• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

CC Reciprocity Across All States In Manchin-Toomey Bill?

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,265
Location
In My Coffee
I was reading a FUX News article this morning. Interesting. It looks like the pot is being sweetened. Are Republicans going to delve into the pot?



It's nice to see Democrats, and some Republicans working together on this, debating it, voting on it, and seeing where the chips fall.


...The proposal essentially grants states "reciprocity" regarding concealed carry provisions.
In other words, the provision would grant gun owners the right to obtain a firearm and a concealed-carry permit in their home state, then use the permit to carry and conceal the firearm in another state.

Though many states have laws on buying firearms and concealed-carry permits, the federal provision, if adopted, could trump state laws.... http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/13/manchin-toomey-deal-could-allow-gun-owners-seller-to-carry-sell-across-state/?test=latestnews

I have stated this previously, that I have zero issue with UBC's; and with what I heave reade in the Bill. There are a number of perks to this Law being enacted, and one of them may well be Reciprocity on a Federal Level.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,539
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
I didn't read the OP. I won't bother.

However, again, as I have said in other thread about this bill: All this bill does is throw us a few bones that might make carry easier. However, it does so by asserting the federal governments "authority" to dictate how we are permitted to exercise the Right. Unacceptable.

The only acceptable legislation from Congress should repeal existing infringements and acknowledge that Congress did not have the constitutional authority to pass them in the first place.

I don't care what this law "gives" us. I ain't a dog. I don't want to be "given" a bone. I am a man. I expect my Rights.
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,910
Location
North Carolina
I didn't read the OP. I won't bother.

However, again, as I have said in other thread about this bill: All this bill does is throw us a few bones that might make carry easier. However, it does so by asserting the federal governments "authority" to dictate how we are permitted to exercise the Right. Unacceptable.

The only acceptable legislation from Congress should repeal existing infringements and acknowledge that Congress did not have the constitutional authority to pass them in the first place.

I don't care what this law "gives" us. I ain't a dog. I don't want to be "given" a bone. I am a man. I expect my Rights.
I agree more candy from congress trying to bribe the children(people) into submission. They should be ashamed of themselves.
 

ADobbs1989

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2012
Messages
465
Location
Alabama
I would be ok with the bill if they got rid of the private online sale checks and the mental health part (we already see how it's being abused in NY). Also..it's still not Universal. :)
 

stealthyeliminator

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
3,100
Location
Texas
The federal government doesn't have the right to force reciprocity any more than it has the right to deny it (or other ownership or carry-related acts). I would not ever support the federal government attemting to overrule state law on reciprocity whether it was in my favor or not, no matter how much they "sweetened the pot."
 

palerider116

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2010
Messages
572
Location
Unknown
The People's Republic of New Jersey and New York, or together known as the People's Republic of New Jerky, will be most displeased.
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,265
Location
In My Coffee
The federal government doesn't have the right to force reciprocity any more than it has the right to deny it (or other ownership or carry-related acts). I would not ever support the federal government attemting to overrule state law on reciprocity whether it was in my favor or not, no matter how much they "sweetened the pot."
You're correct, the Federal Government does not have the right to force reciprocity...the Federal Government has the Power.

I enjoy Pro-Second Amendment people on this forum railing against the Federal Government mandating all States take CC reciprocity.

So, you are for States exercising their power to restrict your carry rights? Let's run with it.
 

carolina guy

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2012
Messages
1,741
Location
Concord, NC
The federal government doesn't have the right to force reciprocity any more than it has the right to deny it (or other ownership or carry-related acts). I would not ever support the federal government attemting to overrule state law on reciprocity whether it was in my favor or not, no matter how much they "sweetened the pot."
this would be similar to "forcing" states to recognise each other's licenses (drivers & vehicle)...under Article 4 ??
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,539
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
No State is forced to recognize licenses from other States that would cause a law to be broken. For example, if State A licenses a 15yo to drive, but State B does not license anyone under 16, then State B does not have to recognize the license of State A's 15yo's.

Likewise, if State A requires a class to get a CHL, and State B does not, State A does not have to recognize State B's license.

The solution is not the federal government supplanting State violations of our Right with its own. The solution is to fix the States.
 

ron73440

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
469
Location
Suffolk VA
Have you read the Constitution?

You're correct, the Federal Government does not have the right to force reciprocity...the Federal Government has the Power.

I enjoy Pro-Second Amendment people on this forum railing against the Federal Government mandating all States take CC reciprocity.

So, you are for States exercising their power to restrict your carry rights? Let's run with it.
\

The "Pro-Second Amendment people" are really "Pro Constitution" people.

Isn't that the point of the 10th Amendment?

The States have powers that the Fed does not and I would think this would fall under that.

I don't want the Fed Govt dictating things like this to the states, even if it is something I agree with, because it could also force the states to do things I don't agree with, which it already does with the Dept of Education, Homeland Security and quite a few other things.
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,265
Location
In My Coffee
\

The "Pro-Second Amendment people" are really "Pro Constitution" people.

Isn't that the point of the 10th Amendment?

The States have powers that the Fed does not and I would think this would fall under that.

I don't want the Fed Govt dictating things like this to the states, even if it is something I agree with, because it could also force the states to do things I don't agree with, which it already does with the Dept of Education, Homeland Security and quite a few other things.

I'm not trying to be argumentative here, but I disagree. Pro-Second Amendment people are not necessarily Pro-Constitution people.

Yes, the States, in theory, have powers that the FED does not.

I have no issue with the DoE; if it were left to the States, there would be a number of them likely teaching Creation Mythology in their schools. I have some issues with HS.
 

stealthyeliminator

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
3,100
Location
Texas
You're correct, the Federal Government does not have the right to force reciprocity...the Federal Government has the Power.

I enjoy Pro-Second Amendment people on this forum railing against the Federal Government mandating all States take CC reciprocity.

So, you are for States exercising their power to restrict your carry rights? Let's run with it.
I am not. Thank you for asking instead of assuming :)
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,539
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
The post to which you are replying illustrates the false choice that is getting a lot of folks to buy into the federal government not fixing an infringement, but merely taking it over from the States. Folks would have you believe that we have two choices:

1. Allow the States to use licensing laws to continue to infringe on the Right.

2. Let the feds take over the rule-making in a way that makes licensure easier.

Neither option fixes the problem. 2 just redefines it in a temporarily more palatable way. Once we accept the feds making licensing rules, what makes anyone think that they will not eventually make the rules more restrictive?

This situation illustrates the power of federalism: Right now, if a State like NY goes overboard in restricting licensing, we have an option. We can move to a State that infringes on the Right less. If the feds take over and begin adding restrictions, where do you go?

The only correct way for the feds to stick their noses into licensure would be to make it a federal crime for a State or local official to take any steps that would make it harder or impossible for a person (not prohibited) to purchase, possess, or carry a gun. That would be a true 2A protection act!

Folks, there is an option 3: Fix yer own damn State laws so that licensing does not infringe on your ability to exercise your 2A rights. In Ohio, I see very few problems in the licensing law. If they were fixed, no one should care a whit about reciprocity:

1. End the prohibition on carry in a car without a permission slip.

2. With very few critical exceptions (for example, in the armory at the local police station or on the flight-line at the local ANG base) remove all bans on carry on public property and any bans on carry without a license (such as in a Class D establishment).

3. Eliminate GFSZ. (This is actually a federal problem and, therefore, harder to fix.)

With these fixes, OC would be unfettered in Ohio, and we'd all have the full Right as protected by the 2A while in Ohio, eliminating the need for reciprocity altogether. That's the fix folks, the third option that the false choice presented by some fails to consider.

This bill may contain some provisions that make it more palatable than some alternatives, but it is still poison.
 
Last edited:

Jay Jacobs

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2012
Messages
100
Location
Canton, GA
The post to which you are replying illustrates the false choice that is getting a lot of folks to buy into the federal government not fixing an infringement, but merely taking it over from the States. Folks would have you believe that we have two choices:

1. Allow the States to use licensing laws to continue to infringe on the Right.

2. Let the feds take over the rule-making in a way that makes licensure easier.

Neither option fixes the problem. 2 just redefines it in a temporarily more palatable way. Once we accept the feds making licensing rules, what makes anyone think that they will not eventually make the rules more restrictive?

This situation illustrates the power of federalism: Right now, if a State like NY goes overboard in restricting licensing, we have an option. We can move to a State that infringes on the Right less. If the feds take over and begin adding restrictions, where do you go?

The only correct way for the feds to stick their noses into licensure would be to make it a federal crime for a State or local official to take any steps that would make it harder or impossible for a person (not prohibited) to purchase, possess, or carry a gun. That would be a true 2A protection act!

Folks, there is an option 3: Fix yer own damn State laws so that licensing does not infringe on your ability to exercise your 2A rights. In Ohio, I see very few problems in the licensing law. If they were fixed, no one should care a whit about reciprocity:

1. End the prohibition on carry in a car without a permission slip.

2. With very few critical exceptions (for example, in the armory at the local police station or on the flight-line at the local ANG base) remove all bans on carry on public property and any bans on carry without a license (such as in a Class D establishment).

3. Eliminate GFSZ. (This is actually a federal problem and, therefore, harder to fix.)

With these fixes, OC would be unfettered in Ohio, and we'd all have the full Right as protected by the 2A while in Ohio, eliminating the need for reciprocity altogether. That's the fix folks, the third option that the false choice presented by some fails to consider.

This bill may contain some provisions that make it more palatable than some alternatives, but it is still poison.
I think you're right.
 
Top