• 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.
  • 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.

THE LAST CHANCE To Get National Concealed Carry Reciprocity Passed.

Joined
Jul 26, 2018
Messages
11
Location
NY
#1
"THE LAST CHANCE To Get National Concealed Carry Reciprocity Passed Find YOUR Senator: https://www.senate.gov/general/contac... WHAT CAN YOU DO? IMMEDIATELY CALL: U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley (Chairman of the Judiciary Committee): (202) 224-3744 U.S. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell: (202) 224-2541 Your Senate Delegation: (202) 224-3121 TELL THEM THIS: The Senate must vote on the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017 bill immediately. The bill passed the House on December 6, 2017, almost one year ago, and has since been stalled in the Senate Judiciary Committee. That is unacceptable! We have only a few precious weeks to get this matter completed. The Senate must pass this bill and send it immediately to the President for his signature. President Trump will sign the bill into law, fulfilling an important campaign promise. My continued support for you will depend on your vote to approve this bill. You should also contact NRA and President Trump, reminding them of their commitment to support national concealed carry reciprocity. The contact numbers are as follows: The White House: (202) 456-1111 or (202) 456-1414 National Rifle Association (NRA): (800) 672-3888 "
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
6,652
Location
here nc
#3
First welcome to the nation's primer OPEN CARRY forum.

I, as expressed in previous threads on this same topic, do not wish our congressional leaders to push for a national reciprocity law.
1) Exactly who is going to define the CC training curriculum for the new standard? UT or VA or other states w/o a live fire experience; how bout NM's which is a 14+ hour course which includes live fire exercises PLUS a section on Crisis prevention training; or perhaps AZ or ID which have no training whatsoever?
2) Exactly who is going to determine what is an acceptable caliber firearm to CC and how many additional mags could/will be allowed. BTW NM states the CC holder may only carry the caliber they trained on and if other calibers are wanted, yep back to class to live fire those calibers and back to the state to annotate the CC's permit.

So perhaps Enslaved, being stuck is a good thing as I personally do not want my national legislators [bad enough the state's representatives screwed it up so bad for their citizens], nor NRA or any of the other grassroots entities developing a training scheme to CC in this nation.

Sorry to take the wind out of your sails and flag waving tho nice to see the NRA PP outside of the home principles shown in the video.
 

2a4all

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2008
Messages
1,737
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
#5
I have to agree with Solus on this. I think a national reciprocity law would create a backlash of limiting legislation across a number of states to codify their opposition to "weak" gun laws, making things much worse than they are now.

Let SCOTUS sort this out. They could nullify state CHP requirements by invoking the "full faith and credit" clause of the Constitution, but I don't see it as a likely outcome. SCOTUS could decide it's a matter left to the states (very likely), as the states have always regulated firearms according to their own concepts. I'm thinking that as long as states don't discriminate among citizen's rights, SCOTUS would be okay with that.

And any law that might get passed can always be amended or repealed by a later regime.
 

Joined
Jul 12, 2011
Messages
3,028
Location
northern wis
#6
All or nothing that is the ticket to winning.

That attitude as worked so well in the past.

Please demand your congressmen do nothing until they have the perfect bill before them.

That way nothing well get done and we can wait another few decades for the courts to decide or not.

There is no guarantee that the courts well rule or even rule for us.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
6,652
Location
here nc
#7
All or nothing that is the ticket to winning.
That attitude as worked so well in the past.
Please demand your congressmen do nothing until they have the perfect bill before them.
That way nothing well get done and we can wait another few decades for the courts to decide or not.
There is no guarantee that the courts well rule or even rule for us.
FI, you are correct about the courts not able to decide ‘who is on first...’ but remember the concept did not worked so well as the TX grassroots entities all took separate strategies to push their legislative body to get open carry for longhorn citizens. Don’t Forget their debacle of all or none mentality and the ramifications of thei grassroots campaigns affected OC carry nationally as organizations ban guns in their establishments across the country.

Further, longhorn citizens still ended up with horrible mandated state level permit which must be shown to LEs based solely on their whim!

No this national push should be left alone to die a quiet death.
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
3,883
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
#8
Congress has NO constitutional power to pass National Concealed Carry Reciprocity.

The Supreme Court in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 553, 23 L.Ed 588 (1876) declared that the right of “bearing arms for a lawful purpose.” was not granted by the Constitution. The understanding was that it was in existence before the Constitution. “The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress.”

Then 134 years later the Supreme Court declared that the Second Amendment applies to the states. See McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010).

In 2008 the United States Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 592, 171 L.Ed 2d 637, 128 S.Ct. 2783 (2008) declared “we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment.” The Court then cited Cruikshank as part of its historical analysis. Thus, Heller held that the right to bear arms for a lawful purpose was secured by the U.S. Constitution.

More importantly, Heller did not limit the right to bear arms. It specifically stated, “Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it ‘shall not be infringed.” The Court reiterated, “Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers.”
 

357SigFan

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2007
Messages
134
Location
STL MO, USA
#10
Congress has NO constitutional power to pass National Concealed Carry Reciprocity.

The Supreme Court in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 553, 23 L.Ed 588 (1876) declared that the right of “bearing arms for a lawful purpose.” was not granted by the Constitution. The understanding was that it was in existence before the Constitution. “The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress.”

Then 134 years later the Supreme Court declared that the Second Amendment applies to the states. See McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010).

In 2008 the United States Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 592, 171 L.Ed 2d 637, 128 S.Ct. 2783 (2008) declared “we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment.” The Court then cited Cruikshank as part of its historical analysis. Thus, Heller held that the right to bear arms for a lawful purpose was secured by the U.S. Constitution.

More importantly, Heller did not limit the right to bear arms. It specifically stated, “Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it ‘shall not be infringed.” The Court reiterated, “Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers.”

Dumb question.....

If the court stated/ruled in Heller:

More importantly, Heller did not limit the right to bear arms. It specifically stated, “Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it ‘shall not be infringed.” The Court reiterated, “Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers.”
Then why are all the void laws at the state and federal level even still here and being enforced? All laws, state and federal, that infringe upon the 'Right to Keep and Bear Arms' are in fact null and void, but there's no chance you'd NOT go to prison for violating any of these void laws using that as a defense... Or am I missing something and the SC is in fact useless?
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
3,883
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
#11
Dumb question.....

If the court stated/ruled in Heller:



Then why are all the void laws at the state and federal level even still here and being enforced? All laws, state and federal, that infringe upon the 'Right to Keep and Bear Arms' are in fact null and void, but there's no chance you'd NOT go to prison for violating any of these void laws using that as a defense... Or am I missing something and the SC is in fact useless?
Because state and federal courts could care less what the Supreme Court rules. The only time the lower courts rely on the SC is when it serves their purpose. Last year Clarence Thomas wrote a dissenting opining taking the other SC Justices to the wood shed for not enforcing their decisions on the lower courts. Like the second court of appeals ruling that carrying outside the home is a crime. The average person don't have the fortitude and money to fight the fight. The courts are dirty, the courts rule on their agenda not the law or facts. I speak from experience, I presently have a petition for certiorari in the US Supreme Court for false arrest for legally open carrying which I was acquitted. September 20, 2018 was the five year anniversary. And, yes I would do it again.
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,703
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
#13
I have to agree with Solus on this. I think a national reciprocity law would create a backlash of limiting legislation across a number of states to codify their opposition to "weak" gun laws, making things much worse than they are now.
If you would, please explain how you believe they would do this.

Let SCOTUS sort this out. They could nullify state CHP requirements by invoking the "full faith and credit" clause of the Constitution, but I don't see it as a likely outcome. SCOTUS could decide it's a matter left to the states (very likely), as the states have always regulated firearms according to their own concepts. I'm thinking that as long as states don't discriminate among citizen's rights, SCOTUS would be okay with that.
SCOTUS "could" do a lot of things they don't do. SCOTUS is good for some things, but when it comes to dropping the hammer on states who flagrantly violate the U.S. Constitution, from our right to keep and bear arms to the 4th's prohibition "against unreasonable searches and seizures," they often fall well short. To date, I see very little evidence from SCOTUS that they will sort out any issue involving standardizing carry laws between states, much less eliminating the un-Constitutional infringements on our right to keep and bear arms.

And any law that might get passed can always be amended or repealed by a later regime.
True, which is why our Founding Fathers saw fit to up the ante to Amendment level. Even then, neither States nor SCOTUS have acted in a manner fully commensurate with the U.S. Constitution when it comes to our right to keep and bear arms.
 

CJ4wd

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2017
Messages
119
Location
Planet Earth
#15
Unfortunately, with some of the additions the left has made in these midterms and the lack of "intestinal fortitude" that too many republicans no longer have, reciprocity is off the table until (and IF) DJT is re-elected. :mad:
 

Bikenut

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 16, 2009
Messages
2,746
Location
Saginaw, Michigan, USA
#16
I desperately hope the mistaken and misbegotten idea that begging Daddy Fed for permission to exercise the right to bear arms across State lines not only strengthens the right itself but will result in more freedom stops before folks get exactly what they are begging for.

Remember whatever the present government gives a future government can either take away or restrict into something resembling having been taken away. Think what Swalwell, Cory Booker, Maxine Waters, Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, or any other future Hillary like Congress/President combination could do with the power to control carry permits.

Once the Federal government shows it has the power to control how the States treat carry permits then Daddy Fed can show it has the power to control all aspects of carry permits. And the most restrictive States will demand Daddy Fed standardize the qualifications and training requirements for all States just to make everything... fair.

I am well aware the present reciprocity bills do not address Daddy Fed having the power to control the qualifications/requirements to gain a carry permit but the government, both Federal and State, operates by first gaining the power to do a little something then building on that little. One only needs look at how building on a little at a time gave us 20,000+ gun control laws on a right that was supposed to "shall not be infringed" to understand the danger of begging to give Daddy Fed even the smallest amount of power over carry permits.
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,703
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
#17
Once the Federal government shows it has the power to control how the States treat carry permits then Daddy Fed can show it has the power to control all aspects of carry permits. And the most restrictive States will demand Daddy Fed standardize the qualifications and training requirements for all States just to make everything... fair.
The most restrictive states can suck eggs. They're not following the Constitution.

This issue isn't about "Daddy Fed" as you put it controlling the states. Rather, it's about enforcing the law, namely, "the supreme Law of the Land," which specifically prohibits infringement on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

The states aren't going to police themselves. Sometimes, the feds do have to get involved until the states back down and do what's right.

If the Constitution is a contract among the several states, as the founding fathers understood, what is the remedy to violations of the contract?

I submit to you one of the reasons the feds have power at all is to enforce our Constitutional contract between the states. Indeed, the feds have stepped in on many occasions when individual states weren't following the law.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
6,652
Location
here nc
#18
The most restrictive states can suck eggs. They're not following the Constitution.

This issue isn't about "Daddy Fed" as you put it controlling the states. Rather, it's about enforcing the law, namely, "the supreme Law of the Land," which specifically prohibits infringement on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

The states aren't going to police themselves. Sometimes, the feds do have to get involved until the states back down and do what's right.

If the Constitution is a contract among the several states, as the founding fathers understood, what is the remedy to violations of the contract?

I submit to you one of the reasons the feds have power at all is to enforce our Constitutional contract between the states. Indeed, the feds have stepped in on many occasions when individual states weren't following the law.
So since9, regarding your quote, completely out of context from a ‘12 NC op-ed media piece about secessionist mentality & without attribution per se, could you perhaps enlighten us which specific STATES are being contractually defined by the term “among the several states”?

Further, there are numerous instances states ‘ignore’ Federal statutory mandates with impunity, for example - the legalization of marijuana! Another is the states/cities setting up ‘refugee’ areas! Yes those in Fed land thumped the chests but, it didn’t change a thing at the state level, now did it?
 

Bikenut

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 16, 2009
Messages
2,746
Location
Saginaw, Michigan, USA
#19
Originally posted by since9:
-snip-This issue isn't about "Daddy Fed" as you put it controlling the states. Rather, it's about enforcing the law, namely, "the supreme Law of the Land," which specifically prohibits infringement on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. -snip-
Carry permits ARE the most heinous "infringement" prohibited by the Constitutional supreme law of the land stated "shall not be infringed" in the 2nd Amendment.

Those who want national reciprocity are sidling up to Daddy Fed and begging him to make Mommy State give them a privilege. Kinda like a teenager who's Mommy told him he can't borrow the car running to Daddy and begging him to override Mommy and give him permission have the car in spite of what Mommy said. But the sad thing is the teenager owns the car!

And I can't understand how anyone could possibly equate carry PERMITS, the very infringement of government in control of who does (and most importantly who does NOT!) have permission to exercise the right to keep and bear arms the 2nd Amendment was intended to prohibit. If folks really want Daddy Fed to step up and make Mommy States obey the law of the land then folks should be demanding Daddy Fed require permit free Constitutional Carry throughout the United States instead of begging for just a higher level of government control of permission called "national reciprocity".

Again I say:
Think of what folks like Swalwell, Cory Booker, Maxine Waters, Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, Nancy Pelousi, or any other future Hillary like Congress/President combination could do with the power to control carry permits using national reciprocity as proof they have the authority. And then think about the fact that it was misguided gun owners who not only willingly supported it but begged on bended knee for the opportunity to bend over and help make it happen.

It is no wonder politicians think "we the people" are dumber than a box of hammers.... because we most certainly are!
 

Top