Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 43

Thread: National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Bill Introduced In U.S. House

  1. #1
    Regular Member SlowDog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Redford, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    424

    National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Bill Introduced In U.S. House

    National Right-to-Carry
    Reciprocity Bill Introduced In U.S. House

    Click here to vote in this week's poll.

    Last week, H.R. 822, was introduced in the U.S. House by Representatives Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.) and Heath Schuler (D-N.C.). The measure would allow any person with a valid state-issued concealed carry permit to carry a concealed firearm in any state that issues concealed firearm permits, or that does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms. A state's laws governing where concealed firearms may be carried would apply within its borders. The bill also applies to Washington, D.C., Puerto Rico and U.S. territories.

    H.R. 822 would not create a federal licensing system. Rather, it would require the states to recognize each others' carry permits, just as they recognize drivers' licenses and carry permits held by armored car guards. Rep. Stearns has introduced such legislation since 1995.

    Please be sure to contact your U.S. Representative at (202) 225-3121 and urge him or her to cosponsor and support H.R. 822.
    Only two have offered their lives for you. A Soldier and Jesus....

  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran smellslikemichigan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Troy, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,321
    Fantastic!

    Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk
    "If it ain't loaded and cocked it don't shoot." - Rooster Cogburn
    http://www.graystatemovie.com/

  3. #3
    Regular Member TheQ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Lansing, Michigan
    Posts
    3,448
    Where do they get the constitutional authority to make such a law? If someone says: commerce clause, general welfare, or necessary and proper clause, I'll puke.

    I can see an interesting argument for involving 2A and 14A. I can also see an interesting argument against involving 10A.
    Call for a cop, call for an ambulance, and call for a pizza. See who shows up first.

    I am not a lawyer (merely an omnipotent member of a continuum). The contents of this post are not a substitute for sound legal advice from a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction.

    Comments and views stated in my post are my own and do not necessarily represent the views of Michigan Open Carry, Inc. unless stated otherwise in the post.

  4. #4
    Regular Member TheQ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Lansing, Michigan
    Posts
    3,448
    A better bill would be to amend 2A to make nation wide Constitutional carry, concealed or open, with no PFZs. That I could support.
    Call for a cop, call for an ambulance, and call for a pizza. See who shows up first.

    I am not a lawyer (merely an omnipotent member of a continuum). The contents of this post are not a substitute for sound legal advice from a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction.

    Comments and views stated in my post are my own and do not necessarily represent the views of Michigan Open Carry, Inc. unless stated otherwise in the post.

  5. #5
    Regular Member Generaldet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    President, CLSD, Inc., Oxford, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,073
    Quote Originally Posted by TheQ View Post
    Where do they get the constitutional authority to make such a law? If someone says: commerce clause, general welfare, or necessary and proper clause, I'll puke.

    I can see an interesting argument for involving 2A and 14A. I can also see an interesting argument against involving 10A.


    Excellent points. They don't have the authority. I'm all for gun rights but call it what it is, another power grab by the Federal Government.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Bikenut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,756
    Now comes a rant of a rant!!!

    This bill asking Congress to force all States to recognize each others concealed carry permits is a disgusting display of people toadying up to the powers that be and begging to begiven permission to have the privilege to carry a gun.

    I'm getting exceptionally annoyed with folks who think their 2nd Amendment right to bear arms is recognized by the government giving a permit (giving permission!) after the government is begged, paid, and decrees, who gets to bear... how they may bear... where they may bear... etc.. I've had many a conversation with folks who never asked themselves one simple question....

    "Why do I have to ask permission (be issued a permit) to exercise a right?"

    And now those same misguided folks think they are going to protect the right to bear arms by requiring all States to recognize permits?????

    If I, and you, have the right to bear arms why do we have to not only ask, meet requirements, accept restrictions, but also freaking PAY!, to.................. bear arms?????? That isn't a "right"... that is a begged for butt kissed to get and keep "privilege".

    Nay... this bill isn't any wonderful blow to protect the right to bear arms.... it is nothing but a bill to make carrying a gun "convenient" for those who have met the government's standards and have been "allowed" to carry a gun concealed.

    What is worse is these folks are thinking the government is the solution to having and protecting the right to bear arms!!!

    All of the above is an unasked for, unpaid for, possibly unwelcome, most likely unacceptable, opinion of mine.
    Gun control isn't about the gun at all.... for those who want gun control it is all about their own fragile egos, their own lack of self esteem, their own inner fears, and most importantly... their own desire to dominate others. And an openly carried gun is a slap in the face to all of those things.

  7. #7
    Activist Member hamaneggs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    warren, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,251

    Exclamation

    A bill has to be passed stating that citizens do not need permission to bear arms,so the government can understand.It's stupid to have to pass a law telling the government what they cannot do,but thats what it has come down to in the state of our government.THE INSANITY!Biblical prophesy points to "good becoming bad and bad becoming good"!The Truth once again is manifest!
    Today JESUS would tell me to sell my coat and buy two Springfield XD Compact 45acp's!

    NRA LIFER,GOA,MOC Inc.,CLSD,MCRGO,UAW! MOLON LABE!!

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    11
    Here is congresses authority on the matter:

    US Constitution:

    Article. IV.

    Section. 1.

    Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
    That being said, this law would be a farce if passed. There is nothing that prevents a given state from restricting concealed or open carry to an extreem, then charging a person with a felony for violating those local laws.

    Compare it to a drivers license. Your drivers license is honored in all 50 states and in DC. If state A issues them to 12 year olds, the rest of the states still have to homor them even if they think you shouldn't be able to drive till you are 21. If you can drive a jacked up supercharged hotrod in one state, you can take it to any other state and as long as it's licensed to your home state it's legal. you may get hassled, and may get ticketed for noise or unsafe features, but the vehicle isn't confiscated and you don't go to jail. If you disobey a traffic law (say yo make a U turn where not legal) you get a ticket and fine - no jail time, no felony.

    On the other hand, lets say that state A doesn't like people carrying wepon, but under this law they have to honor other states carry permits. They pass a state law that says it's a felony to carry a semi atuo. Or to carry hollow points. Or to carry anything loaded with more than 2 cartridges. Or to carry a loaded gun outside of your car. You, from state B, enter state a carrying under your license. You can still be charged with a felony for violating any of state A's rules. State A can literally regulate the practical application to the point that the federal law becomes meaningless.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    11
    Quote Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
    Now comes a rant of a rant!!!

    This bill asking Congress to force all States to recognize each others concealed carry permits is a disgusting display of people toadying up to the powers that be and begging to begiven permission to have the privilege to carry a gun.
    Actually, IMHO, it's not.

    It's a practical realisation that in our current society the Federal goverment and most state and local goverments do not recognize carrying a gun as a right. You and I may not like it, but that is not going to change overnight. And rant and rail though we might, most people (myself included) cannot afford to fight a felony charge especially when our defense is the exersise of a right the courts do not recongise.

    I'm getting exceptionally annoyed with folks who think their 2nd Amendment right to bear arms is recognized by the government giving a permit (giving permission!) after the government is begged, paid, and decrees, who gets to bear... how they may bear... where they may bear... etc.. I've had many a conversation with folks who never asked themselves one simple question....

    "Why do I have to ask permission (be issued a permit) to exercise a right?"

    And now those same misguided folks think they are going to protect the right to bear arms by requiring all States to recognize permits?????

    If I, and you, have the right to bear arms why do we have to not only ask, meet requirements, accept restrictions, but also freaking PAY!, to.................. bear arms?????? That isn't a "right"... that is a begged for butt kissed to get and keep "privilege".
    And your solutions is?????

    Maybe we should all strap on our guns and march up to the state capitols of those states that refuse to recognize the right to bear arms. They couldn't throw us all in prison .....right? ....right? <crickets chirping> ...right?

    It's sad to say but our fathers, grandfathers and greatgrandfathers scr##ed the pooch here. They took thier eye off the ball over the last 120 years and allowed our goverment to enact greater and greater restrictions on our rights. It is long past the time when we can just assert that these are rights and expect them to be honored. Ranting and wailing about it will not change it in the least. We are going to have to take them back one step (and one law) at a time.

    Personally, being albe to carry with a state issued license is one huge step better than being told you cannot carry at all. Forcing the state to issue those licenses is a step better still. Forcing all states to honor them is yet another improvement. One rule at a time we we gradually come back to the point where the state recognizes your right to carry arms (like Vermont and Alaska do).

    Nay... this bill isn't any wonderful blow to protect the right to bear arms.... it is nothing but a bill to make carrying a gun "convenient" for those who have met the government's standards and have been "allowed" to carry a gun concealed.
    So I take it that since it isn't perfect, it cannot be any good?
    Last edited by Quaamik; 02-26-2011 at 01:19 PM.

  10. #10
    Regular Member Bikenut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,756
    Quote Originally Posted by Quaamik View Post
    -snip-


    So I take it that since it isn't perfect, it cannot be any good?
    This bill that would make for national reciprocity of concealed carry permits is horrible because, while it may make it easier to carry across State lines, it further entrenches the idea that the right to bear arms is satisfied when States give permission to bear arms by issuing a permit.

    It further entrenches the idea that gun owners should shut up and be happy they can bear arms all over the whole country as long as they go get a permit for it.

    It further entrenches the idea that the government has the authority to require a permit to bear arms.

    Instead of furthering the right to bear arms this bill furthers the government controlled privilege to have a permit to bear arms.

    In the context of removing restrictions on the right to bear arms this bill lends legitimacy and acceptability to the restriction of a permit being needed to bear arms.

    Never forget... anything that permission has been granted for.... permission can also be denied or removed.

    I can hear it now... CC'ers will be screaming at OC'ers to stop rocking the boat or the national "right" (freakin' privilege dang it!) to carry concealed will be lost!!
    Gun control isn't about the gun at all.... for those who want gun control it is all about their own fragile egos, their own lack of self esteem, their own inner fears, and most importantly... their own desire to dominate others. And an openly carried gun is a slap in the face to all of those things.

  11. #11
    Regular Member RockerFor2A's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Lemon Grove, CA
    Posts
    145
    I have to agree with the sentiment that you need to take back the rights incrementally. Sometimes it's better to settle for *something* today, than demand all or nothing right now and get nothing.

    I got excited about this initially but then remembered that for this to become law, it would have to get pass in the democrat-controlled Senate, not to mention Obama would have to sign it into law and not veto. I can't see how this might have a prayer of passing.

  12. #12
    Regular Member Yooper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Houghton County, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    808
    Quote Originally Posted by RockerFor2A View Post
    I have to agree with the sentiment that you need to take back the rights incrementally. Sometimes it's better to settle for *something* today, than demand all or nothing right now and get nothing.

    I got excited about this initially but then remembered that for this to become law, it would have to get pass in the democrat-controlled Senate, not to mention Obama would have to sign it into law and not veto. I can't see how this might have a prayer of passing.
    Don't forget however, that when the anti's took Bush's policy of allowing concealed weapons into National Parks to court, and got the policy overturned, that we got a law passed stating that whatever is legal in the state that the park is in, is also legal in the park (OC, long guns, CC etc), which happened under a democrat controlled house, a democrat controlled senate (with a super majority), and it was signed into law by Obama. While the President hasn't changed, both houses are much more pro-gun, even though the senate is still in democrat control.
    Rand Paul 2016

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    11
    Quote Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
    ........... while it may make it easier to carry across State lines, it further entrenches the idea that the right to bear arms is satisfied when States give permission to bear arms by issuing a permit.

    It further entrenches the idea that gun owners should shut up and be happy they can bear arms all over the whole country as long as they go get a permit for it.

    It further entrenches the idea that the government has the authority to require a permit to bear arms.................
    That is true, but I fail to see another way.

    Our right to carry rests on the various local and state goverments, and the federal goverment, recognizing it. If they do, we can exersize it. If they don't, we exersize it under the threat that if discovered we will be put into prison. I don't like that system, but the only alternative is to reduce the scope and power of goverment to the point where it does not have the physical power to attempt to prohibit that carrying of arms. That is a monumental undertaking that I doubt either of us will see in our lifetimes.

    So, given that our right to bear arms is subject to goverment recognising it, the concept of the federal goverement forcing states to recognize it is a step in the right direction. The problem is that the federal geverment is supposed to be limited in what it can do. In this case, the following actions are all it can do:
    1) Do nothing and let states restrict or ban carry as they see fit.
    2) Pass a law that requires states to honor the licenses issued by other states (authorized under Article IV, section 1).
    3) Pass a law reinforceing that the 2nd amendment applies to the states as well AND over-riding the courts interpertation and stating that it gaurantees a right to carry arms.

    Number 3 is DOA. If passed, it would force California, Illinios, New York & Massechusetts, among others, to allow open and concealed carry without permits. Combined those states alone, not to mention the other 47 that refuse to allow carry without a permit, have more than enough votes to squash any legislation. Moreso, an attempt to pass it would harden them against ANY further erosion of gun control. Even if passed, a future congress could repeal it and the courts would still not support that there was any gaurantee of the right to bear arms.

    Number 1 is the staus quo. It is saying that we cannot win on the federal level, so we are restricting us to fighting state by state and hoping to win that way. How is that working in the states that won't even issue concealed carry permits? Do you really think retaining the right to carry an unloaded pistol openly in California is actually retaining any right at all? Do you see any hope to move California to allow open (or concealed) carry with no permitting process? How about Illinois? For the Chicago area, it's still an uphill battle to get people to be allowed to purchase handguns.

    Number 2 is what is left. We have made great strides in loosening restictions on carry state by state, but we are running into a wall within some states. A way to crak them is to force them to honor permits from other states. Granted, having to get a permit is a poor excuse for the right to carry. But there are far more people comfortable with that right now. And as people become more comfortable with carrying guns, they become more accepting of doing it without a permiting process. Just look here in Michigan:
    - 25 years ago it was almost impossible to get a concealed carry permit, and while open carry was allowed under state law, most cities prohibited it (and listed it as a felony).
    - 20 years ago we had just gotton the preemption law passed.
    - 15 years ago you would be hassled and harrassed if you excersized your right to open carry - to an extent that those who are newer to this issue have NEVER experianced (trust me, I was there). There were a couple of counties that functioned as "shall issue" (though legaly still may issue).
    - about 10 years ago we got statewide shall issue passed. Open carry, while legal, was still subject to extensive harrassment. it was estimated that in Macomb county (which was already acting under "shall issue") 1 in 70 adults had a CPL. Statewide it was considerably less.
    - In the last couple of years we have won enough acceptance of open carry that people doing so most often receive nothing more than a few polite looks. Many cities refuse to respond to "man with a gun" calls unless the caller can identify some threatening behavior. Statewide, it's estimated that 1 in 25 adults has a CPL.

    Personally, I think the wider issuing and acceptance of CPLs has helped to make the public more comfortable with carrying cuns in general and therfore more comfortable with open carry (without any permit).

  14. #14
    Regular Member xmanhockey7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Portage, MI
    Posts
    1,490
    Well I don't know about all of you but I carry my gun where I LEGALLY can. I don't agree with the permitting system process and what not but until I can legally carry without a permit I will only carry in states that legally allow it. To me the risk of getting a felony or other serious offense would effect my ability to get a job in the career I plan on going into. I do understand the "better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6" and I believe in it to a point. The part about this that concerns me would be may issue states turning into no carry states like Illinois. If I'm reading this bill correctly the state would have to have a permitting system already in place to be able to carry there so you still couldn't carry in Illinois.
    "No state shall convert a liberty to a privilege, license it, and charge a fee therefor.- Murdock vs Pennsylvania 319 US 105

    ...If the state converts a right into a privelege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right... with impunity.
    - Shuttleworth vs City of Birmingham, Alabama 317 US 262

    Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no legislation which would abrogate them.
    - Miranda vs Arizona 384 US 436

  15. #15
    Regular Member TheQ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Lansing, Michigan
    Posts
    3,448
    Quote Originally Posted by xmanhockey7 View Post
    If I'm reading this bill correctly the state would have to have a permitting system already in place to be able to carry there so you still couldn't carry in Illinois.
    But you could carry in the People's Republic of California.
    Call for a cop, call for an ambulance, and call for a pizza. See who shows up first.

    I am not a lawyer (merely an omnipotent member of a continuum). The contents of this post are not a substitute for sound legal advice from a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction.

    Comments and views stated in my post are my own and do not necessarily represent the views of Michigan Open Carry, Inc. unless stated otherwise in the post.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    11
    Quote Originally Posted by xmanhockey7 View Post
    Well I don't know about all of you but I carry my gun where I LEGALLY can. I don't agree with the permitting system process and what not but until I can legally carry without a permit I will only carry in states that legally allow it.
    Bing - we have a winner.

    Seriously, I'm guessing that most on this board do the same.


    The part about this that concerns me would be may issue states turning into no carry states like Illinois. If I'm reading this bill correctly the state would have to have a permitting system already in place to be able to carry there so you still couldn't carry in Illinois.
    That's part of the reason I said in an earlier post that this particulare law is a farce. National reciprocity isn't of any use if indivudal states can choose to ignore it. And forcing reciprocity on only those states that already have a permit process makes it that much harder to get a permit process in place in those that don't have one.

  17. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    Quote Originally Posted by RockerFor2A View Post
    I have to agree with the sentiment that you need to take back the rights incrementally. Sometimes it's better to settle for *something* today, than demand all or nothing right now and get nothing.
    And that's how Kali became as it is today.

  18. #18
    Regular Member TheQ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Lansing, Michigan
    Posts
    3,448
    Also, how DC comes into play here -- last I knew DC Police will try to arrest you if you look at a pistol...
    Call for a cop, call for an ambulance, and call for a pizza. See who shows up first.

    I am not a lawyer (merely an omnipotent member of a continuum). The contents of this post are not a substitute for sound legal advice from a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction.

    Comments and views stated in my post are my own and do not necessarily represent the views of Michigan Open Carry, Inc. unless stated otherwise in the post.

  19. #19
    Regular Member Sonora Rebel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Gone
    Posts
    3,958
    Quote Originally Posted by hamaneggs View Post
    A bill has to be passed stating that citizens do not need permission to bear arms,so the government can understand.It's stupid to have to pass a law telling the government what they cannot do,but thats what it has come down to in the state of our government.THE INSANITY!Biblical prophesy points to "good becoming bad and bad becoming good"!The Truth once again is manifest!
    That already happened in 1783. The right to bear arms has no caveats as to mode of carry... or even what. Arms... period. None was written 'cause none was intended. 'Shall not be infringed' is clear enough... but infringe they have, and do... and will continue if left unchecked and unchallenged.
    Last edited by Sonora Rebel; 02-26-2011 at 10:48 PM.

  20. #20
    Regular Member Michigander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mulligan's Valley
    Posts
    4,830
    I've got mixed feelings on it, but at the core of the issue I agree with many/most here that the feds lack the authority to issue such a law, and that it would at best still be encouraging continued state violations of the constitution.

    It would have its benefits, that's for sure. But I don't think it's a good idea to try to compromise. At the federal level alone, that's how we lost imported full autos, then all full autos, then for 10 years most guns we'd want for self defense, among oh so many other tyrannical measures of federal laws. To hell with compromise, and to hell with this bill.
    Answer every question about open carry in Michigan you ever had with one convenient and free book- http://libertyisforeveryone.com/open-carry-resources/

    The complete and utter truth can be challenged from every direction and it will always hold up. Accordingly there are few greater displays of illegitimacy than to attempt to impede free thought and communication.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    2,247
    Quote Originally Posted by Quaamik View Post
    Here is congresses authority on the matter:

    {snip}

    Compare it to a drivers license. Your drivers license is honored in all 50 states and in DC. If state A issues them to 12 year olds, the rest of the states still have to homor them even if they think you shouldn't be able to drive till you are 21. If you can drive a jacked up supercharged hotrod in one state, you can take it to any other state and as long as it's licensed to your home state it's legal. you may get hassled, and may get ticketed for noise or unsafe features, but the vehicle isn't confiscated and you don't go to jail. If you disobey a traffic law (say yo make a U turn where not legal) you get a ticket and fine - no jail time, no felony.

    {snip}
    Not correct at all on this. There are many differences between states on age and other requirements that apply. When you travel to another state you are then under the laws of that state and restrictions on driving including age apply. If a state requires you to be 21 to drive in that state it does not matter what kind of license you have from your home state you must be 21. Some states require all drivers to be 16 and other states allow drivers to be 15. Until you are 16 your license in no good in those other states.

    As for the hot rod analogy. Some states prohinit the frames around your license plate that cover portions of is such as dates or even the state. Even if your state does not have a law against those frames you can be charged in a state that does. State laws do not cross state lines and that includes cars and guns.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    pottsboro,texas
    Posts
    200
    welll I prefer constitutional carry , but if this goes thru , it maybe a step down a path that has future blessings like, putting a stop to the if you don't live here we will honor your permit but if you live here , your permit is not honored unless it is from here.and it just mite be used as a lever to national wide open carry (if we be patient and work it right ) and from there go for the total constitutional carry if we work this right by opening the eyes of the stubborn states to the thought that the peoples guns is not a state issue but is of interest by the people of the nation. and then at that time may be where we go for the next step of open carry. our campaine? could be increased safety ,awareness ,(not to mention politeness) and reduction in crime with states that allows open carry, all states must comply , then push for total national constitutional carry cause that is a right that the people of the nation insist on compliance from every state. really hate to say this but, if we can use the fed govt to make the states fall in line with the constitution , then lets not be hastey in ruling that avenue out..... one last thing to other comment you don't need permit to carry gun in california, they have open carry.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    11
    Quote Originally Posted by PT111 View Post
    Not correct at all on this. There are many differences between states on age and other requirements that apply. When you travel to another state you are then under the laws of that state and restrictions on driving including age apply. If a state requires you to be 21 to drive in that state it does not matter what kind of license you have from your home state you must be 21. Some states require all drivers to be 16 and other states allow drivers to be 15. Until you are 16 your license in no good in those other states.
    cite please.

    As far as I have been told and understood for many years now, if you have a drivers license issued in one state it MUST be honored in other states. If there is a difference in the age requirement for issuing a license that's tough, the state must still honor a DL issued to a resident of another state. The same thing applied to marrige licenses until the 'defense of marrige act'.

    As for the hot rod analogy. Some states prohinit the frames around your license plate that cover portions of is such as dates or even the state. Even if your state does not have a law against those frames you can be charged in a state that does.
    Yes you can be charged, but what are you "charged" with? A civil infraction. At most you get a hefty fine. Aside from a few actions that can get you heavier charges (drunk driving, reckless driving) you are issued a ticket, you pay it, then you are on your way.

    My point is to point out the difference between violating the various traffic laws (related to driving) verses violating the various idiocyncracies related to carry.
    With DL recognized in state you are visiting:
    - make a right turn on red in a state that it's not legal - fine, points on your license, then you go on your way
    With CPL recognized in state you are visiting:
    - carry into a public restroon in a state where puplic buildings are prohibited - felony charge, court costs, possibly years in prison, revocation of your CPL, prohibition on ever possessing a firearm again.

    As long as states (or localities) are allowed to both make thier own twists into the laws, and are allowed to prosecute them as felonies, carry between the states cannot really be considered reciprocal whether it's under a CPL or 'contitutional carry'.

    State laws do not cross state lines and that includes cars and guns.
    Wrong. The best use of a comparison between cars and guns is to show how differently they are treated under the law and regulations. Virtually nothing is the same.

    -Car:
    -----In many states license plates are required front and back. If you are from a state that doesn't require that, and you vist one that does, the police are highly unlikely to even stop you for that infraction. There may be an exemption for out of state vehicles (I don't honestly know) but I have never heard of anyone being stopped, let alone issued a ticket for it.
    -----Have parts on your car that are legal where you come from, yet not street legal in a state you are visiting. You will get a ticket, pay a fine and be on your way. If you sick around int he state and don't change it you may get another ticket (or several more).

    -Handgun:
    ------Some states require licensing. Bring your handgun from a state that does not require licensing to one that does, even while visiting, and unless you have a cpl the visited state honors you will get a delux tour of the state prison once said handgun is discovered.
    ------Carry a handgun with hollowpoints in your possession (not evenin the gun) into a state that prohibits hollowpoints. Even if you have a cpl that the visited state recognizes, you get to go to prison.
    Last edited by Quaamik; 02-27-2011 at 09:24 AM.

  24. #24
    Regular Member Generaldet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    President, CLSD, Inc., Oxford, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,073
    CPl's are unconstitutional to begin with. Although they think they do, States do not have the authority to create their own firearm laws. That power was given to the Federal Government by the States during the ratifying of the Constitution.

  25. #25
    Regular Member SlowDog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Redford, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    424
    OK....I will put my 2cents worth in since I started this.

    1: I am a huge supporter of states rights. I have read all the federalist papers and many of the diaries of the founding fathers to better understand the "meaning" of the constitution and bill of rights.

    I am also in the same mindset that we are dealing with the hand we were dealt because our predecessors didn't keep a mindful watch on our rights as they were stripped from us. So, as stated before anything as small as it may be that helps get us back to where we was in the beginning I am all for.
    I hear people complain about the NRA not fighting hard enough to get what we should already enjoy as rights guaranteed to us. Well, I don't see anyone else doing what they do as well as they do for as long as they been doing it and the NRA has gone toe to toe with all the big organizations trying to make us a NO GUN STATE....state as in Commie state for the PEOPLE.

    2: I travel all over the country and before they changed to a state run federally guide-lined rules and regs we had each state doing things differently and it costs us times & huge fines. There is still huge controversy about it....ie Kalifornia. I just don't go there. I now don't go to New Jersey because it's a felony to have hollow point ammo in NJ.
    With "National Reciprocity" what we would gain is a uniform regulation so one state ie NJ can't put a guy in prison for having a necklace made from a bullet <inert> because he had a hollow point bullet in the end of it. Kid didn't know....was traveling thru and a cop saw it. BANG...Felony conviction for something so stupid?

    3: The people who have passed the laws we are dealing with now have used what's called the "Supremacy Clause" to pass several laws against us. Well, if we can why not use it to stop people like Mayor Bloomberg and his ilk from spreading more fear & lies.

    Again, I am HUGE supporter of states rights but if they make the avenue we can use to take back more 2a rights across the country then I must support it.

    on a side note it came up last year and missed being passed by one vote. also, they believe they have enough to get passed the veto pen.

    ok...soap box closed....bash away
    Last edited by SlowDog; 02-27-2011 at 03:41 PM.
    Only two have offered their lives for you. A Soldier and Jesus....

Page 1 of 2 12 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
  •