Contact your representative now for ccw

[Spats McGee]

Spats, unsure of what you mean by the last part of that. Codes and models. Can you elaborate?

The recognition of drivers' licenses is done through the Driver's License Compact. What happens is that the ABA (I think) drafts a model set of codes and sends them out to the states. each state that wants to make reciprocity easier as between states then passes the model code, at least in substantially similar form. For example, the Arkansas Code Annotated, at 27-17-101, states:

The Driver License Compact is enacted into law and entered into with all other jurisdictions legally joining therein in the form substantially as follows:

DRIVER LICENSE COMPACT

ARTICLE I Findings and Declaration of Policy

(a) The party states find that:

(1) The safety of their streets and highways is materially affected by the degree of compliance with the state and local ordinances relating to the operation of motor vehicles.

(2) Violation of such a law or ordinance is evidence that the violator engages in conduct which is likely to endanger the safety of persons and property.

(3) The continuance in force of a license to drive is predicated upon compliance with laws and ordinances relating to the operation of motor vehicles, in whichever jurisdiction the vehicle is operated.

(b) It is the policy of each of the party states to:

(1) Promote compliance with the laws, ordinances, and administrative rules and regulations relating to the operation of motor vehicles by their operators in each of the jurisdictions where such operators drive motor vehicles.

(2) Make the reciprocal recognition of licenses to drive and eligibility therefor more just and equitable by considering the overall compliance with motor vehicle laws, ordinances, and administrative rules and regulations as a condition precedent to the continuance or issuance of any license by reason of which the licensee is authorized or permitted to operate a motor vehicle in any of the party states.

For our purposes, what I'm thinking is that states could pass substantially CC laws, and simply agree to mutually recognize each others' CCLs. It accomplishes the same thing as HR 822, but keeps the authority for reciprocity at the state level.

 

[icedog88]

Thats what I thought you meant. I agree with the premise, but if that were a reality with ALL states, the bill HR822 wouldn't have been thought up in the first place. I completely agree it would be better for all, BUT, without that compact, and without a Supreme Court decision, which admittedly could go either way right now, what other choice is left?

 

[Spats McGee]

Well, now that I stop to think about it, my statement that "It accomplishes the same thing as HR 822, but keeps the authority for reciprocity at the state level," isn't exactly accurate. I don't agree that it HR 822 wouldn't have been imagined, but a compact would certainly decrease the administrative cost of getting reciprocity, as compared to each state having to negotiate individual agreements with each other state.

Without a compact, and without a SCOTUS decision, HR 822 is mostly all that's left. I don't really want this issue legislated at the federal level, and I'd urge waiting until a better bill comes along.

 

[youngunz4life]

this are pretty much my beliefs even before thread began

Right. States like Illinois and New York have the option of weaseling out of compliance with something like HR 822, but not a Supreme Court ruling.

just caught up on some good reading...this quote is maybe one of about ten I could've used.

I said a while back in this thread that the two will occur at about the same time in my opinion. Hoping for this bill to fail for ammunition as mentioned or other rebound stuff is a mistake i think. The pass of the bill will send stuff in the right direction and will be very powerful.

WHEN(and that is the question as it could be yrs and yrs and yrs or less) this bill passes as I feel it will eventually it will have some shockwaves. People will jump on board with it and the discussions will be about what they can now do, understanding it, and also - about how no matter what the naysayers or anti bill TFLs or regular people say - the people as a whole more and more being for the bill will pretty much drown you all out...and then in time you guys will jump ship anyways. This bill is pretty much as good as you can get...hoping for it to fail and wanting everything to be perfect and the stars perfectly aligned is a defect of character and a misunderstanding(IMO).

How many times have you done this with little things in the course of your life and regretted it after the fact(holding off beause you wanted more or something perfect 1st)? You do not have to have one before the other to make this bill work. I for one don't think there is going to be some kind of major revolution in the anti states or gathering up starting a snowball effect of completely getting away from this bill. It isn't gonna happen.

As I also mentioned, states tried this w/LEOSA and failed miserably. "Well, thats LEO?" So, what's your point? The law will be respected and the ones that don't respect it(talking about certain governors, congresswoman, etc) will still fall into line. They might quote rhetoric for an election or to keep the antis hoping but the bottom line a human can only do so much. They aren't going to magically stop OUR snowball, and other things will be on their mind anyways. Insights aren't worth a damn, but that's my $21.50 for the donation basket. Take it or leave it. time will tell. Again, I am the one person I know of in these discussions with really nothing to gain that is pro the bill. all the best

 

[youngunz4life]

please note, in the 2nd to last paragraph and also thru the post I sometimes refer to the initial quote when I say "we don't need one before the other" as an example.

I am sorry for not being more specific or if my entire post wasn't as readable as I meant.

 

[Tom Servo]

what we need now is for SCOTUS to declare that it is a fundamental right.

They did that in McDonald. However, the scope of the right has not been firmly defined. As it stands, states like Maryland can claim that their restrictive, discriminatory schemes comply with the Court's rulings. What we need is for the Court to say that they don't.

This bill is pretty much as good as you can get...hoping for it to fail and wanting everything to be perfect and the stars perfectly aligned is a defect of character and a misunderstanding(IMO).

Really? How is this as good as we get? It's full of holes, it could result in a nationwide database of CCW holders, and if it does pass, it could undermine a very important court challenge. Jeez, I'd hate to see what could possibly be worse.

 

[BGutzman]

Some one show me one single fed program thats more than 2 years old that didnt turn into some form of bloat or over regulation.... My point being not the politics but simply our nations leaders have ZERO capacity to manage anything properly.

What might seem like a good law in the end will be twisted to the point it becomes unrecognizeable, we dont need the fed in our gun rights anymore than the unconstitutional regulations already are...

 

[GI Sandv]

Spats McGee, I tried suggesting something like your model code suggestion in post 18--ages ago. Of course, I was thinking of the UCC at the time and your example is probably a little clearer and more closely related. Nonetheless, a non-federal body creating a uniform bill for states to adopt on their own would be a good thing. I think it would free up the energy that states' attorneys general are spending trying to develop reciprocity with one another (which often takes a bill in the house recognizing certain training requirements or other elements of the permitting process from a neighboring state). These 40 or so states that would likely agree to some version of this would then be able to present a unified front to those other handful of states that are reluctant to jump on board. I suspect that a 40-10 fight over this issue is much better than a 5-1-7-3-12...fight. As it stands, the reciprocity maps are confusing and states are having to move one by one. Once there's general reciprocity throughout most of the country, the few obstinate states are going to have to deal with pressure from the majority of states collectively, as opposed to the piecemeal pressure they get today. And, this type of agreement will not be open to judicial attacks.

Tom Servo, did Heller declare that the 2A protects simply an individual right or a fundamental, individual right? This is the issue about which I was confused earlier. I know they said that it's a right, but does it fall into that special category of fundamental rights which even the Constitution couldn't restrict if it wanted to? (My understanding of the extent of SCOTUS's fundamental rights jurisprudence is still fuzzy, so someone inclined to do so please clarify.) I think Spats McGee's point was that if SCOTUS hasn't declared it a fundamental right, the extent of our right to carry is perhaps very tenuous and primarily determined by state legislatures (not to mention the BATFE). On the other hand, a SCOTUS ruling that declared the 2A a primordial fundamental right would make short shrift of the vast majority of restrictions on that right, state, federal, or from the King. The only carve-outs would be the most pressing restrictions for the purposes of public safety, such as on airplanes and in prisons (?). Or so it seems to me. Someone smarter than me want to weigh in and clarify?

 

[Tom Servo]

did Heller declare that the 2A protects simply an individual right or a fundamental, individual right? (...) I know they said that it's a right, but does it fall into that special category of fundamental rights which even the Constitution couldn't restrict if it wanted to?

From the McDonald opinion:

A survey of the contemporaneous history also demonstrates clearly that the Fourteenth Amendment’s Framers and ratifiers counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to the Nation’s system of ordered liberty. [p.4]

Thus, Antifederalists and Federalists alike agreed that the right to bear arms was fundamental to the newly formed system of government. [p. 26]

[The 39th Congress'] efforts to safeguard the right to keep and bear arms demonstrate that the right was still recognized to be fundamental. [p. 32]

legal commentators from the period emphasized the fundamental nature of the right. [p. 35]

In sum, it is clear that the Framers and ratifiers of the Fourteenth Amendment counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty. [p. 39]

Under our precedents, if a Bill of Rights guarantee is fundamental from an American perspective, then, unless stare decisis counsels otherwise, that guarantee is fully binding on the States and thus limits (but by no means eliminates) their ability to devise solutions to social problems that suit local needs and values. [p. 43]

we have never held that a provision of the Bill of Rights applies to the States only if there is a “popular consensus” that the right is fundamental, and we see no basis for such a rule. But in this case, as it turns out, there is evidence of such a consensus. An amicus brief
submitted by 58 Members of the Senate and 251 Members of the House of Representatives urges us to hold that the right to keep and bear arms is fundamental. [p. 48]

I don't have privileged access to some super-secret trove of restricted information; it's right there in the text of the opinion.

 

[C0untZer0]

deleting the F&F story link - by Arizona Republic

Ooops wrong thread

 

[youngunz4life]

1)good article^

and

2)tom, let me rephrase though I felt I made my point: at the moment it is as good as it gets. I'll take what I can get & the good w/the bad.

as for a ccw database. this is inevitable. states keep track of who has permits too, and in fact a federal database might allready exist even though it is virtually pointless @ the moment since states handle their own(all it would be is a list of already existing lists anyways). they have a right to keep track of those that have permits. some might dispute it, but you will need to renew your permit eventually just like a license.

now, I have been hearing for DECADES how the DMV is National now that maybe in some places but more often than not it seems to stay at the state...you can purposely or by mistake slip thru the cracks with the state thing(call that the last paragraph babble but I used that growing up in my favor on more than one occaision). Heck you can even get away w/2 licenses...they don't even cancel the old outofstate one when you turn it in upon getting new one in new state

 

[icedog88]

It might be established that the right to keep and bear arms is in fact fundamental, but it is still open to interpretation if that means to carry, correct?

 

[Don P]

I could care less who knows I own guns, but that is a separate issue that I do not believe but obviously would be against. If they did that or do that, this bill has nothing to do with it.

On the surface it has noting to do with it as it was stated by another member this bill passing will allow the camel to poke its nose under the tent. This is one reason for privacy the State of FLA has stopped placing the CC permit holders address on the CC license. Again MY OPINION down the line if this bill becomes law the Feds will know who owns what as far as firearms go and thats a bad thing and there would be nothing any one of us could possibly do to stop that from happening.

If they did that or do that, this bill has nothing to do with it.

This the opening of the door.

My curiosity is up with regards to where people are living that are in favor or against this bill.
Are folks for this bill that are living in states that are the short list of reciprocity states. Here in FLA we are reciprocity with 33 states. Just curious. Maybe the mods could set up a poll as to in favor and against with state of residence.

 

[icedog88]

My curiosity is up with regards to where people are living that are in favor or against this bill.
Are folks for this bill that are living in states that are the short list of reciprocity states. Here in FLA we are reciprocity with 33 states. Just curious. Maybe the mods could set up a poll as to in favor and against with state of residence.

In a few of my earlier posts, I believe I did state those same inferences. Judging by most of the forum members "location" on their profile. Why would anyone who already has reciprocity want this bill? Those of us who don't have it, want it. Seems to be the Northeast primarily in favor.

 

[Rusty35]

icedog88
Senior Member

In a few of my earlier posts, I believe I did state those same inferences. Judging by most of the forum members "location" on their profile. Why would anyone who already has reciprocity want this bill? Those of us who don't have it, want it. Seems to be the Northeast primarily in favor.

Its not the bill I am opposed to, it the wording in the bill.

I am sure location has something to do with "for or against".
Those with reciprocity have something to lose, those that dont have it, have nothing to lose.

 

[oneounceload]

I am not worried about losing reciprocity - I am worried about letting the Fed get involved in this - because they only know how to do things in a one-size-fits-all mentality - whether it is education, welfare, health, etc. - the gov't devises one solution - but what might work well in one area may not be feasible in another - but that doesn't matter to them. Secondly, once you let this camel's nose under the tent, it will soon be in bed next to you - this can easily go completely against everything with an edict or decree made by some newly appointed "czar of whatever" that will now be in control of CCW. If you really think DC, NYC, and the rest are going to allow you from out of state to carry more freely than they do their own residents, you are kidding yourselves. Things will become more strict, not less.

 

[Tom Servo]

at the moment it is as good as it gets. I'll take what I can get & the good w/the bad.

Why would anyone who already has reciprocity want this bill? Those of us who don't have it, want it. Seems to be the Northeast primarily in favor.

Forgive the rest of us if we're not so eager. Taking a meager victory now isn't practical if it comes at the expense of even worse grief later. If the bill were to pass, it would be whittled down to an ineffectual splinter by subsequent legislation and local ordinances. A few states might gain reciprocity with a couple of others, but they're not the brass-ring ones you seem to think.

If you really think you're going to be able to carry in New York City, Baltimore, or Washington DC with the passage of this bill, I've got some oceanfront property in Nevada you might like.

 

[youngunz4life]

Tom

If you really think you're going to be able to carry in New York City, Baltimore, or Washington DC with the passage of this bill...

Yes, I honestly believe this as stated before. Unfortunately, you can not conclusively say otherwise. "That's why they play the game" is a 'shoe' that fits. There was a time that the thought of medical marijuana was a pipe dream(coincidence on example//just a reminder that things can and do change//the draft for War as another example).

Taking a meager victory now isn't practical if it comes at the expense of even worse grief later. If the bill were to pass, it would be whittled down to an ineffectual splinter by subsequent legislation and local ordinances.

You know to put the same phrase back on you basically, you are making an assumption here. You have no evidence of this. It is extremely easy for the federal law to trump state and obviously local ordinances. At the moment(easy fix and something they wouldn't forget when they're tying the shoe), the only escape would basically be to cancel CCW completely. Do you think every anti-state is going to do this even if they have the option and even if there is no consequences set forth by the fed govt? Most are all bark and no bite. They will not bite that hand that feeds them. They are all family and stick together anyways(except when they are fighting).

 

[youngunz4life]

guyz, these scotch drinkin, cigar smokin, revolver weildin dudes didn't put this bill together to play games or control you. They did it to help their constituents for the greater good and because they can. Do you really trust them all alone at the state level but think they're picking on you when they get in a pack. Roll with it. There is more power in numbers!

now for what I just remembered why I came back for another post:

as for the camel nose and it is amazing how people can honestly see things completely differently, I see it as a foot in the door when this bill passes & that is why the antis hate it. They don't want to give it up because by that point they will know THEY'RE SCREWED(but of course they can huff and puff to get some votes when it happens + I'm fine with that

 

[icedog88]

How much for that property?

And yes, I do forgive you.