CC Reciprocity Across All States In Manchin-Toomey Bill?

...The provision is part of the deal Manchin, D-W.V., and Toomey, R-Pa.,... http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...r-to-carry-sell-across-state/?test=latestnews

Click to expand...

...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/201...r-to-carry-sell-across-state/?test=latestnews

Click to expand...

eye95 said:

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.

Click to expand...

stealthyeliminator said:

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."

Click to expand...

stealthyeliminator said:

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."

Click to expand...

Beretta92FSLady said:

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.

Click to expand...

ron73440 said:

\

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.

Click to expand...

Beretta92FSLady said:

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.

Click to expand...

eye95 said:

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

Click to expand...

eye95 said:

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.

Click to expand...