Nation wide conceal carry license on bloomberg

sudden valley gunner said:

<snip>I will take a "right" anyway I can get it, and agree with you it's part of congress's job to insure the governments aren't infringing on our rights. What I fear is this would open the door for "interpretation" by the courts and congress for more regulation. Government has a history of gaining power and using every rational possible for justification of their increasing "regulation". You know me I am a "constitutional" guy and don't believe in more laws. Yet this one is a proper law so far in that it restricts government not the people, the original intent of federal laws.

The other hand this bill may force SCOTUS to decide on the very issue we are talking about here. The natural right to bear arms. Just a thought.

Click to expand...

HR 822 (please read it) does not require or even authorize any action by any federal agency. In fact, since it would amend the Gun Control Act, it would fall under a limitation within that law that authorizes "only such rules and regulations as are necessary to carry out" the GCA's provisions. No federal rules or regulations would be needed to implement H.R. 822, which simply overrides certain state laws.

This HR822 bill sucks!
Until we get a Constitutional Law enforcement bill that enforces ALL Constitutional Amendments on the states and provides criminal punishment to those state who infringe on those right, nothing will change!
If this bill passes, which it wont, people will simply be arrested in the states that do not comply based on different charges.
This bill is nothing more than a fund raising sceme for GOP elect!
The 2nd amendment is nothing to politicians other than a way to get "Chumps" money. After they get your 2nd amendment money, they spend it on thier own agenda.

Article IV section 1 (I know some people will argue about this) gives congress the power to require states to recognize the lawful acts of other states. It is generally called the "full faith and credit" clause. Congress does not have to do this, but they are able to.

Yes, this is the same section that will be used when the gay marriage laws of some states are in conflict with the laws of other states and the petitions go to the supreme court.

What most people don't see is that it also says: "Congress MAY by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof."

This is why HR 822 is necessary to force places like NYS and NYC to accept the permits from other states. HR 822 is not the Feds taking over the permit system, HR 822 is only telling the states they must recognize other state permits as if they were their own.

I'm sure the states of FL and UT do not like this idea...no more out of state permits necessary.

does anyone think that states like NY will just make their carry permits complete crap. CANT CARRY LOADED IN CAR, CANT CARRY LOADED, CANT CARRY AMMO ON YOUR PERSON < Idk just stupid stuff like that? no?

It simply amazes me to see the rhetoric against a National Reciprocity bill on this forum. I probably shouldn't be surprised with this group however.......

We have multiple threads on here advising people how to go get pockets full of various state concealed permits so that we might travel to other states without breaking the law. More threads on various Open Carry laws in various states so that we don't inadvertently become Felons while traveling to other states without permits.

My drivers license is good in every state in the union, and is recognized in most foreign countries, despite the fact that training differs in most of the states and every other country.

Personally, if a law will let me carry freely in every state I want to drive in for the price of this states CPL, I'll take it. Paying for multiple states permits can get expensive. Is it the best solution? Hell no. I don't think permits should be required at all. But I likely won't live long enough to see every state pass the necessary laws that will allow me to get in my car and drive to the four (five?) corners of the country.

I like the reasoned arguments for HR 822 above. Much better than I could come up with. I wrote my Senators and Representative this morning, but being Obama clones, I don't expect much from them.

GogoDwags I concur with what you have said here and I support HR822. It seems some are wanting the full meal deal sort of speak where the government steps clearly away form all firearms issues and let it happen, well we know that will not happen.
Quite often we have to work with what we have or are given and to make it as good for us as possible and while not perfect it is pretty damn close to increasing our freedom of movement and being armed.

OlGutshotWilly said:

It simply amazes me to see the rhetoric against a National Reciprocity bill on this forum. I probably shouldn't be surprised with this group however.......

Click to expand...

I am amazed that you see it as simple rhetoric against it.

There are reasoned arguments FOR it, as well as reasoned arguments AGAINST it. If all you see is "rhetoric," you aren't giving both viewpoints equal review.

BigDave said:

GogoDwags I concur with what you have said here and I support HR822. It seems some are wanting the full meal deal sort of speak where the government steps clearly away form all firearms issues and let it happen, well we know that will not happen.Quite often we have to work with what we have or are given and to make it as good for us as possible and while not perfect it is pretty damn close to increasing our freedom of movement and being armed.

Click to expand...

Many of us know that too, but are not subsequently willing to give the government a "pass" to make more regulations.

hermannr said:

I'm sure the states of FL and UT do not like this idea...no more out of state permits necessary.

Click to expand...

Not to mention those who've been making money off of the required training.

wrightme said:

I am amazed that you see it as simple rhetoric against it.

There are reasoned arguments FOR it, as well as reasoned arguments AGAINST it. If all you see is "rhetoric," you aren't giving both viewpoints equal review.

Click to expand...

I would completely agree with you, in that my bias in favor of it puts me in agreement with the well reasoned arguments for it. Rhetoric may not have been the best choice of vocabulary. I might have used the word "arguments" or "debate" against it to be more accurate.

This is a pro-carry /pro-firearm forum. Before 9.41.290 came along, you could not drive across this state without violating some cities or other municipalities laws. Those on this forum have gone to great lengths to see to it that those entities comply with state preemption. I was surprised to see so much debate/argument against what amounts to be Federal preemption. But.....this is a very opinionated group and I likely should not be surprised!

I do see HR 822 as Federal preemption, allowing us to drive freely across this country without becoming Felons. Even Open Carrying across this country has its problems still.

It's my understanding that this bill will NOT change the hodgepodge of laws that we will have to be concerned with, the individual states will STILL have their own different places where and when you can carry, for instance, since Ill does NOT issue a concealed license, we STILL cannot carry concealed in Illinois!!

Please let me know if I'm wrong...

xd shooter said:

It's my understanding that this bill will NOT change the hodgepodge of laws that we will have to be concerned with, the individual states will STILL have their own different places where and when you can carry, for instance, since Ill does NOT issue a concealed license, we STILL cannot carry concealed in Illinois!!

Please let me know if I'm wrong...

Click to expand...

Correct. We would still need to research/know the laws of the states we will be visiting. Each state will still have their own restrictions on where you can and can't carry. States with mag limits and such would still be in place.

I have wondered about Chicago and IL myself...and I am of the opinion, somewhere down in their regulations there is something that can be used by those who make the "proper" political contrabution to get a "free pass"???? don't you think????

BigDave said:

Quite often we have to work with what we have or are given and to make it as good for us as possible and while not perfect it is pretty damn close to increasing our freedom

Click to expand...

You generally don't gain more freedom, by giving the Fed more power.

If we go down this path, then we'll end up with national CCW laws that mirror the laws of anti-gun anti-gun states. It'll happen eventually, quick or slow.

How much of this is a knee jerk reaction with all the sky is falling, the sky is falling.

Like I referred to earlier, if we or some of us feel that there will be a sweeping, once and for all complete clearing of all laws concerning the RKBA is unrealistic.
Fight for the best results possible while not cutting off our noses to spite our face.

BigDave said:

How much of this is a knee jerk reaction with all the sky is falling, the sky is falling.

Like I referred to earlier, if we or some of us feel that there will be a sweeping, once and for all complete clearing of all laws concerning the RKBA is unrealistic.Fight for the best results possible while not cutting off our noses to spite our face.

Click to expand...

Hyperbole. Has a single person expressed that view? Neither is it correct to claim that the national cc recognition will ban guns. But, I would rather us head towards less statute than more statute.

wrightme said:

Hyperbole. Has a single person expressed that view? Neither is it correct to claim that the national cc recognition will ban guns. But, I would rather us head towards less statute than more statute.

Click to expand...

I would as well, but I am being realistic.

BigDave said:

I would as well, but I am being realistic.

Click to expand...

"Head towards less statute" IS realistic. It just takes more patience.

wrightme said:

"Head towards less statute" IS realistic. It just takes more patience.

Click to expand...

By accepting this bill does not mean we are permanently tied to it, I see it as a stepping stone instead of all or nothing.

xd shooter said:

It's my understanding that this bill will NOT change the hodgepodge of laws that we will have to be concerned with, the individual states will STILL have their own different places where and when you can carry, for instance, since Ill does NOT issue a concealed license, we STILL cannot carry concealed in Illinois!!

Please let me know if I'm wrong...

Click to expand...

No, your not wrong.

Honestly, I don't believe we will ever see the whole of the states adopt uniform carry laws, at-least, not in our lifetime. I also don't believe the USSC would ever find that they must. Any such uniform laws would likely be due to federal fiat, and that makes me nervous, because it could swing bad very quickly, even if the initial federal offering of "universal carry" was overall favorable.

The states were designed as they are to act as a certain, grand experiment, that other states might learn from it. Adopting things that work, discarding things that have been shown not to. I would rather this type of country wide reciprocity be done at the state level, but if it takes an initial federal boot in the butt to get them to realize the advantages for them and for their citizens, then that's fine with me, as long as that's as far as it goes. I would not support federal licensing.

That being said, I can fully see several states doing away with their token CC laws all together if this type of bill were passed. I would rather see the bill include an opt-out clause (which incidentally would increase its chances of passing by a large degree) for those states not wanting to be involved, and let the courts and public opinion bring them into the fold at a later time.

Then I would simply spend my vacation money accordingly.