Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: The Brady Bunch writes federal reciprocity article in the paper. Are they worried?

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    1,251

    The Brady Bunch writes federal reciprocity article in the paper. Are they worried?

    http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2011...s-own-gun-law/

    Stop the assault on Nevada’s right to enforce its own gun laws
    Daniel Vice

    Saturday, Oct. 22, 2011 | 2 a.m.

    In an unprecedented assault on states’ rights and our ability to keep our communities safe, the gun lobby is pushing dangerous federal legislation to override Nevada’s gun laws. The National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act, more accurately called the Packing Heat on Your Street Act, would allow out-of-state visitors to carry loaded, concealed handguns even if these folks would be violating Nevada law. Nevada residents, on the other hand, would be subject to a different, tougher set of standards for carrying concealed weapons.

    Excerpt ... Read more at the link above.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    208
    Simple solution. "Re-enact" the second amendment and allow people to carry where they want, when they want, how they want as it was intended. Win-win right? Gun rights activists would be happy, and the Brady-bunch would be happy that everybody is held to the same standard. They really should be more careful about some of the "points" they make.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    8
    All,

    I'm pretty new to the board and thought I'd post for a change rather than sit back and lurk around so here goes.

    I haven't researched this subject too much but I'll throw my 2 cents in....

    Where in the Constitution does it say the general government can even pass a bill such as the "Reciprocity Act"? Under what clause?

    Anytime proposed legislation oozes out of the halls of the big building on the hill I shudder to think, "What's next?" Even though this bill is well intentioned by its sponsors it seems that it will be trampling on a states (a peoples) prerogative to govern itself. This is because this legislation would force a state to accept another states CCW even if that state (the people) have decided they don't want to.

    There is already a clause in the Constitution that covers this scenario and it has worked for over 200 years; it's called the "Full Faith and Credit Clause" and can be found in Article IV, Section 1. This is the clause that dictates that the states MUST accept the records (ie. licences, permits, etc.) from one state as being acceptable in another state. However, there's a caveat....if a state doesn't want to accept another states license, permit, etc. then all they have to do is say so by amending their constitution or passing a law or regulation and that's what we've seen happen all the time.

    Case in point #1: In 2004 Massachusetts, through a Supreme Judicial Court ruling, legalized "same sex" marriages and began issuing marriage licenses. Immediately thereafter, several states passed constitutional amendments prohibiting same sex marriages and therefore allows them to not recognize the marriage licenses issued to homosexual couples.

    Case in point #2: I'm a holder of NV, UT and FL CCW permits. If my CCW permits are not recognized in Illinois then so be it; that's THEIR decision. My decision will be to not visit their state. Also, if residents don't like their states laws then they can always vote with their feet and move to a state where they like the laws.

    Bottom Line: I believe the general government has no business saying who's CCW permit should be recognized by whom. It's not their business but is up to the states to sort it out like it has been in the past and the present. If it ain't broke don't fix it and don't infringe on a states right to govern themselves. I for one am GLAD the states have different laws and aren't all the same because if all states are the same, oppressive and deny basic rights where shall one go to to obtain those rights?

    By the way, has anyone ever thought that this legislation may be the proverbial "camels nose under the tent" to eventually pass a "National CCW Permit"?

    Just my 2 cents......

    Tom

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    KC
    Posts
    1,012
    Quote Originally Posted by SimplyTom View Post
    All,

    I'm pretty new to the board and thought I'd post for a change rather than sit back and lurk around so here goes.

    I haven't researched this subject too much but I'll throw my 2 cents in....

    Where in the Constitution does it say the general government can even pass a bill such as the "Reciprocity Act"? Under what clause?

    Anytime proposed legislation oozes out of the halls of the big building on the hill I shudder to think, "What's next?" Even though this bill is well intentioned by its sponsors it seems that it will be trampling on a states (a peoples) prerogative to govern itself. This is because this legislation would force a state to accept another states CCW even if that state (the people) have decided they don't want to.

    There is already a clause in the Constitution that covers this scenario and it has worked for over 200 years; it's called the "Full Faith and Credit Clause" and can be found in Article IV, Section 1. This is the clause that dictates that the states MUST accept the records (ie. licences, permits, etc.) from one state as being acceptable in another state. However, there's a caveat....if a state doesn't want to accept another states license, permit, etc. then all they have to do is say so by amending their constitution or passing a law or regulation and that's what we've seen happen all the time.

    Case in point #1: In 2004 Massachusetts, through a Supreme Judicial Court ruling, legalized "same sex" marriages and began issuing marriage licenses. Immediately thereafter, several states passed constitutional amendments prohibiting same sex marriages and therefore allows them to not recognize the marriage licenses issued to homosexual couples.

    Case in point #2: I'm a holder of NV, UT and FL CCW permits. If my CCW permits are not recognized in Illinois then so be it; that's THEIR decision. My decision will be to not visit their state. Also, if residents don't like their states laws then they can always vote with their feet and move to a state where they like the laws.

    Bottom Line: I believe the general government has no business saying who's CCW permit should be recognized by whom. It's not their business but is up to the states to sort it out like it has been in the past and the present. If it ain't broke don't fix it and don't infringe on a states right to govern themselves. I for one am GLAD the states have different laws and aren't all the same because if all states are the same, oppressive and deny basic rights where shall one go to to obtain those rights?

    By the way, has anyone ever thought that this legislation may be the proverbial "camels nose under the tent" to eventually pass a "National CCW Permit"?

    Just my 2 cents......

    Tom
    The part of the Constitution that applies here is Amendment 14, Section 1, which says

    "Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

    State are not permitted to abridge our privileges or immunities, one of which is the right to bear arms. The federal government may take steps to correct states to do abridge out privileges and immunities. And this is one of those cases.

    There is nothing in this bill that permits the federal government to do anything at all. It just says that state X must allow people licensed to CC (and are licensed in their home state) to carry in State X (if that state also authorizes CC of any type for its residents.)

    Sure, it might be a camel's nose, but then again, so could a Constitutional Carry bill. There's nothing magical about those words. Once Congress starts meddling in any area, they usually continue to meddle. But, make up your mind on this bill based on what it says, not on conspiracy theories on what might happen. Because you can make up conspiracy theories about anything.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    1,251
    Quote Originally Posted by SimplyTom View Post
    All,

    ....Where in the Constitution does it say the general government can even pass a bill such as the "Reciprocity Act"? Under what clause?.....
    Tom makes good points on the arguments, While I agree that the feds getting their hands in this could work against us, I believe the answer to his question will be the 10th Amendment:

    "The Powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibitid by it to the States, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people

    So when coupled with the Second Amendment, which we all know, I read that not only is it a right to "bear arms" but the federal government is tasked with supporting and protecting that right, as it is enumerated in the Constitution. Tasking them with insuring all US citizens, the opportunity to enjoy the 2nd Amendment.

    Then to further embed the federal government, the 14th Amendment spells out that a state cannot superceed somenones "right to bear arms" IE: what California has done, since they have outlawed open carry, while being a may issue State. giving someone from another state, no possibility of "bearing Arms"
    While the "full faith and credit" clause may do away with equal protection of gay marriage, it is important to note that there is no amendment, to the constitution specificly tasking the government with protecting gay marriage. It would presumably fall under "persuit of happiness" where it should enjoy merit. but at a higher burden of proof, than an enumerated Amendment such as ours.

    Given that the "right to bear arms" is in the Constitution, and apparently a Federal matter, it appears that the State of Nevada or any other, would not have Jurisdiction to to issue gun permits. This could have been an angle to be explored in the Hanes case as the Ordinance in question spelled out that the firearm must be carried "under" a State, or local permit. When Jurisdiction is challenged, court stops until settled (was going to provide case law but it is 3 pages, will provide on req) I would be interested in setting up a SCOTUS case if it proved out. LOL now we are talking.

    Now for my defense: Tom asked a question, while I think my arguments are backed by the constitution, I realize there is "water under the bridge" in this debate, I am not trying to convince anyone of anything, just answering his question.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    City? Who wants to live in a CITY?, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    1,196
    OF COURSE they are worried.

    Maybe one of you guys down the Sharp End is registered at the LV paper and can respond with the observation that this opinion came from someone in Washington, DC, who is paid to confuse the issues surrounding gun ownership.

    Vice is not concerned about Nevada, he's concerned that he will lose his job.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Northwest Kent County, Michigan
    Posts
    757
    "In an unprecedented assault on states’ rights and our ability to keep our communities safe, the gun lobby is pushing dangerous federal legislation to override Nevada’s gun laws."

    Unprecedented assault of state's rights?

    So how does the Brady Campaign justify a national Assault Weapons ban? That would be an assault on a State's right to decide what type of armament that it's citizens should have available in the event they ever have to call up the militia again. Such hypocrites!

    I can't wait for the Brady amicus brief in support of "States Rights" once National Concealed Carry Reciprocity passes (only a matter of time). Such a brief will be a wonderful thing to throw back at them each and every time they push for a federal anti-gun law.

    It is funny to see the Brady Bunch wet their panties over National Concealed Carry.
    Last edited by OC4me; 10-24-2011 at 02:53 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •