Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: Are state reciprocity agreements changing? Wisconsin at a disadvantage?

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Ellsworth Wisconsin
    Posts
    1,213

    Are state reciprocity agreements changing? Wisconsin at a disadvantage?

    like it or not, we live in a less than perfect situation. Each state has its own view on 2A. This complicates the situation for us. For example Minnesota refuses to recognize our CCL. But we do theirs. A Minnesotan cannot OC or CC without their permit. WE can OC without a permit but must obtain a license to CC. Other states have their own variations. One reason may be that states that don't have a 'stricter' training are at a disadvantage. I would think that since 2A is in the US constitution congress should address the issue. A way to do so would be using the commerce clause to make things REGULAR between the states, thus US carry would be uniform across the country. But... I may be wrong to use the commerce clause.
    Recently Wisconsin lost their reciprocity to carry in Virginia.

    http://www.selfreliancecentral.com/2...nti-gun-lobby/
    Last edited by Law abider; 01-13-2016 at 12:58 PM.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,158
    Either you are for sovereign states rights or you're agin'em.

    If the feds banned guns then you would appeal to the state. When the state limits gun rights you appeal to the feds.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  3. #3
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,735
    Quote Originally Posted by Law abider View Post
    like it or not, we live in a less than perfect situation. Each state has its own view on 2A. This complicates the situation for us. For example Minnesota refuses to recognize our CCL. But we do theirs. A Minnesotan cannot OC or CC without their permit. WE can OC without a permit but must obtain a license to CC. Other states have their own variations. One reason may be that states that don't have a 'stricter' training are at a disadvantage. I would think that since 2A is in the US constitution congress should address the issue. A way to do so would be using the commerce clause to make things REGULAR between the states, thus US carry would be uniform across the country. But... I may be wrong to use the commerce clause.
    Recently Wisconsin lost their reciprocity to carry in Virginia.

    http://www.selfreliancecentral.com/2...nti-gun-lobby/
    After reading your post it becomes apparent you are naive. Please don't take it personally. The supreme court has perverted the commerce clause to the point that the federal government can regulate everything. That is not the intent of the commerce clause as stated in the constitution. I don't want the federal government interfering with secondment amendment other than repealing every law that has to do with guns.

    I suggest you do a little more research before making such requests.

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    I understand what the OP want .. consistent laws regarding our RKBA.

    However, our RIGHTS are the same, everywhere ... throughout the universe.

    When the OP realizes that rights cannot be regulated then the OP may get involved with trying to get these tyrannical laws that attempt to usurp his and our rights and be a good asset to protecting our rights.

    Politicians may say that they can regulate your rights but all that they can do is try to trample those rights.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Ellsworth Wisconsin
    Posts
    1,213
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    I understand what the OP want .. consistent laws regarding our RKBA.

    However, our RIGHTS are the same, everywhere ... throughout the universe.

    When the OP realizes that rights cannot be regulated then the OP may get involved with trying to get these tyrannical laws that attempt to usurp his and our rights and be a good asset to protecting our rights.

    Politicians may say that they can regulate your rights but all that they can do is try to trample those rights.


    THANKS davidmcbeth. That was my point!!!!

    I should have chose a better example. I know the feds have perverted the commerce clause to the point of regulating our toilets and demanding blood alcohol levels to be so and do. The universal right to RKBA is recognized in the US constitution first here on our soil not withstanding English common law.
    I wrote this post to get some ideas on this issue. I can learn from many of you out there. Knowledge means power to stand up against tyranny.

  6. #6
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,735
    Quote Originally Posted by Law abider View Post
    [/B]
    THANKS davidmcbeth. That was my point!!!!

    I should have chose a better example. I know the feds have perverted the commerce clause to the point of regulating our toilets and demanding blood alcohol levels to be so and do. The universal right to RKBA is recognized in the US constitution first here on our soil not withstanding English common law.
    I wrote this post to get some ideas on this issue. I can learn from many of you out there. Knowledge means power to stand up against tyranny.
    Thanks for the reply. My heart is back to beating normal. Well, it does skip a beat every now and then.......

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Ellsworth Wisconsin
    Posts
    1,213
    Quote Originally Posted by color of law View Post
    Thanks for the reply. My heart is back to beating normal. Well, it does skip a beat every now and then.......
    I am aware of the malfeasance done to the commerce clause. The feds have only 18 enumerated powers as far as I understand and only 3-5 criminal codes but they have expanded their reach to the point where I don't agree with them. The handgun laws vary so much state by state that you could be legal in WI and a criminal in Minnesota or Michigan. I don't know if www.handgunlaw.us is even accurate.

  8. #8
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795
    The proper vehicle for the feds to protect RKBA nationwide is not the commerce clause. Rather it is the 2nd amendment via 14 amendment incorporation.

    When the federal courts (or congress) act to protect freedom of speech or religion, or the rights of the accused against State and local infringement, they do not rely on the commerce clause. Rather, they go directly to the 1st amd and 4th through 8th amendments, via their 14th amendment power to protect the rights of all citizens.

    The 14th amendment has certainly been abused beyond all original intent. But that is a story for another day. That it has been abused, doesn't mean it isn't perfectly valid in certain cases.

    If a State wants to deny your ability to peaceably assemble or to conduct searches without warrant or probable cause the feds properly step in to restrain local government using the enumerated protections of the Bill of Rights and the powers delegated via the 14th amendment to protect those rights nationwide.

    Ideally, this protection would come not in the form of nationwide recognition of carry permits. Rather, such protection would come in the form of Congress passing laws mandating that State and local governments respect the RIGHT of individuals to possess guns for self defense, without needing any permits at all. Such laws would include federal civil rights penalties and/or criminal penalties and federal civil recourse against any government official who violated such rights. The federal courts would void the conviction of anyone prosecuted under laws that violate the 2nd amd, and enjoin future enforcement of such laws.

    Sadly, I don't see this happening anytime soon unless we get some die hard constitutionalist in the Oval Office and he gets to appoint about 3 new members to the SCOTUS.

    So congressionally mandated, nationwide recognition of permits to carry, might be much better than facing felony charges for crossing into New Jersey or one of the other people's republics while constitutionally armed.

    Charles
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    northern wis
    Posts
    3,201
    The 2nd has been the bastard step child for a long time being abuse and forgot.

    It is really a easy read

    But a lot of are judges, politicians have forgot how to read.

    A good solid court ruling saying shall not infringe means just that would be the best. I am not holding my breath.

    Until then I would take national reciprocity.

    A win is a win as long as we are moving forward we need to keep going on.
    Last edited by Firearms Iinstuctor; 01-14-2016 at 07:33 AM.
    Personal Defensive Solutions professional personal firearms, edge weapons and hands on defensive training and tactics pdsolutions@hotmail.com

    Any and all spelling errors are just to give the spelling Nazis something to do

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,158
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  11. #11
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,622
    Quote Originally Posted by Law abider View Post
    like it or not, we live in a less than perfect situation. Each state has its own view on 2A. This complicates the situation for us. For example Minnesota refuses to recognize our CCL. But we do theirs. A Minnesotan cannot OC or CC without their permit. WE can OC without a permit but must obtain a license to CC. Other states have their own variations. One reason may be that states that don't have a 'stricter' training are at a disadvantage. I would think that since 2A is in the US constitution congress should address the issue. A way to do so would be using the commerce clause to make things REGULAR between the states, thus US carry would be uniform across the country. But... I may be wrong to use the commerce clause.
    Recently Wisconsin lost their reciprocity to carry in Virginia.

    http://www.selfreliancecentral.com/2...nti-gun-lobby/
    Hell no!

    What the government gives, the government can take away. Don't want to see Pandora's box opened.

    No to national permit. No to national (government authorized) Constitutional Carry. Want them to stay out of my pockets and away from my rights.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training. Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Ellsworth Wisconsin
    Posts
    1,213
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    Hell no!

    What the government gives, the government can take away. Don't want to see Pandora's box opened.

    No to national permit. No to national (government authorized) Constitutional Carry. Want them to stay out of my pockets and away from my rights.
    I agree. My point was to make RKBA back to the way it was meant to be aka constitutional and regular across state lines and do away with obtaining multiple permits. I am trying to engage folks like you and others to create a pol of solutions for this issue. How did a simple reading of 2A get so bungled up?

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Ellsworth Wisconsin
    Posts
    1,213
    Quote Originally Posted by utbagpiper View Post
    The proper vehicle for the feds to protect RKBA nationwide is not the commerce clause. Rather it is the 2nd amendment via 14 amendment incorporation.

    When the federal courts (or congress) act to protect freedom of speech or religion, or the rights of the accused against State and local infringement, they do not rely on the commerce clause. Rather, they go directly to the 1st amd and 4th through 8th amendments, via their 14th amendment power to protect the rights of all citizens.

    The 14th amendment has certainly been abused beyond all original intent. But that is a story for another day. That it has been abused, doesn't mean it isn't perfectly valid in certain cases.

    If a State wants to deny your ability to peaceably assemble or to conduct searches without warrant or probable cause the feds properly step in to restrain local government using the enumerated protections of the Bill of Rights and the powers delegated via the 14th amendment to protect those rights nationwide.

    Ideally, this protection would come not in the form of nationwide recognition of carry permits. Rather, such protection would come in the form of Congress passing laws mandating that State and local governments respect the RIGHT of individuals to possess guns for self defense, without needing any permits at all. Such laws would include federal civil rights penalties and/or criminal penalties and federal civil recourse against any government official who violated such rights. The federal courts would void the conviction of anyone prosecuted under laws that violate the 2nd amd, and enjoin future enforcement of such laws.

    Sadly, I don't see this happening anytime soon unless we get some die hard constitutionalist in the Oval Office and he gets to appoint about 3 new members to the SCOTUS.

    So congressionally mandated, nationwide recognition of permits to carry, might be much better than facing felony charges for crossing into New Jersey or one of the other people's republics while constitutionally armed.

    Charles
    I agree

  14. #14
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    Hell no!

    What the government gives, the government can take away. Don't want to see Pandora's box opened.

    No to national permit. No to national (government authorized) Constitutional Carry. Want them to stay out of my pockets and away from my rights.
    Several States have done a fine job taking away what they never gave. Hence the risk of felony conviction and lifetime loss of rights for taking a wrong turn and ending up in NJ, NY, Maryland, etc.

    The feds could ban carry tomorrow if they had the political will to do it. It would blatantly violate the constitution, but so do most other gun laws already on the books. Do you really think that not having a national carry permit or federally mandated recognition for State issued permits first, presents any impediment to the feds banning carry? It could it outright and there is only modest hope the courts would over-turn it. It could do it de facto and rather effectively by extending the 1000 foot gun exclusion range around schools to the actual distance a bullet might be dangerous, say 5,000 or 10,000 feet, and then remove the exemption for permit holders. Odds of today's courts overturning that type of ban are probably in the range of poor to slim.

    And even what the feds have given, is rarely taken. Consider the following and tell me where I'm wrong.

    I suppose--and hope--that some day Roe and Kitchen will be overturned. But even if they are, simply overturning those rulings won't force States to ban abortion and same sex marriage. And in the meantime, we're some 40 years and counting on nationwide elective abortion. These rulings were contrary to the majority of State laws.

    I'd like to see some real reforms--at least--made to OSHA and federal anti-discrimination laws. What do you figure the odds are of that happening?

    What do you figure the risk is of a reversal of Loving v. Virginia or Brown v. Board in your grandchildren's lifetime? These rulings were in harmony with the majority of States at the time they were made.

    Legal provisions for law-abiding citizens to legally carry a gun in public for self defense is now the norm in the nation. Only a handful of States do not have shall issue permits, or better. Widespread recognition of permits issued by other States is also the norm. A federal law requiring States to show at least the minimal respect for the 2nd amendment of honoring permits to carry issued by other States would not be out of harmony with what the laws and culture of the nation have already done in most cases. But it would prevent some gross injustice and headaches in the few holdout States.

    Any bill or ruling could go the wrong way, of course. But they could also go the right way...and a bill can be worded to be very good.

    Besides which, with the exception of permit-free carry many of our States have gone as far as they practically can to restore RKBA without some sort of federal action. I'd prefer nationwide permit free carry, of course. But nationwide reciprocity with some minimum standard of where one can legally carry is probably the best we can hope for in the short term.

    Charles
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  15. #15
    Regular Member rightwinglibertarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Seattle WA
    Posts
    881
    Quote Originally Posted by Law abider View Post
    like it or not, we live in a less than perfect situation. Each state has its own view on 2A. This complicates the situation for us. For example Minnesota refuses to recognize our CCL. But we do theirs. A Minnesotan cannot OC or CC without their permit. WE can OC without a permit but must obtain a license to CC. Other states have their own variations. One reason may be that states that don't have a 'stricter' training are at a disadvantage. I would think that since 2A is in the US constitution congress should address the issue. A way to do so would be using the commerce clause to make things REGULAR between the states, thus US carry would be uniform across the country. But... I may be wrong to use the commerce clause.
    Recently Wisconsin lost their reciprocity to carry in Virginia.

    http://www.selfreliancecentral.com/2...nti-gun-lobby/
    Pointless. Until people understand the permit system is wholly illegal with no rightful power to enforce there will always be that issue
    "Which part of shall not be infringed is so difficult to understand"?

    "Any and all restrictions on the bearing of arms in public places are nullified as per the Second Amendment"

    Conservative Broadcast || Google Plus profile

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Ellsworth Wisconsin
    Posts
    1,213
    Quote Originally Posted by rightwinglibertarian View Post
    Pointless. Until people understand the permit system is wholly illegal with no rightful power to enforce there will always be that issue
    I agree. We need to go back to original intent, but the corruption began with Chief justice Marshall who changed the meaning of the Necessary and the Proper clause to mean the feds can do whatever... The Marbury vs Madison was another one of his 'advantage points' to twist the constitution like wax. With that said, We the people still need to do something to bring the 2A back in line with the original intent.

  17. #17
    Regular Member rightwinglibertarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Seattle WA
    Posts
    881
    Quote Originally Posted by Law abider View Post
    I agree. We need to go back to original intent, but the corruption began with Chief justice Marshall who changed the meaning of the Necessary and the Proper clause to mean the feds can do whatever... The Marbury vs Madison was another one of his 'advantage points' to twist the constitution like wax. With that said, We the people still need to do something to bring the 2A back in line with the original intent.
    But nobody will though. Or the few that are willing are in such a minority that it makes any action not viable. People have forgotten what it means to be American.


    Governent: Do this and that

    People: Waaa waaa we don't like this.

    And they throw their toys out of the stroller only to roll over and take it.

    We are simply slaves.


    BLM gets huge areas of land then extorts the public for the right to use it
    Government tells you, you can't collect natural resources
    Government tells you, you must submit to illegal searches
    Government tells you, you must pay them money for the privilege of exercising 2A rights
    Government kidnaps your children for refusing to put them in the public education system


    Every one of these is outside the government's legal power to control but we accept it as if they did and bleat on about it but never do anything. I actually hope somebody like Trump wins this year and see how y'all feel when your land is stolen even more and your internet freedom is curtailed. Actually, no i'm going to wish Hilary on y'all. It would be a fitting punishment for people who have repeatedly failed to defend the freedom that people died for.

    Sorry Law Abider I wasnt targeting you. I'm just sick and tired of things
    "Which part of shall not be infringed is so difficult to understand"?

    "Any and all restrictions on the bearing of arms in public places are nullified as per the Second Amendment"

    Conservative Broadcast || Google Plus profile

Posting Permissions

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