• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

The National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act Of 2011

Gunslinger

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2008
Messages
3,853
Location
Free, Colorado, USA
This could very well pass this year. It is a slam dunk in the House, and 60 senators are A or better rated by the NRA. It needs to be veto proof, however, with the anti-liberty pos in the "white" house.
 

xmanhockey7

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2010
Messages
1,195
As much as I think everyone who can legally carry a firearm should be allowed to in all 50 states I have one problem with this bill. It says any state that doesn't have concealed carry you cannot carry in. The problem I see with this is would be states like New York, New Jersey, Hawaii, etc... getting rid of their permitting system and not only would out-of-state carries not be able to carry there but neither would the people who actually live there.
 

RetiredOC

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Dec 21, 2009
Messages
1,561
I understand that this impedes on the states rights to make decisions for themselves. I also understand the that 2nd Amendment has been hijacked by the states (most of them). So we are fighting something unconstitutional with something unconstitutional and it just happens to work out in our favor...sort of... whatever, I'm down. The constitution doesn't exist anymore in this country so this is better than what we have right now.
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
As long as there is no hidden "gotchas" in the bill, great! But I will not be happy until the SCOTUS affirms every citizens right to own and openly carry arms without restrictions.
 

Gunslinger

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2008
Messages
3,853
Location
Free, Colorado, USA
As much as I think everyone who can legally carry a firearm should be allowed to in all 50 states I have one problem with this bill. It says any state that doesn't have concealed carry you cannot carry in. The problem I see with this is would be states like New York, New Jersey, Hawaii, etc... getting rid of their permitting system and not only would out-of-state carries not be able to carry there but neither would the people who actually live there.

Only IL is excluded under the text. Ex post facto action to subvert the law could very well be overturned in Federal Court, and I think it unlikely. Your point about residents in the slave states is a good one. Saying only non-residents' home state CCWs would be honored keeps the subjects from getting an out of state, non-res.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
Sincerely do NOT like this bill and do not think it will get approval in the Senate.

This is the proverbial camel's nose beneath the tent where the federal government is concerned in the RKBA. If it became law, rest assured it will be modified by congress at a later date, changed by the alphabet agencies et al and we will end up the losers.

See this as infringement on States Rights and not a genuine act to help us. We do not have federal driving licenses issued to each and every legal driver - why forced recognition with onerous exceptions?

For my money, stay with reciprocity and the court systems to straighten out the inequities.
 

Maine CWP Training

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2010
Messages
463
Location
Harrison
Grapeshot~
See this as infringement on States Rights

H.R. 822, introduced in the U.S. House by Representatives Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.) and Heath Shuler (D-N.C.), would allow any person with a valid state-issued concealed firearm permit to carry a concealed firearm in any state that issues concealed firearm permits, or that does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms for lawful purposes. A state`s laws governing where concealed firearms may be carried would apply within its borders.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
Grapeshot~

H.R. 822, introduced in the U.S. House by Representatives Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.) and Heath Shuler (D-N.C.), would allow any person with a valid state-issued concealed firearm permit to carry a concealed firearm in any state that issues concealed firearm permits, or that does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms for lawful purposes. A state`s laws governing where concealed firearms may be carried would apply within its borders.

Most definitely see this as an infringement on Sates Rights!

The federal government would be telling the states what to accept or not within their borders. This time around the standard would seem to be innocuous, the next modification/change to such a federal law may be onerous - what then? Can you unring the bell giving the feds that power?
 

Jared

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2006
Messages
892
Location
Michigan, USA
Most definitely see this as an infringement on Sates Rights!

The federal government would be telling the states what to accept or not within their borders. This time around the standard would seem to be innocuous, the next modification/change to such a federal law may be onerous - what then? Can you unring the bell giving the feds that power?

The 10th Amendment reads

that powers not granted to the federal government nor prohibited to the states by the Constitution are reserved, respectively, to the states or the people.

Wouldn't the second amendment prohibit the states from using the state's rights argument to nullify the 2nd amendment as well as the 14th amendment?

Also, for the sake of being intellectual honesty....please answer the question below.

Shouldn't FOPA be repealed since it's an infringement on "state's rights" by your logic.? Shouldn't New York be allowed to throw you in a cage for years for transporting a handgun through New York on your way to Maine? After all, New York should be allowed to completely prohibit you from touching or transporting a handgun through the state, but that pesky Firearms Ownership Protection Act blocks that. By your logic, FOPA is a infringement on state's rights.

That would be a classic state's rights argument. There is plenty of evidence that gun owners are their own worst enemy.
 

xmanhockey7

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2010
Messages
1,195
This def does not violate the 10th, mainly because of the interstate commerce clause. And looking at the fact the constitutional rights apply to all states (even though all of them violate it in one way or another). As long as states like New York and New Jersey keep their current CC systems or improve on them for citizens I will be in favor of this bill.
 

MR Redenck

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2010
Messages
596
Location
West Texas
This will become more useless crap that doesnt address the real problem.
Get me a bill that enforces " Shall not be infringed" and I will support it.
Am I the only one who is tired of all this beating around the bushes?
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
The 10th Amendment reads

that powers not granted to the federal government nor prohibited to the states by the Constitution are reserved, respectively, to the states or the people.

Wouldn't the second amendment prohibit the states from using the state's rights argument to nullify the 2nd amendment as well as the 14th amendment?
No, not at all
. The 2A guarantees the right, but NOT how it may be exercised. If a state allows OC, then they may exercise control of CC.

Also, for the sake of being intellectual honesty....please answer the question below.

Shouldn't FOPA be repealed since it's an infringement on "state's rights" by your logic.? Shouldn't New York be allowed to throw you in a cage for years for transporting a handgun through New York on your way to Maine? After all, New York should be allowed to completely prohibit you from touching or transporting a handgun through the state, but that pesky Firearms Ownership Protection Act blocks that. By your logic, FOPA is a infringement on state's rights.
Again, not so. FOPA allows one to transport "through" (not disturbing state rights to control how you carry "in" their state) but offers no protection if you stop off to see your grandmother.

That would be a classic state's rights argument. There is plenty of evidence that gun owners are their own worst enemy.

See embedded replies in blue above.

Think that there is considerably more evidence that the federal government is our worst enemy with regard to our rights. I mean really! They are "here to help us" with our 2A rights - Gee now I feel all warm and fuzzy. An example of federal restrictions comes into play when a felon applies to have his rights reinstated by his state, which he may get, but the feds will NOT do so.

What is the problem with voluntary reciprocity between the states and letting the judicial system handle those that deny us our basic rights? There has been a steadily growing list of successful agreements and successful court wins - why do we now need the federal govt to solve this diminishing problem? What do we gain and what potential is there for loss? Surely you can see that the camel's hind parts will follow it's nose.

I fully understand the frustration with not being able to maximize the number of states in which we can carry. Point of fact, this proposed legislation does not grant that "privilege" in all 50 states so even there the issue of states rights is recognized, even if obliquely so.

You want a good federal law - pass Constitutional Carry, make it the law of the land. States rights would still be the battle ground leaving it to the judicial system to resolve.
 
Top