Ok does anybody understand what will happen to the reciprocity and recognition that we had? does it still exist, or no? I have a book titled "2009 travelers guide to the firearm laws of the fifty states" by Scott kappas. in the back of this book there is a state by syate list of states that recognize permits from other states. Is this now irrelivent??
I dont get it, If this diddnt change anything then what did it do? it seems like a big dealhercprsound wrote:Ok does anybody understand what will happen to the reciprocity and recognition that we had? does it still exist, or no? I have a book titled "2009 travelers guide to the firearm laws of the fifty states" by Scott kappas. in the back of this book there is a state by syate list of states that recognize permits from other states. Is this now irrelivent??
Nothing passed, therefore nothing changes.
Welcome to OCDO Hercprsound. Please add your location under your username. Go to My Account and then to Profile.
I'd like to know what the gov of new york said.if you think thats bad, you should hear what the gov? of new york had to say about us.:shock:
SNIP
I dont get it, If this diddnt change anything then what did it do? it seems like a big deal
To me, the issue isn't about safety or crime blah blah blah. We all know that's a bunch of horse crap anyway.
No... for me, the issue is State's rights. Call me crazy, but I'll support voluntary reciprocity, but not federally-mandated recognition of another State's CPL laws.
Until carrying concealed is recognized as a Constitutional RIGHT, then States have the liberty of requiring permission to conceal. It violates a State's rights when another State is allowed to grant permission for folks to carry within their borders.
For the record, I believe that "keeping and bearing arms" is NOT limited to "visible arms". Keeping and bearing can be concealed, as well. Since the Constitution does not specifically forbid it, then it is our right. However, States have found a way to turn that right into a privilege. We have to fight one battle at a time... and winning a victory that violates State rights in order to proliferate a privilege that SHOULD be a right is really not any sort of victory. It simply further degrades the Constitution.
This bill should never have been introduced. No State has the right to dictate how another State regulates it's privileges. A REAL bill would seek to declare, on a FEDERAL level, that concealed carry is Constitutionally protected... this way no State can label it as a privilege, and therefore avert these inter-State squabbles.
My two cents... you can keep the change.
Yeah I sort of failed to make the distinction there: RTKBA should apply to ANY manner of carrying, concealed or open.I agree 100%... only changing "concealed carry" to both cc AND Open Carry... but still, would be the best way to move beyond the bs...