it will be easier if this bill becomes law? Why can't they do that exact thing today?

    Sent from my T-Mobile G2 using Tapatalk

  22. #22
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,666
    Quote Originally Posted by xd shooter View Post
    I think Dave's point here is that although the Bill states one thing today, How easy will it be in 6 months, a year, 5 years, for an anti gun member of the Senate or House to add in a small amendment, tagging along some larger bill that just HAS to pass.

    States like New York, New Jersey, California are going to raise holy hell over this but will bide their time, waiting for the right moment to add in "reasonable" restrictions to this Law, turning it into something that is NOT reasonable at all, at least not for us.
    They are waiting for that now. And they will wait for that amendment all the time. It is no easier or more difficult with this bill.

    Read the bill.
    Live Free or Die!

  23. #23
    Regular Member Dave_pro2a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,227
    Quote Originally Posted by xd shooter View Post
    I think Dave's point here is that although the Bill states one thing today, How easy will it be in 6 months, a year, 5 years, for an anti gun member of the Senate or House to add in a small amendment, tagging along some larger bill that just HAS to pass.

    States like New York, New Jersey, California are going to raise holy hell over this but will bide their time, waiting for the right moment to add in "reasonable" restrictions to this Law, turning it into something that is NOT reasonable at all, at least not for us.
    Yup. Where are the major population centers?

    Liberal states.

    Where are the biggest state economies?

    Liberal states.

    Where is the most defense money spent by the Feds?

    Liberal states.

    Where is the culture shifting over the next 10-20 years in America?

    To the left. Baring some unforeseen act of God that is.

    If we let them do this now, then eventually it will be used against us.
    Last edited by Dave_pro2a; 03-14-2012 at 10:06 PM.

  24. #24
    Regular Member Metalhead47's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    South Whidbey, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,812
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave_pro2a View Post
    Ahhhh. The old "if you don't agree with me, then shut up" approach to politics.

    Awesome.
    No, the old "let's not ruin another thread with pointless round robin discussion when there are already plenty of threads for that" approach to forum etiquette.




    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    It is very wise to not take a watermelon lightly.

  25. #25
    Regular Member Dave_pro2a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,227
    Hey, what does CCW in national parks have to do with a credit card bill anyways?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_CARD_Act_of_2009

    I'm just saying "turn about will be fair play.".
    Last edited by Dave_pro2a; 03-14-2012 at 10:05 PM.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •