I think Dave's point here is that although the Bill states one thing today, How easy will it be in 6 months, a year, 5 years, for an anti gun member of the Senate or House to add in a small amendment, tagging along some larger bill that just HAS to pass.
States like New York, New Jersey, California are going to raise holy hell over this but will bide their time, waiting for the right moment to add in "reasonable" restrictions to this Law, turning it into something that is NOT reasonable at all, at least not for us.
I think Dave's point here is that although the Bill states one thing today, How easy will it be in 6 months, a year, 5 years, for an anti gun member of the Senate or House to add in a small amendment, tagging along some larger bill that just HAS to pass.
States like New York, New Jersey, California are going to raise holy hell over this but will bide their time, waiting for the right moment to add in "reasonable" restrictions to this Law, turning it into something that is NOT reasonable at all, at least not for us.
Ahhhh. The old "if you don't agree with me, then shut up" approach to politics.
Awesome.
Hey, what does CCW in national parks have to do with a credit card bill anyways?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_CARD_Act_of_2009
I'm just saying "turn about will be fair play.".
Title II of the Gun Control Act of 1968 is a revision of the National Firearms Act of 1934,
Senator Cantwell said:As your Senator, you can be assured that I will work to protect the legitimate rights of law-abiding American gun-owners, while continuing to support responsible gun control legislation to reduce crime and make our communities safer. I believe both of these goals are important and can be simultaneously accomplished through common-sense gun laws and stricter enforcement of existing laws.
Just received Cantwells response to the email.
To shorten her response I left out the review of Washington State Laws and Requirements.
And after reading her response, Mumbo jumbo comes to mind.
I agree with Dave_pro2a, this is a states rights issue. The Feds have no business telling the states what they will or won't allow in regards to the 2A. Although I do disagree with some of the states reasoning for not allowing reciprocity (training, standards, vetting process, etc.), this still belongs to the individual states to decide. Believe me, I would love to be able to carry when I go to NY to visit my Dad, but once the Feds get a hold of this, nothing good can come of it.
There are always those that believe the sky is falling at every turn and either it is everything or nothing approach.
There will always be battles in our rights and laws that support or do not support everyone's views, this is not a reason to trash this that will let us exercise our Right to Keep and Bear Arms where we travel, except of course in States that do not have concealed carry.
Oh wait this would not make the States laws invalid as the anti group want to paint.
It is to reciprocate concealed carry licenses that will benefit Open and Conceal Carry as we travel around the country or in surrounding States.
‘Sec. 926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms[/h]
- ‘(a) Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof (except as provided in subsection (b)), a person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, and who is carrying a valid identification document containing a photograph of the person, and a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of a State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm, may possess or carry a concealed handgun (other than a machinegun or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, in any State, other than the State of residence of the person, that--
I actually agree with Dave on this one.
The assertion that "this will make it easier for them to do xyz BEAFRIAD!" is complete bull. It won't make it any easier, or any harder. If the anti's want to throw a rider for a national ban & confiscation, or whatever, they don't need this bill to do that. They could try that at ANY time, with any bill. Like any other part of a bill, such a rider would still be subject to review by the SCOTUS. The Congress could also do the same with a NATIONAL CONSTITUTIONAL CARRY rider if they wanted to. These things DO go both ways you know, ie, the National Parks carry thing.
This is so simple to me I just don't understand all the resistance to it from our side! The right to carry for self defense is a NATURAL RIGHT. It goes beyond the COTUS or any other law. The States do NOT have the right to restrict carry at all in the first place! They are WRONG to do so! ANYTHING that goes towards reducing such restrictions is a GOOD THING. It is LEGITIMATE for the federal government to enforce the Bill of Rights upon the States.
REALITY CHECK: Ron Paul is never going to be president. We are NOT going to magically wake up one day to a Grand Libertarian Utopia with the COTUS restored to the original 10 amendments. We LOST our rights one bit at a time, and barring some cataclysm, that is also the ONLY way we will get them back! We must claim every victory we can, be they small or large, and stop forsaking the good in hopes of the perfect!.