Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: CC Reciprocity Across All States In Manchin-Toomey Bill?

  1. #1
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278

    CC Reciprocity Across All States In Manchin-Toomey Bill?

    I was reading a FUX News article this morning. Interesting. It looks like the pot is being sweetened. Are Republicans going to delve into the pot?


    ...The provision is part of the deal Manchin, D-W.V., and Toomey, R-Pa.,... http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013...est=latestnews

    It's nice to see Democrats, and some Republicans working together on this, debating it, voting on it, and seeing where the chips fall.


    ...The proposal essentially grants states "reciprocity" regarding concealed carry provisions.
    In other words, the provision would grant gun owners the right to obtain a firearm and a concealed-carry permit in their home state, then use the permit to carry and conceal the firearm in another state.

    Though many states have laws on buying firearms and concealed-carry permits, the federal provision, if adopted, could trump state laws.... http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013...est=latestnews

    I have stated this previously, that I have zero issue with UBC's; and with what I heave reade in the Bill. There are a number of perks to this Law being enacted, and one of them may well be Reciprocity on a Federal Level.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    I didn't read the OP. I won't bother.

    However, again, as I have said in other thread about this bill: All this bill does is throw us a few bones that might make carry easier. However, it does so by asserting the federal governments "authority" to dictate how we are permitted to exercise the Right. Unacceptable.

    The only acceptable legislation from Congress should repeal existing infringements and acknowledge that Congress did not have the constitutional authority to pass them in the first place.

    I don't care what this law "gives" us. I ain't a dog. I don't want to be "given" a bone. I am a man. I expect my Rights.

  3. #3
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,279
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    I didn't read the OP. I won't bother.

    However, again, as I have said in other thread about this bill: All this bill does is throw us a few bones that might make carry easier. However, it does so by asserting the federal governments "authority" to dictate how we are permitted to exercise the Right. Unacceptable.

    The only acceptable legislation from Congress should repeal existing infringements and acknowledge that Congress did not have the constitutional authority to pass them in the first place.

    I don't care what this law "gives" us. I ain't a dog. I don't want to be "given" a bone. I am a man. I expect my Rights.
    I agree more candy from congress trying to bribe the children(people) into submission. They should be ashamed of themselves.
    It is well that war is so terrible otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    484
    I would be ok with the bill if they got rid of the private online sale checks and the mental health part (we already see how it's being abused in NY). Also..it's still not Universal.

  5. #5
    Regular Member stealthyeliminator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,318
    The federal government doesn't have the right to force reciprocity any more than it has the right to deny it (or other ownership or carry-related acts). I would not ever support the federal government attemting to overrule state law on reciprocity whether it was in my favor or not, no matter how much they "sweetened the pot."

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Unknown
    Posts
    581

    CC Reciprocity Across All States In Manchin-Toomey Bill?

    The People's Republic of New Jersey and New York, or together known as the People's Republic of New Jerky, will be most displeased.

  7. #7
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Quote Originally Posted by stealthyeliminator View Post
    The federal government doesn't have the right to force reciprocity any more than it has the right to deny it (or other ownership or carry-related acts). I would not ever support the federal government attemting to overrule state law on reciprocity whether it was in my favor or not, no matter how much they "sweetened the pot."
    You're correct, the Federal Government does not have the right to force reciprocity...the Federal Government has the Power.

    I enjoy Pro-Second Amendment people on this forum railing against the Federal Government mandating all States take CC reciprocity.

    So, you are for States exercising their power to restrict your carry rights? Let's run with it.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  8. #8
    Regular Member carolina guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Concord, NC
    Posts
    1,790
    Quote Originally Posted by stealthyeliminator View Post
    The federal government doesn't have the right to force reciprocity any more than it has the right to deny it (or other ownership or carry-related acts). I would not ever support the federal government attemting to overrule state law on reciprocity whether it was in my favor or not, no matter how much they "sweetened the pot."
    this would be similar to "forcing" states to recognise each other's licenses (drivers & vehicle)...under Article 4 ??
    If something is wrong for ONE person to do to another, it is still wrong if a BILLION people do it.

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    No State is forced to recognize licenses from other States that would cause a law to be broken. For example, if State A licenses a 15yo to drive, but State B does not license anyone under 16, then State B does not have to recognize the license of State A's 15yo's.

    Likewise, if State A requires a class to get a CHL, and State B does not, State A does not have to recognize State B's license.

    The solution is not the federal government supplanting State violations of our Right with its own. The solution is to fix the States.

  10. #10
    Regular Member ron73440's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Suffolk VA
    Posts
    477

    Have you read the Constitution?

    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    You're correct, the Federal Government does not have the right to force reciprocity...the Federal Government has the Power.

    I enjoy Pro-Second Amendment people on this forum railing against the Federal Government mandating all States take CC reciprocity.

    So, you are for States exercising their power to restrict your carry rights? Let's run with it.
    \

    The "Pro-Second Amendment people" are really "Pro Constitution" people.

    Isn't that the point of the 10th Amendment?

    The States have powers that the Fed does not and I would think this would fall under that.

    I don't want the Fed Govt dictating things like this to the states, even if it is something I agree with, because it could also force the states to do things I don't agree with, which it already does with the Dept of Education, Homeland Security and quite a few other things.
    What I told my wife when she said my steel Baby Eagle .45 was heavy, "Heavy is good, heavy is reliable, if it doesn't work you could always hit him with it."-Boris the Blade

    MOLON LABE

  11. #11
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Quote Originally Posted by ron73440 View Post
    \

    The "Pro-Second Amendment people" are really "Pro Constitution" people.

    Isn't that the point of the 10th Amendment?

    The States have powers that the Fed does not and I would think this would fall under that.

    I don't want the Fed Govt dictating things like this to the states, even if it is something I agree with, because it could also force the states to do things I don't agree with, which it already does with the Dept of Education, Homeland Security and quite a few other things.

    I'm not trying to be argumentative here, but I disagree. Pro-Second Amendment people are not necessarily Pro-Constitution people.

    Yes, the States, in theory, have powers that the FED does not.

    I have no issue with the DoE; if it were left to the States, there would be a number of them likely teaching Creation Mythology in their schools. I have some issues with HS.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  12. #12
    Regular Member stealthyeliminator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,318
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    You're correct, the Federal Government does not have the right to force reciprocity...the Federal Government has the Power.

    I enjoy Pro-Second Amendment people on this forum railing against the Federal Government mandating all States take CC reciprocity.

    So, you are for States exercising their power to restrict your carry rights? Let's run with it.
    I am not. Thank you for asking instead of assuming

  13. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    The post to which you are replying illustrates the false choice that is getting a lot of folks to buy into the federal government not fixing an infringement, but merely taking it over from the States. Folks would have you believe that we have two choices:

    1. Allow the States to use licensing laws to continue to infringe on the Right.

    2. Let the feds take over the rule-making in a way that makes licensure easier.

    Neither option fixes the problem. 2 just redefines it in a temporarily more palatable way. Once we accept the feds making licensing rules, what makes anyone think that they will not eventually make the rules more restrictive?

    This situation illustrates the power of federalism: Right now, if a State like NY goes overboard in restricting licensing, we have an option. We can move to a State that infringes on the Right less. If the feds take over and begin adding restrictions, where do you go?

    The only correct way for the feds to stick their noses into licensure would be to make it a federal crime for a State or local official to take any steps that would make it harder or impossible for a person (not prohibited) to purchase, possess, or carry a gun. That would be a true 2A protection act!

    Folks, there is an option 3: Fix yer own damn State laws so that licensing does not infringe on your ability to exercise your 2A rights. In Ohio, I see very few problems in the licensing law. If they were fixed, no one should care a whit about reciprocity:

    1. End the prohibition on carry in a car without a permission slip.

    2. With very few critical exceptions (for example, in the armory at the local police station or on the flight-line at the local ANG base) remove all bans on carry on public property and any bans on carry without a license (such as in a Class D establishment).

    3. Eliminate GFSZ. (This is actually a federal problem and, therefore, harder to fix.)

    With these fixes, OC would be unfettered in Ohio, and we'd all have the full Right as protected by the 2A while in Ohio, eliminating the need for reciprocity altogether. That's the fix folks, the third option that the false choice presented by some fails to consider.

    This bill may contain some provisions that make it more palatable than some alternatives, but it is still poison.
    Last edited by eye95; 04-15-2013 at 09:15 AM.

  14. #14
    Campaign Veteran MSG Laigaie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Philipsburg, Montana
    Posts
    3,137
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    The solution is not the federal government supplanting State violations of our Right with its own. The solution is to fix the States.
    This is Truth.
    "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the people's liberty teeth (and) keystone... the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable... more than 99% of them by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference .When firearms go, all goes, we need them every hour." -- George Washington

  15. #15
    Regular Member Jay Jacobs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Canton, GA
    Posts
    100
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    The post to which you are replying illustrates the false choice that is getting a lot of folks to buy into the federal government not fixing an infringement, but merely taking it over from the States. Folks would have you believe that we have two choices:

    1. Allow the States to use licensing laws to continue to infringe on the Right.

    2. Let the feds take over the rule-making in a way that makes licensure easier.

    Neither option fixes the problem. 2 just redefines it in a temporarily more palatable way. Once we accept the feds making licensing rules, what makes anyone think that they will not eventually make the rules more restrictive?

    This situation illustrates the power of federalism: Right now, if a State like NY goes overboard in restricting licensing, we have an option. We can move to a State that infringes on the Right less. If the feds take over and begin adding restrictions, where do you go?

    The only correct way for the feds to stick their noses into licensure would be to make it a federal crime for a State or local official to take any steps that would make it harder or impossible for a person (not prohibited) to purchase, possess, or carry a gun. That would be a true 2A protection act!

    Folks, there is an option 3: Fix yer own damn State laws so that licensing does not infringe on your ability to exercise your 2A rights. In Ohio, I see very few problems in the licensing law. If they were fixed, no one should care a whit about reciprocity:

    1. End the prohibition on carry in a car without a permission slip.

    2. With very few critical exceptions (for example, in the armory at the local police station or on the flight-line at the local ANG base) remove all bans on carry on public property and any bans on carry without a license (such as in a Class D establishment).

    3. Eliminate GFSZ. (This is actually a federal problem and, therefore, harder to fix.)

    With these fixes, OC would be unfettered in Ohio, and we'd all have the full Right as protected by the 2A while in Ohio, eliminating the need for reciprocity altogether. That's the fix folks, the third option that the false choice presented by some fails to consider.

    This bill may contain some provisions that make it more palatable than some alternatives, but it is still poison.
    I think you're right.

Posting Permissions

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