Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 42

Thread: bill for nation wide CCW recip

  1. #1
    Regular Member JoeGlock40's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    tucson/marana , az
    Posts
    119

    bill for nation wide CCW recip

    http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Fe...d.aspx?id=6573


    Urge Your Representative To Cosponsor H.R. 822, The National Right to Carry Reciprocity Act Of 2011

    Friday, April 08, 2011

    Congressmen Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.) and Heath Shuler (D-N.C.) have introduced vital legislation that will enable millions of permit holders to exercise their right to self-defense while traveling outside their home states.

    There are now only two states that have no clear legal way for individuals to carry concealed firearms for self-defense. Thirty-nine states have shall-issue permit systems that make it possible for any law-abiding person to obtain a permit, while most of the others have discretionary permit systems.

    H.R. 822 would make a major step forward for gun owners’ rights by significantly expanding where those permits are recognized.

    Dozens of states have passed carry laws over the past 25 years because the right to self-defense does not end when one leaves home. However, interstate recognition of those permits is not uniform and creates great confusion and potential problems for the traveler. While many states have broad reciprocity, others have very restrictive reciprocity laws. Still others deny recognition completely.

    H.R. 822 would solve this problem by requiring that lawfully issued carry permits be recognized, while protecting the ability of the various states to determine the areas where carrying is prohibited. The bill 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 similar legislation since 1995.

    In the few weeks since its introduction, H.R. 822 has added 214 cosponsors. Click here to see if your Congressman is a cosponsor. However, more support is needed to make this bill a higher priority.

    If your Congressman is not yet a cosponsor, respectfully urge him or her to support the fundamental right to self-defense by becoming a cosponsor of H.R. 822. If your Representative is already a cosponsor, please offer your thanks for his or her support. And remember to watch this alert for updates!

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Urge your representatives to vote against this anti-Liberty bill.

    1. It promotes licensing carry. Rights should not be licensed.

    2. It defeats federalism. Our nation is founded on the idea that divided power helps keep government from concentrating too much power in one place, making the removal of Liberties easier. Power is divided both horizontally and vertically, with the intent that most power be closest to the People and farthest from the central government.

    3. If the feds define how the States must allow carry, they will have the power to define how the States may (or must) disallow it.

    4. States will be motivated to further restrict what licensees may do since they will have lost control over who is licensed.

    This bill is a wolf in sheep's clothing. Vote it down.

    The proper fix is to ensure that everyone in every State who may legally possess a firearm may carry it in some form without a State-issued permission slip. This is best handled on a State-by-State basis, by correcting legislation. In AL, we have HB582 before the legislature that, among other things, will remove the need for a license to carry in a vehicle and remove the ban on carry at a demonstration. Once this is done, carry (specifically OC) will be possible in AL without a license.

    Secondarily, the courts will be a good resource for the removing laws that prevent unlicensed carry. After McDonald, I see the natural progression of rulings moving towards all States having some form of unlicensed carry, obviating the need for any kind of reciprocity.

    Federal laws may appear to be a good solution, but they are actually a consolidation of power over the right to carry by the feds.

    NO!

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,797
    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...nt-slap-in-the

    Read that thread to better understand why a bunch of people don't support the law in it's current form.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    KC
    Posts
    1,012
    Quote Originally Posted by Aknazer View Post
    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...nt-slap-in-the

    Read that thread to better understand why a bunch of people don't support the law in it's current form.
    You are confusing two bills:

    National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011 (Introduced in House - IH)

    and

    Common Sense Concealed Firearms Permit Act of 2011 (Introduced in Senate - IS)

    The first is a bill to make CC licenses reciprocal across the US.

    The second is a CC license grab from Barbara Boxer. it's presented as making a common set of requirements for a CC license for all states. The concern with that is that it requires you have a "good cause" for a permit. It doesn't define "good cause" and I'm betting that "because it's my right" won't be one of them.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,797
    Quote Originally Posted by kcgunfan View Post
    You are confusing two bills:

    National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011 (Introduced in House - IH)

    and

    Common Sense Concealed Firearms Permit Act of 2011 (Introduced in Senate - IS)

    The first is a bill to make CC licenses reciprocal across the US.

    The second is a CC license grab from Barbara Boxer. it's presented as making a common set of requirements for a CC license for all states. The concern with that is that it requires you have a "good cause" for a permit. It doesn't define "good cause" and I'm betting that "because it's my right" won't be one of them.
    Ahh, I didn't realize that they were two different bills since the actual bill numbers weren't listed in the other thread.
    Last edited by Aknazer; 05-26-2011 at 03:31 PM.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Dreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Grennsboro NC
    Posts
    5,358
    I will be contacting Rep Schuler (I live in NC) today to offer my testimony in support of this bill in Congressional Hearings, much like I have done in MD for similar bills in the past.
    It is our cause to dispel the foggy thinking which avoids hard decisions in the delusion that a world of conflict will somehow mysteriously resolve itself into a world of harmony, if we just don't rock the boat or irritate the forces of aggression—and this is hogwash."
    --Barry Goldwater, 1964

  7. #7
    Regular Member Dreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Grennsboro NC
    Posts
    5,358
    Quote Originally Posted by kcgunfan View Post
    The second is a CC license grab from Barbara Boxer. it's presented as making a common set of requirements for a CC license for all states. The concern with that is that it requires you have a "good cause" for a permit. It doesn't define "good cause" and I'm betting that "because it's my right" won't be one of them.

    Knowing the way Boxer and her cronies think, "good cause" will essentially come down to a "WWW requirement", like they currently have in states like NY, NJ, MD, and CA...

    Wealthy, White, and Well-connected...
    It is our cause to dispel the foggy thinking which avoids hard decisions in the delusion that a world of conflict will somehow mysteriously resolve itself into a world of harmony, if we just don't rock the boat or irritate the forces of aggression—and this is hogwash."
    --Barry Goldwater, 1964

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    KC
    Posts
    1,012
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreamer View Post
    I will be contacting Rep Schuler (I live in NC) today to offer my testimony in support of this bill in Congressional Hearings, much like I have done in MD for similar bills in the past.
    I can't decide on this one. Eye has some good points, but I'm afraid some of them are more hypothetical than not. Then again, it would be fun to be able to CC in NY, NJ, IL, and CA just because I can.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    CONUS
    Posts
    83
    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill...?bill=h112-822

    full bill text. Im going to support this one. as far as i can tell all it does is say that the 48 states that issue licenses must accept any other CCP from any other state.
    If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun. - Dalai Lama (Seattle Times, 05-15-2001).

    Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action. - George Washington

  10. #10
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Urge your representatives to vote against this anti-Liberty bill.

    1. It promotes licensing carry. Rights should not be licensed.

    2. It defeats federalism. Our nation is founded on the idea that divided power helps keep government from concentrating too much power in one place, making the removal of Liberties easier. Power is divided both horizontally and vertically, with the intent that most power be closest to the People and farthest from the central government.

    3. If the feds define how the States must allow carry, they will have the power to define how the States may (or must) disallow it.

    4. States will be motivated to further restrict what licensees may do since they will have lost control over who is licensed.

    This bill is a wolf in sheep's clothing. Vote it down.

    The proper fix is to ensure that everyone in every State who may legally possess a firearm may carry it in some form without a State-issued permission slip. This is best handled on a State-by-State basis, by correcting legislation. In AL, we have HB582 before the legislature that, among other things, will remove the need for a license to carry in a vehicle and remove the ban on carry at a demonstration. Once this is done, carry (specifically OC) will be possible in AL without a license.

    Secondarily, the courts will be a good resource for the removing laws that prevent unlicensed carry. After McDonald, I see the natural progression of rulings moving towards all States having some form of unlicensed carry, obviating the need for any kind of reciprocity.

    Federal laws may appear to be a good solution, but they are actually a consolidation of power over the right to carry by the feds.

    NO!
    +10

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by Aknazer View Post
    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...nt-slap-in-the

    Read that thread to better understand why a bunch of people don't support the law in it's current form.
    Both bills have essentially the same flaw: The federal government is usurping State authority and codifying the need for a license at the federal level. This promotes licensure and works against carry without a governmental permission slip.

    The fix is to, on a State-by-State basis, change laws that prevent unlicensed carry either through the legislature or, by arguing that licenses violate the spirit of McDonald by infringing on the individual right to carry, through the courts.

    Once all 50 States and DC have some form of unlicensed carry, then reciprocity, national or otherwise, (or national licensing standards) becomes moot.

  12. #12
    Regular Member Jack House's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    I80, USA
    Posts
    2,661
    Quote Originally Posted by kcgunfan View Post
    I can't decide on this one. Eye has some good points, but I'm afraid some of them are more hypothetical than not. Then again, it would be fun to be able to CC in NY, NJ, IL, and CA just because I can.
    The sticking point he made for me is that it promotes licensed carry over unlicensed carry. Which I would eventually like to see unlicensed carry. The Texas CHL for example is a massive hurdle to constitutional carry in Texas and even licensed OC. I think his other points are more than hypotheticals. Someone compared it to driver licenses earlier. Well does not the fed regulate various aspects of the driver's licensing in the states?

    On the flipside, Texas might still be anti-carry today if not for the license compromise. And there have been amendments loosening the restrictions on the CHL since it went into effect.

    So in the one hand, it could bite us in the ass. But in the other, it could be the small step we need. *shrugs*

  13. #13
    Regular Member Alexcabbie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Alexandria, Virginia, United States
    Posts
    2,290
    Quote Originally Posted by kcgunfan View Post
    You are confusing two bills:

    National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011 (Introduced in House - IH)

    and

    Common Sense Concealed Firearms Permit Act of 2011 (Introduced in Senate - IS)

    The first is a bill to make CC licenses reciprocal across the US.

    The second is a CC license grab from Barbara Boxer. it's presented as making a common set of requirements for a CC license for all states. The concern with that is that it requires you have a "good cause" for a permit. It doesn't define "good cause" and I'm betting that "because it's my right" won't be one of them.

    Any firearms legislation containing the phrase "common sense" in the title, the text, or even being used in the debate, is all but guaranteed to be anti-RTKBA. That phrase stiicks out like an SS uniform at a briss.

  14. #14
    Regular Member Bobarino's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Puyallup, Washington, USA
    Posts
    295
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Urge your representatives to vote against this anti-Liberty bill.

    1. It promotes licensing carry. Rights should not be licensed.

    2. It defeats federalism. Our nation is founded on the idea that divided power helps keep government from concentrating too much power in one place, making the removal of Liberties easier. Power is divided both horizontally and vertically, with the intent that most power be closest to the People and farthest from the central government.

    3. If the feds define how the States must allow carry, they will have the power to define how the States may (or must) disallow it.

    4. States will be motivated to further restrict what licensees may do since they will have lost control over who is licensed.

    This bill is a wolf in sheep's clothing. Vote it down.

    The proper fix is to ensure that everyone in every State who may legally possess a firearm may carry it in some form without a State-issued permission slip. This is best handled on a State-by-State basis, by correcting legislation. In AL, we have HB582 before the legislature that, among other things, will remove the need for a license to carry in a vehicle and remove the ban on carry at a demonstration. Once this is done, carry (specifically OC) will be possible in AL without a license.

    Secondarily, the courts will be a good resource for the removing laws that prevent unlicensed carry. After McDonald, I see the natural progression of rulings moving towards all States having some form of unlicensed carry, obviating the need for any kind of reciprocity.

    Federal laws may appear to be a good solution, but they are actually a consolidation of power over the right to carry by the feds.

    NO!
    People keep hollering about the state's rights issue and such with regards to this but let's quash that right now shall we?

    Article VI, section II

    This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
    Constitution is the supreme law of the land: Check.

    Amendment X:

    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
    Powers of the federal gov't not outlined in the Constitution are left to the states or the People: Check.

    Is the right to keep and bear arms outlined in the Constitution? Let's check.

    Amendment II:

    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
    The right to keep and bear arms IS outline in the Constitution: Check.

    States have infringed on the right to keep and bear arms: Check

    Powers of the states to infringe upon the right keep and bear arms should be removed by virtue of the 2nd Amendment, 10th Amendment and Article 6, Section 2 of the United States Constitution:

    CHECK
    Last edited by Bobarino; 05-27-2011 at 03:03 PM.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    KC
    Posts
    1,012
    To be honest, I don't know what the federal government can do to void the state laws that go against the 2A. A federal court would have to void the law, and that would require judges to support the voiding of the law. And we all know that judges aren't necessarily concerned with strictly interpreting the Constitution. I would have to leave that to other people to reason out.

    Meanwhile, this bill would mean (assuming it passes and the President signs it, which I have significant doubt of), that I can CC in a lot more states than before. And I can possibly OC in more states than before. Is that everything I want? It's not even close. Is that better than nothing? I would say yes. Simply because I can CC in 38/50 states today, and 48/50 states when this goes into effect.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    87
    Quote Originally Posted by Bobarino View Post
    People keep hollering about the state's rights issue and such with regards to this but let's quash that right now shall we?

    Article VI, section II



    Constitution is the supreme law of the land: Check.

    Amendment X:



    Powers of the federal gov't not outlined in the Constitution are left to the states or the People: Check.

    Is the right to keep and bear arms outlined in the Constitution? Let's check.

    Amendment II:



    The right to keep and bear arms IS outline in the Constitution: Check.

    States have infringed on the right to keep and bear arms: Check

    Powers of the states to infringe upon the right keep and bear arms should be removed by virtue of the 2nd Amendment, 10th Amendment and Article 6, Section 2 of the United States Constitution:

    CHECK
    I once would have supported this law. Not today.

    Please understand, as it is now, the feds have no authority under the Constitution to regulate this. This is not interstate commerce. This is people moving freely from one state to another. That they may carry a firearm is incidental to why they may be traveling, therefore the feds have no power to regulate. Passing either of these bills gives them that power, then how in heavens do we keep them from expanding it. Look at where passage of NFA '34 and GCA of '68 have taken us and ask yourself if we really want the feds to have any say in how we carry our arms. Law should be studied not for the good it can do but for the harm it can do. If we want to have national reciprocity, then the best method is to encourage each state to pass such a law, but I'm not sure that even that is nessicary. (though reality could make it so)

    I would interpret the 2nd to mean that the feds have no voice in the matter, and neither do the states. Shall not be infringed means shall not be infringed. It doesn't mean we can carry with permission. It means the government has no permission to give. Since the 2nd has been incorporated against the states, "Shall not be infringed" is the law of the land and that is what we should focus our efforts on, not giving our power away peicemeal. That approach has led us to where we are today.

  17. #17
    Regular Member Bobarino's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Puyallup, Washington, USA
    Posts
    295
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnH View Post
    I once would have supported this law. Not today.

    Please understand, as it is now, the feds have no authority under the Constitution to regulate this. This is not interstate commerce. This is people moving freely from one state to another. That they may carry a firearm is incidental to why they may be traveling, therefore the feds have no power to regulate. Passing either of these bills gives them that power, then how in heavens do we keep them from expanding it. Look at where passage of NFA '34 and GCA of '68 have taken us and ask yourself if we really want the feds to have any say in how we carry our arms. Law should be studied not for the good it can do but for the harm it can do. If we want to have national reciprocity, then the best method is to encourage each state to pass such a law, but I'm not sure that even that is nessicary. (though reality could make it so)

    I would interpret the 2nd to mean that the feds have no voice in the matter, and neither do the states. Shall not be infringed means shall not be infringed. It doesn't mean we can carry with permission. It means the government has no permission to give. Since the 2nd has been incorporated against the states, "Shall not be infringed" is the law of the land and that is what we should focus our efforts on, not giving our power away peicemeal. That approach has led us to where we are today.

    This is a very good argument for not passing these bills. I do understand your point of view, but in this case, my own personal opinion is that it is a step in the right direction of repealing state imposed restrictions. I think we will probably not see real, significant progress on this until the SCOTUS takes up the "bear" part of the 2A and incorporates it ala Heller and McDonald. In the mean time though, I do support being able to carry my gun in more places/states. I think it will be a long process but improvements along that road are welcomed by me. I'm sure we'll see the "bear" part of the 2A in the courts before too long. At least I hope we do before the makeup of the court changes.
    Last edited by Bobarino; 05-27-2011 at 03:23 PM.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Northwest Kent County, Michigan
    Posts
    757
    Post McDonald, no State has the authority to trample on the right to carry period and Congress may very well not have the authority to force the States to stop infringing our rights, but . . .

    . . . having said that (now listen up folks!), the anti-gunners will surely file suit to get national concealed carry reciprocity overturned on - you have to love this - State Rights grounds!

    How ironic, and for once the long dormant States Rights arguement just might win! None of the liberal justices would dare uphold national concealed carry and you would only need one States Rights supporter on the conservative side.

    Let it happen, let this bill pass, sit back, crab some popcorn, and enjoy the liberal hissy-fit!

    In the few years that it would take for the liberal-funded lawsuit to work it way up to the Supreme Court, we'll have accumulated all that much more evidence that armed citizens are law-abiding and safe!

    I only see a win-win for gun-owners and a huge WIN for States Rights!

  19. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    The mistake you make, Bobarino, is in your assumption that this law protects the right in the 2A. It does not. It "protects" your privilege to be licensed*. I hope you don't confuse that with the RKBA.

    *Actually, it doesn't even do this. States will be motivated to put all kinds of restrictions on what license-holders can do (or outlaw the once licensed behavior altogether) since they can no longer control who is licensed.

    How hard is this? The right is to carry without a license. This law has nothing to do with the RKBA.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    America
    Posts
    2,226
    I'll be writing to oppose this bill. It is an attempt at a wolf in sheep's clothing. Protecting a right that shall not be infringed is not promoting the issuance and need for permits to exercise a form of that right. Especially since it is only for the CC of pistols, that reduces the 2nd to a VERY limited privilege. I see no reason to force states that want to violate people's rights to recognize visitors privileges. If you don't like being stripped of any mode of carry, vote with your feet and refuse to stop in such states. Most states already have reciprocity. Also, I don't like the idea of the Feds saying which permits are ok to use in reciprocity. Sure some states have harsh requirements, but this bill would negatively affect my permit. Also, it is one of the few areas left that the feds are not involved, they screw everything up they touch, lets keep them away from our rights and privileges associated with carrying a firearm or other weapon.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Northwest Kent County, Michigan
    Posts
    757
    [QUOTE=Daylen;1542514]. . . I don't like the idea of the Feds saying which permits are ok to use in reciprocity./QUOTE]

    Not to nitpick, but I don't recall the bill version that I read (HR 822) doing any such thing. ALL concealed carry permits issued by ANY State satisfies the requirement for reciprocity purposes (so long as you aren't carrying in your home state - if you are then you need your home State's permit, if any).
    Last edited by OC4me; 05-30-2011 at 03:54 PM.

  22. #22
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Once it is accepted that the feds have the authority to force States to accept other States' licenses, the complaint will be raised that some States require a background check, while others do not. A law will soon be passed that only licenses from States that do background checks will be valid in other such States. More will follow. A structure of what is and is not an acceptable license and what States must do will follow. We will end up with a national licensing scheme. Mark my words.

    This development is not good. It will not promote Liberty. It will promote federal government control over the act of carry.

    I cannot say this often enough. The solution to not being able to carry in every State is to create unlicensed carry in every State. Laws that support licensing promote licensing. And licensing is antithetical to the exercise of a right.

  23. #23
    Regular Member parker64's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Southwest Ohio
    Posts
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Once it is accepted that the feds have the authority to force States to accept other States' licenses, the complaint will be raised that some States require a background check, while others do not. A law will soon be passed that only licenses from States that do background checks will be valid in other such States. More will follow. A structure of what is and is not an acceptable license and what States must do will follow. We will end up with a national licensing scheme. Mark my words.

    This development is not good. It will not promote Liberty. It will promote federal government control over the act of carry.

    I cannot say this often enough. The solution to not being able to carry in every State is to create unlicensed carry in every State. Laws that support licensing promote licensing. And licensing is antithetical to the exercise of a right.
    x2

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    CONUS
    Posts
    83
    OK you all have me convinced. Stance change initiate.....complete. while certainly it would be good to be able to carry in 48 states unrestricted, I am a much bigger believer in states rights and now see the logic in the opposition. i should have seen it earlier. Ill have to find time to write to oppose this bill as well. anybody know when it goes to vote?

    hopefully, more and more states will follow Arizona, alaska and Montana. those three states alone should begin to provide significant evidence of the logicality of Constitutional carry.
    If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun. - Dalai Lama (Seattle Times, 05-15-2001).

    Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action. - George Washington

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    America
    Posts
    2,226
    Quote Originally Posted by Bobarino View Post
    People keep hollering about the state's rights issue and such with regards to this but let's quash that right now shall we?

    Article VI, section II



    Constitution is the supreme law of the land: Check.

    Amendment X:



    Powers of the federal gov't not outlined in the Constitution are left to the states or the People: Check.

    Is the right to keep and bear arms outlined in the Constitution? Let's check.

    Amendment II:



    The right to keep and bear arms IS outline in the Constitution: Check.

    States have infringed on the right to keep and bear arms: Check

    Powers of the states to infringe upon the right keep and bear arms should be removed by virtue of the 2nd Amendment, 10th Amendment and Article 6, Section 2 of the United States Constitution:

    CHECK
    The law is not about protecting the right to keep and bear arms. It is about licensing a privilege. Notice it only mentions arms that have traveled in interstate commerce. If the law outlawed the licensing and permitting of keeping or carrying arms and outlawed prohibiting such activity, that would be within Congress' powers and I would support such a law. I dread the thought of carrying becoming like driving were it comes to licenses for such would be tyranny and against the second amendment.

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
  •