Nationwide Recoprocity Bill

Aknazer · Sep 13, 2011

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...to-make-gun-permits-valid-across-state-lines/

I would need to see more info on the bill before I can truely comment on it. If it simply says that another state must honor the resident permits of other states I would be more inclined to support it (not saying that I would support it as it is still a rather touchy state's rights issue). If it tries to set up national standards for training and force it onto all states then I'll instantly be against it.

Even though I see this as a states rights issue, I also see it as a potential step towards repairing the 2A that has been chipped away over the years (something that isn't going to get fixed over night even if all of the violations are unconstitutional). Kind of like saying that a state may infringe upon it's own citizens rights, but may not infringe upon the rights of those out of state; which can make it easier for people in the state to fight for their rights down the road.

jimd_21 · Sep 13, 2011

Yup just posted a link to Facebook and the other forums i visit...... spread the word. Tell everyone to contact their legislatures.

fetch · Sep 13, 2011

No, No, No federal bill is needed!!

The 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.

We already have reciprocity, and it does NOT involve the federal government. Tell me where we need another layer of government.

mrjam2jab · Sep 13, 2011

Aknazer said:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...to-make-gun-permits-valid-across-state-lines/

I would need to see more info on the bill before I can truely comment on it. If it simply says that another state must honor the resident permits of other states I would be more inclined to support it (not saying that I would support it as it is still a rather touchy state's rights issue). If it tries to set up national standards for training and force it onto all states then I'll instantly be against it.

Even though I see this as a states rights issue, I also see it as a potential step towards repairing the 2A that has been chipped away over the years (something that isn't going to get fixed over night even if all of the violations are unconstitutional). Kind of like saying that a state may infringe upon it's own citizens rights, but may not infringe upon the rights of those out of state; which can make it easier for people in the state to fight for their rights down the road.

HR 822 It is what you want it to be...

Aknazer · Sep 13, 2011

Because sadly our government has gotten to a point where if there isn't a law for it then it it doesn't matter.

Jared · Sep 14, 2011

fetch said:
The 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.

We already have reciprocity, and it does NOT involve the federal government. Tell me where we need another layer of government.

Because the man with a gun on his hip (the cop in Hawaii, New York, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts) can care less about Article 4 Section 1. You can tell your lawyer and cell mate all about article 4 and everything else from what type of wig James Madison use to wear.

This bill will keep you out of jail.

Daylen · Sep 14, 2011

Jared said:
Because the man with a gun on his hip (the cop in Hawaii, New York, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts) can care less about Article 4 Section 1. You can tell your lawyer and cell mate all about article 4 and everything else from what type of wig James Madison use to wear.

This bill will keep you out of jail.

simply don't go to states that will do such things to your freedom.

On a side note I'd far more prefer the GFSZ law repealed by congress.

Jared · Sep 14, 2011

Daylen said:
simply don't go to states that will do such things to your freedom.

On a side note I'd far more prefer the GFSZ law repealed by congress.

I don't have that issue. I carry in all those states (don't rely on LEOSA either).

My point is that far too often, people whine about not being able to carry in those states but then they are the first ones to complain about the federal government stepping on states rights in order to promote the right to carry. It's ironic that people claim states rights when the same states are INFRINGING on your basic fundamental rights.

lockman · Sep 14, 2011

Aknazer said:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...to-make-gun-permits-valid-across-state-lines/

I would need to see more info on the bill before I can truely comment on it. If it simply says that another state must honor the resident permits of other states I would be more inclined to support it (not saying that I would support it as it is still a rather touchy state's rights issue). If it tries to set up national standards for training and force it onto all states then I'll instantly be against it.

Even though I see this as a states rights issue, I also see it as a potential step towards repairing the 2A that has been chipped away over the years (something that isn't going to get fixed over night even if all of the violations are unconstitutional). Kind of like saying that a state may infringe upon it's own citizens rights, but may not infringe upon the rights of those out of state; which can make it easier for people in the state to fight for their rights down the road.

States do not have rights, they exercise powers. A legitimate power of the state may be stripped from them to prevent violations of individuals fundamental or enumerated rights. The 14th Amendment, like it or not, has paved the way for the Federal power grab. In this instance though the feds are placing the power back to the people. Between the full faith and credit clause and the 14th Amendment this issue should pass the "states rights" hurdle.

Aknazer · Sep 14, 2011

lockman said:
States do not have rights, they exercise powers. A legitimate power of the state may be stripped from them to prevent violations of individuals fundamental or enumerated rights. The 14th Amendment, like it or not, has paved the way for the Federal power grab. In this instance though the feds are placing the power back to the people. Between the full faith and credit clause and the 14th Amendment this issue should pass the "states rights" hurdle.

Unless the feds come up with rules on what it takes to get a permit, at which point they are overstepping their power. The other side is that we might like the end result, but not the methods used to get there. You also have to realize that if they make this power grab it means that they can potentially be used against the citizens down the road. For example by forcing this down the throats it has the potential to kill constitutional carry, or the feds could potentially change what is required to get a permit down the line. And then what happens if they decide to "standardize" driver's licenses and add in a bunch of things that isn't currently required? You always have to look at how the law is expanding the fed's power and how that increased power can later be used against you.

wrightme · Sep 14, 2011

aknazer said:
unless the feds come up with rules on what it takes to get a permit, at which point they are overstepping their power. The other side is that we might like the end result, but not the methods used to get there. You also have to realize that if they make this power grab it means that they can potentially be used against the citizens down the road. For example by forcing this down the throats it has the potential to kill constitutional carry, or the feds could potentially change what is required to get a permit down the line. And then what happens if they decide to "standardize" driver's licenses and add in a bunch of things that isn't currently required? You always have to look at how the law is expanding the fed's power and how that increased power can later be used against you.

this.

Daylen · Sep 14, 2011

Jared said:
I don't have that issue. I carry in all those states (don't rely on LEOSA either).

My point is that far too often, people whine about not being able to carry in those states but then they are the first ones to complain about the federal government stepping on states rights in order to promote the right to carry. It's ironic that people claim states rights when the same states are INFRINGING on your basic fundamental rights.

Oh I'm not making an argument that the law would be illegal or unconstitutional or infringe upon the powers of the states. Clearly protecting the privilege of concealing and the right to carry a firearm are established with the 14th amendment. I simply don't think we need ANY new laws until or federal power expansion, even if it is helpful, until we eliminate some of the federal government. For me its an order of operations issue, subtract before adding when it comes to federal laws, regulations, and scope of power.

Beretta92FSLady · Sep 14, 2011

Daylen said:
Oh I'm not making an argument that the law would be illegal or unconstitutional or infringe upon the powers of the states. Clearly protecting the privilege of concealing and the right to carry a firearm are established with the 14th amendment. I simply don't think we need ANY new laws until or federal power expansion, even if it is helpful, until we eliminate some of the federal government. For me its an order of operations issue, subtract before adding when it comes to federal laws, regulations, and scope of power.

Ah, what a double-edged sword of a Federal Government we have here. A blessing, or a curse?

The Federal Government does, and should have the power to mandate certain issues. Yes, the Federal Government can be intrusive. but the sky is hardly falling.

Aknazer · Sep 14, 2011

Beretta92FSLady said:
Ah, what a double-edged sword of a Federal Government we have here. A blessing, or a curse?

The Federal Government does, and should have the power to mandate certain issues. Yes, the Federal Government can be intrusive. but the sky is hardly falling.

No one is saying that the sky is falling. We are saying that depending on the wording of the legislation they are overstepping their bounds and that while this legislation might seem good, it can have the effect of causing the "sky to fall" (using your words) down the line.

Beretta92FSLady · Sep 14, 2011

Aknazer said:
No one is saying that the sky is falling. We are saying that depending on the wording of the legislation they are overstepping their bounds and that while this legislation might seem good, it can have the effect of causing the "sky to fall" (using your words) down the line.

Not only the wording of the legislation, but the application of the legislation. Those are two completely different things. Some would wish the two too go hand-in-hand - wishful thinkers are so cute. One begets the other, but what it begets 'plays' out, simply. There is no 'set' lettering, and application. I am going to use the "I" word...INTERPRETATION.

Daylen · Sep 14, 2011

Not sure where the sky is falling part came from so I'll not address it.

Beretta92FSLady said:
Not only the wording of the legislation, but the application of the legislation. Those are two completely different things. Some would wish the two too go hand-in-hand - wishful thinkers are so cute. One begets the other, but what it begets 'plays' out, simply. There is no 'set' lettering, and application. I am going to use the "I" word...INTERPRETATION.

Yes I'd agree hence why I'd rather see laws taken away, its hard to apply laws that don't exist; not saying it doesn't happen, just that its harder.

Ruger · Sep 14, 2011

I have mixed feelings on this. Like many here, I am a strong supporter of states' rights & do not like watching the federal government grow in size or power. That being said, this is an issue that is near and dear to me. I'd love to be able to carry when I visit my wife's family in California. I'd love to not feel like I have to drive around the state of Maryland in the event that I am traveling to the north. It would be great to be able to visit Massachusetts or New York without having to disarm. It infuriates me that I can legally carry a concealed handgun throughout most of the country, yet if I happen to cross into one of a few states then I can be convicted of a felony, sentenced to a couple years in prison, and then lose my 2A rights for life. How can I, or anyone else, be legally "cleared" to carry a handgun throughout the overwhelming majority of states, and then be subject to such harsh penalties for doing the same thing in other states?

Part of me would love to see national reciprocity. The other part of me is concerned about letting the federal government get involved with this. Will they later decide to nationalize the permitting process? In order to achieve reciprocity will they cater to the standards of states like NV & NY, where you must have your specific firearm that you plan to conceal registered with authorities, being permitted to carry none other? I have little trust for the federal government, and I hesitate to trust that they have the common citizen's best interests in mind when it comes to anything having to do with guns on a national scale. Yeah, there are some great 2A supporters in Washington, but there are just as many who, based on their skewed view of the second amendment, would probably love to see mandatory registration, and later confiscation of handguns (after all, we can't be trusted, right?).

At any rate, it should be interesting to see how this plays out over time.

Daylen · Sep 15, 2011

Ruger said:
I have mixed feelings on this. Like many here, I am a strong supporter of states' rights & do not like watching the federal government grow in size or power. That being said, this is an issue that is near and dear to me. I'd love to be able to carry when I visit my wife's family in California. I'd love to not feel like I have to drive around the state of Maryland in the event that I am traveling to the north. It would be great to be able to visit Massachusetts or New York without having to disarm. It infuriates me that I can legally carry a concealed handgun throughout most of the country, yet if I happen to cross into one of a few states then I can be convicted of a felony, sentenced to a couple years in prison, and then lose my 2A rights for life. How can I, or anyone else, be legally "cleared" to carry a handgun throughout the overwhelming majority of states, and then be subject to such harsh penalties for doing the same thing in other states?

Part of me would love to see national reciprocity. The other part of me is concerned about letting the federal government get involved with this. Will they later decide to nationalize the permitting process? In order to achieve reciprocity will they cater to the standards of states like NV & NY, where you must have your specific firearm that you plan to conceal registered with authorities, being permitted to carry none other? I have little trust for the federal government, and I hesitate to trust that they have the common citizen's best interests in mind when it comes to anything having to do with guns on a national scale. Yeah, there are some great 2A supporters in Washington, but there are just as many who, based on their skewed view of the second amendment, would probably love to see mandatory registration, and later confiscation of handguns (after all, we can't be trusted, right?).

At any rate, it should be interesting to see how this plays out over time.

Why would you want to visit a place that wants to make you a felon but is being forced to tolerate you by law? If you think traveling to such a state armed would be safe if this bill passed you would be wrong. Its not safe to travel through them with the current protections why would more federal laws make it any different? Why would you want to contribute to their economic power by traveling to such a place and spending money there?

Aknazer · Sep 15, 2011

Daylen said:
Why would you want to visit a place that wants to make you a felon but is being forced to tolerate you by law? If you think traveling to such a state armed would be safe if this bill passed you would be wrong. Its not safe to travel through them with the current protections why would more federal laws make it any different? Why would you want to contribute to their economic power by traveling to such a place and spending money there?

One can't choose where their family lives. Also why would someone want to drive potentially hours and several hundred miles out of their way just to avoid a state? It isn't about wanting to go there, its about being there due to a lack of reasonable options.

Ruger · Sep 15, 2011

Aknazer said:
One can't choose where their family lives. Also why would someone want to drive potentially hours and several hundred miles out of their way just to avoid a state? It isn't about wanting to go there, its about being there due to a lack of reasonable options.

EXACTLY! As stated above, my wife is from California, and that is where most of her family resides. Therefore, I am periodically going to be visiting California. While there are some 2A friendly states north of me, the most direct route is through Virginia and then MARYLAND. As for NY/MA, while I would never want to live there, I'd like to do some sightseeing in NY, which I've only driven through once (as a teen) and I'd love to visit MA once again, as I enjoyed visiting 10+ years ago. Same could be said for Maine (absolutely GORGEOUS - I loved my short time there). NJ can fall into the Atlantic for all I care though =P

It isn't unreasonable for this responsible gun owner to desire to visit historical sites in New England without having to leave his firearm at home in North Carolina. Or to visit in-laws in California

If the law passes, I don't expect to be OC'ing in NYC or Boston, but I do expect to be able to lawfully CC'ing without fear of prosecution simply for being in possession of a gun in the rare event that I would be forced to use it in defense. On GlockTalk, Mas Ayoob recently referenced a case in which a guy was CC'ing illegally in NYC, and shot & killed someone in self-defense. The guy was not charged for the killing of the would-be robber, but he spent 2 years on Riker's Island & lost his 2A rights for life after being charged with & convicted of illegally carrying a concealed handgun. THAT is what I want to avoid.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I897 using Tapatalk

Nationwide Recoprocity Bill

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

State Researcher

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member