Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 61

Thread: Just saw this on Foxnews.com

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Central Indiana
    Posts
    2

    Just saw this on Foxnews.com

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011...s-state-lines/


    House of Representatives - POLITICS
    House Weighs Bill to Make Gun Permits Valid Across State Lines

    By Shannon Bream

    Published September 13, 2011

    AP

    Lawmakers are considering a House bill that would give Americans who hold permits to carry firearms in their home states the right to carry their weapons across state lines.

    Although many states have entered into voluntary agreements, there is no nationwide framework for honoring permits and licenses uniformly. A bipartisan bill, co-authored by Reps. Cliff Stearns, R-Fla., and Heath Shuler, D-N.C., aims to change that.

    Supporters say the measure would not create a federal licensing system, but would require that all states recognize lawfully issued permits -- regardless of where they were issued. Gun rights advocacy groups say it's the only way to make sure that lawful gun owners' Second Amendment rights are guaranteed when they travel away from their home states.

    But opponents say the bill tramples on each state's autonomy to set the standards legislators believe are necessary to confront local problems. Foes also said that the law could allow violent offenders to hold on to their weapons.

    Testifying before Congress on Tuesday, Philadelphia Police Commissioner Charles Ramsey told the story of Marqus Hill, a man whose Pennsylvania gun permit was revoked after he was charged with attempted murder.

    "Despite his record, he then used his Florida permit to carry a loaded gun in Philadelphia," Ramsey said. "He eventually shot a teenager thirteen times in the chest killing him on the street."

    Gun rights advocates say the dire warnings about expanding the rights of law-abiding citizens are overblown. Wayne LaPierre, executive director of the National Rifle Association, said the American public is more interested in self-defense than scare tactics. He's also predicting a win for what has been dubbed the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011.

    "It cuts across Democrats, Republicans, liberals, conservatives -- even President Obama's base is strongly in favor of this legislation," LaPierre said..

    Gun control groups like the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence have successfully defeated similar legislation in the past, and vow to stop this bill as well. They're aligning with a number of elected officials and law enforcement organizations, who say this measure would make it even tougher for officers to determine which guns are on the streets legally or illegally.

    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011...#ixzz1XtKKkHcK

  2. #2
    Regular Member jimd_21's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Blackfoot, Idaho, USA
    Posts
    185
    Yup just posted a link to Facebook and the other forums i visit...... spread the word.
    Beware of the Beast Within..... Under God one Nation will be returned to its Foundation!

  3. #3
    Regular Member oak1971's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,937
    This is a tough one. It sounds good, Brady Bunch hates it, yet it puts the Feds in the drivers seat. The last part bugs me.
    In God I trust. Everyone else needs to keep your hands where I can see them.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    West Texas
    Posts
    596
    Might be a bad idea to allow the feds control, BUT it could also be great for those who visit California and New York.

  5. #5
    Regular Member VW_Factor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Leesburg, GA
    Posts
    1,098
    Quote Originally Posted by oak1971 View Post
    This is a tough one. It sounds good, Brady Bunch hates it, yet it puts the Feds in the drivers seat. The last part bugs me.
    +1

    Not to mention the differences across state lines between what your permit allows.

    I can see the Fed making the lowest common denominator of a certain states permit system apply across the board using this as a vehicle of sorts.
    Last edited by VW_Factor; 09-13-2011 at 11:30 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady
    I am no victim, just a poor college student who looks to the day where the rich have the living piss taxed out of them.

  6. #6
    Regular Member dmatting's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Durham, NC
    Posts
    443
    I don't like it either. The fed puts its nose into to many things and then regulates the hell out of it and most of your rights are lost (just look at the EPA - Hay is now a pollutant). The states should be left alone to do what they will. If a state doesn't honor your permit, then deal with it in your own manner. I do my best to stay out of those states all together and would rather visit the ones that allow open carry.

    Of course, NY is a bit of a problem with their laws - it tends to cut off New England entirely if traveling on the roadways. I've always thought that state should be split up - one state would be the lower portion and would include the city of NY and Long island and the other state would include the upstate portion.

  7. #7
    Regular Member jbone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    2,241
    Quote Originally Posted by MR Redenck View Post
    Might be a bad idea to allow the feds control, BUT it could also be great for those who visit California and New York.
    Unless you are from Arizona; didn’t Brewer pass no permit required to pack there, so zoners won't be able to participate (anywhere outside of Arizona) if the law passed.

  8. #8
    Regular Member Contrarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Seattle,WA, , USA
    Posts
    266

    "National'' reciprocity

    "But opponents say the bill tramples on each state's autonomy to set the standards legislators believe are necessary to confront local problems..."

    Seems that we all managed to get driver's licenses to work nation-wide,; why not this?

  9. #9
    Regular Member Dreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Grennsboro NC
    Posts
    5,358
    "OC for ME" mentioned Philadelphia Police Commissioner Charles Ramsey.

    We need to remember (and remind the media and other Citizens) just WHO Philadelphia Police Commissioner Charles Ramsey REALLY is.

    Before he was Philly's "top cop", he was the Chief of Police in Washington DC, and he had to resign in disgrace in 2007 over several huge Federal Civil Rights violation cases and corruption scandals that had plagued MPDC during his administration. Within DAYS of him resigning from DC, Philly Mayor Nutter offered him the Commissioner position in Philadelphia.

    You gotta wonder about a Mayor who would actively and publicly court a Police Chief who was convicted of Federal Civil Rights crimes.

    And BEFORE Ramsey was MPDC Chief, I'll give you three guesses where he started his career (and rose through the ranks) as a police officer...

    Wait for it, wait for it....

    Chicago, IL, from 1968-1998.

    The apple doesn't fall far from the tree...

    So it should come as no surprise that Ramsey and his department would charge a law-abiding citizen with shooting a thuggish criminal thief. Ramsey is a criminal himself, and he's just "protecting his own". Birds of a feather, and all that...
    Last edited by Dreamer; 09-14-2011 at 11:44 AM.
    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

  10. #10
    Regular Member jbone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    2,241
    [QUOTE=Contrarian;1610503...Seems that we all managed to get driver's licenses to work nation-wide,; why not this?[/QUOTE]

    Kind of the same, but different. Remember we move from one state to another and we change our drivers license to that state (excluding all the circumstances like military and such), H.R. 822 says: "Nothing in this section shall be construed to preempt any provision of state law with respect to the issuance of licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms" http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h822/text

    Drivers license yes, "why not this?" because it's been drafted to maintain states rights on issuance. Which is BS? Since It only addresses half the issue, halfass legislation.

    The only full fix is to amend the Constitution, IMO.


  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Northwest Kent County, Michigan
    Posts
    757
    Many pro-gunners have been opposed to National Reciprocity on the basis that it would violate the 10th Amendment. Yet there is virtually no 10th Amendment jurisprudence (similar to the state of the 2nd Amendment prior to Heller).

    While I'd personally like to have National Reciprocity pass (if for no other reason than to prove the Brady Campaign wrong - once again) there are plenty of other interesting potential benefits as well.

    If National Reciprocity passes, conservative/libertarian pro-10th Amendment groups can expect the liberal/progressives to desparately mount a full frontal assault challenging National Reciprocity on (gasp) 10th Amendment grounds (not to mention at their own expense!).

    Wouldn't it be nice to finally have a clear 10th Amendment case make it to the Supreme Court where the conservative States Rights and liberal (anti-gun) justices will largely be in agreement? The 10th Amendment needs an actual precedent in Supreme Court case law to mean anything. This is a far better opportunity to assert States Rights than lets say the Montana Federal Firearms Freedom Act (also working its way through the courts).

    Meanwhile, during the several years that National Reciprocity is the law of the land, the Brady Campaign will continue to look foolish as their wild west predictions of blood and mayhem fail to materialize.

    Citizens living in states that have draconian Concealed Carry regulatory schemes will start demanding their 2nd Amendment Rights as they see out-of-state visitors enjoy and which their own elected officials continue to deny them.

    Whatever the final disposition of a National Concealed Carry Act, the outcome will be good for America.
    Last edited by OC4me; 09-20-2011 at 02:11 PM.

  12. #12
    Regular Member dmatting's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Durham, NC
    Posts
    443
    Quote Originally Posted by OC4me View Post
    Meanwhile, during the several years that National Reciprocity is the law of the land, the Brady Campaign will continue to look foolish as their wild west predictions of blood and mayhem fail to materialize as they see out-of-state visitors enjoy rights that they do not have any means to excercise.

    Citizens living in states that have draconian Concealed Carry regulatory schemes will start demanding their 2nd Amendment Rights as they see out-of-state visitors enjoy and which their own elected officials continue to deny them.
    How will anyone see out-of-stater visitors enjoying the "right" of government licensed concealed carry when they won't be able to see the concealed handgun because it is concealed?

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northern, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    150
    Quote Originally Posted by jbone View Post
    Unless you are from Arizona; didn’t Brewer pass no permit required to pack there, so zoners won't be able to participate (anywhere outside of Arizona) if the law passed.
    Arizona went to Alaska style constitutional carry, rather than Vermont. They kept an optional, shall-issue permit for people who wanted to carry in reciprocal states.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Tucson, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    1,098
    Quote Originally Posted by jbone View Post
    Unless you are from Arizona; didn’t Brewer pass no permit required to pack there, so zoners won't be able to participate (anywhere outside of Arizona) if the law passed.
    Not quite correct.

    No permit is required for most carry activities in Arizona, but is offered for reciprocity reasons, and required for some things like restaurant/bar carry, state government buildings and a few other locations.

    http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/arizona.pdf
    Last edited by PavePusher; 09-14-2011 at 03:33 PM.

  15. #15
    Regular Member jbone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    2,241
    Quote Originally Posted by 3fgburner View Post
    Arizona went to Alaska style constitutional carry, rather than Vermont. They kept an optional, shall-issue permit for people who wanted to carry in reciprocal states.
    Quote Originally Posted by PavePusher View Post
    Not quite correct.

    No permit is required for most carry activities in Arizona, but is offered for reciprocity reasons, and required for some things like restaurant/bar carry, state government buildings and a few other locations.

    http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/arizona.pdf
    Thanks for clearing that up.

  16. #16
    Regular Member Keylitho's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Bremerton WA
    Posts
    3
    This would be pretty nice for everyone who is always traveling around..

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,797
    Quote Originally Posted by Keylitho View Post
    This would be pretty nice for everyone who is always traveling around..
    Not if the gov tries to dictate what is required for one to get a permit.

  18. #18
    Regular Member Shovelhead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    NO VA, ,
    Posts
    355
    What the Federal Government giveth, the Federal Government can take away....plus.
    Assault Weapon (N) “Any firearm whose design disturbs the sleep of progressive politicians.”.

  19. #19
    Regular Member decklin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Pacific, WA
    Posts
    764
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreamer View Post
    So it should come as no surprise that Ramsey and his department would charge a law-abiding citizen with shooting a thuggish criminal thief. Ramsey is a criminal himself, and he's just "protecting his own". Birds of a feather, and all that...
    You're not talking about Marqus Hill, right? Because if you read about him he is far from a law abiding citizen.

  20. #20
    Regular Member okboomer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Oklahoma, USA
    Posts
    1,164
    IIRC, before driver's license reciprocity, if you were suspended in one state, you could simply cross a state line and receive a DL in that state which would allow you to continue to drive in the state you were suspended in. Reciprocity allowed (required) states to query other states about the status of DL in that other state, and then deny a license based on another state's suspension.

    So, by extending that out ... if the Fed's simply require reciprocity in recognizing another state's permit to carry, there really shouldn't be a problem with the individual states that have a permitting process in place. It will put places like NY, CA and IL between the proverbial rock and hard place. And should drive DC absolutely NUTZ!

    Where I see the Feds making impositions is for states that do not require a National Background Check before issuing ... some states, in fact, I believe most that only have CC do require the background check, but those such as AZ don't require the background check.

    Definitely something to watch.
    cheers - okboomer
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Lead, follow, or get out of the way

    Exercising my 2A Rights does NOT make me a CRIMINAL! Infringing on the exercise of those rights makes YOU one!

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Provo, Utah, USA
    Posts
    1,076
    Quote Originally Posted by jbone View Post
    The only full fix is to amend the Constitution, IMO. [/FONT][/COLOR]
    No, the fix is to uphold the Constitution.

  22. #22
    Regular Member Fisherman's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    45R
    Posts
    160
    Quote Originally Posted by Contrarian View Post
    "But opponents say the bill tramples on each state's autonomy to set the standards legislators believe are necessary to confront local problems..."
    It does trample and they will infringe. I don't like it.

  23. #23
    Regular Member Fisherman's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    45R
    Posts
    160
    Quote Originally Posted by rpyne View Post
    no, the fix is to uphold the constitution.
    ^^ this ^^

  24. #24
    Campaign Veteran Schlitz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,567
    Quote Originally Posted by OC4me View Post
    Many pro-gunners have been opposed to National Reciprocity on the basis that it would violate the 10th Amendment. Yet there is virtually no 10th Amendment jurisprudence (similar to the state of the 2nd Amendment prior to Heller).

    While I'd personally like to have National Reciprocity pass (if for no other reason than to prove the Brady Campaign wrong - once again) there are plenty of other interesting potential benefits as well.

    If National Reciprocity passes, conservative/libertarian pro-10th Amendment groups can expect the liberal/progressives to desparately mount a full frontal assault challenging National Reciprocity on (gasp) 10th Amendment grounds (not to mention at their own expense!).

    Wouldn't it be nice to finally have a clear 10th Amendment case make it to the Supreme Court where the conservative States Rights and liberal (anti-gun) justices will largely be in agreement? The 10th Amendment needs an actual precedent in Supreme Court case law to mean anything. This is a far better opportunity to assert States Rights than lets say the Montana Federal Firearms Freedom Act (also working its way through the courts).

    Meanwhile, during the several years that National Reciprocity is the law of the land, the Brady Campaign will continue to look foolish as their wild west predictions of blood and mayhem fail to materialize as they see out-of-state visitors enjoy rights that they do not have any means to excercise.

    Citizens living in states that have draconian Concealed Carry regulatory schemes will start demanding their 2nd Amendment Rights as they see out-of-state visitors enjoy and which their own elected officials continue to deny them.

    Whatever the final disposition of a National Concealed Carry Act, the outcome will be good for America.
    Brilliant...just brilliant.
    “The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.”
    [Miller vs. U.S., 230 F. Supp. 486, 489 (1956)]
    “There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of constitutional rights.”
    [Sherar vs. Cullen, 481 F2d. 946 (1973)]

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Levittown, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    771
    Quote Originally Posted by VW_Factor View Post
    +1

    Not to mention the differences across state lines between what your permit allows.

    I can see the Fed making the lowest common denominator of a certain states permit system apply across the board using this as a vehicle of sorts.
    Quote Originally Posted by Aknazer View Post
    Not if the gov tries to dictate what is required for one to get a permit.

    The feds will not take over any part of the issuing of permits...the states will still have complete control of that.

Page 1 of 3 123 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
  •