House Committee to vote on CCW Reciprocity Soon!

Status
Not open for further replies.
I am not so 100% sure this would die in the Senate, you still have some moderate gun loving Democrats there
Click to expand...
It has to get through the House first, and that's where it will meet universal opposition from New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Maryland, and California. That's a lot of "nay" votes.

Even if it does, I can guarantee the Presidential won't sign it. He loses nothing by vetoing it, as the margin in Congress will be too small to override, and the bill isn't attached to anything he needs.
 
I think it's a good thing in general.

It is a rememinder to the pockets of anti-gun sentiment in the country that they are in the minority.

It may not pass but I think it's good to keep the pressure on.
 
and the bill isn't attached to anything he needs.
Click to expand...

The president needs some goodwill from Republicans to begin passing the "bite size" portions of his jobs bill if he has any hope or reelection. This bill wouldn't **** off his base too much and might get that goodwill. Stranger things have happened is all I am saying. I am not sure 100% myself if this is a good thing, or a bad thing. Once the Government gets involved everything tends to go Bizzaro world sooner or later, with good becoming bad and bad becoming worse :-\
 
There is another thread here about letigation versus legislation.

I'm not even sure this is constitutional.

If it is constitutional then it's unecesary since all the states would have to eventually adhere to the same standard - the same way that Miranda rights cannot vary from state to state.
 
This bill wouldn't **** off his base too much and might get that goodwill.
Click to expand...
I may be misreading things, but I'm not seeing much potential for goodwill on the Hill right now.

The 2nd Amendment isn't a hot-button political issue at the moment. If it was, we'd be hearing about this on the evening news. We're not. Other issues have the center stage, both in the legislature and the media. As such, the President doesn't really have anything to lose by vetoing it.

On the other hand, signing it might further alienate what's left of his base, which is comprised of folks who very strongly support gun control.

Without a vast majority, I don't see this passing.
 
Well Tom I agree to Disagree sort of. The Presidents base is going to vote for him anyways, this is his second term and most independents support the second amendment, signing it IMO is at worst neutral on his record. The problem is I am not sure that the other side of the isle is interested in bargaining at this point while they have the upper hand. Without a quid pro quo then I agree, the bill is probably dead.
 
O.K. I have not read the entier bill but from what I have read I can give it at least some support. Many have said that they dont like the fed regualating our right to carry. Well when it comes down to the end it will be the feds that most likly end up ruling on every case anyway. The Supreme court is part of the federal GOV. From what I gather each state will still be able to say weather or not the will issue which means the current cases against those state will not be mooted.

Our 2nd amendment rights should be supported by the fed. I mean it is part of the document that gives the job they have and tells them how to so there job. I like the idea of the fed saying that if a citizen of state X is allowed to carry in there state by law, then they have that right in any other state of the union. You have free speech in all 50 states like you should. And we should have the right to carry in all 50 states under the 2nd amendment. If state X started saying the people who come from state Z dont have the freedom of speach in their state it would not be long till the fed (supreme court) told them to go do somthing up a rope. So if congress is actually going to attempt to do there job right and tell the states that the laws of the 2nd amendment (i.e CCW from one state is good in another), instead of making have to go through the courts all the way up to the supreme court then I really dont see the issue.

Now if they wanted to start saying that the gun owner must do things different then what their state of of residence says then I would have issue with it. Cause then they are saying that the state dont have the right to pass its own laws for it citizens. But since I living in KY can't and shouldn't vote for the reps of IL then I would like my FED REPS to protect my 2a rights(and all others) if I deside that I would like to cross state lines and visit IL.
 
"Now if they wanted to start saying that the gun owner must do things different then what their state of of residence says then I would have issue with it."
Click to expand...

I don't see why that should be true. Using Universal Drivers License Recognition as an example, a visiting driver from another state is subject to the unique traffic laws of each state they visit (Right Turn on Red Allowed? etc.) I see no reason that I should not be held to the same standards as CCW carriers of another state when I am visiting it. The state should not have to accept CCW conditions of another state, just because it allows that state's CCW holders to carry in their state.
 
Justthisguy: Ican see you where you are coming from to a point but our right to carry is a constitutional right. My freedom of speech is not different from one state to another. My right to a trail by jury is not different from state to state. I can not see why is should be different from state to state with CCW. Our right to keep and bear is just that our right as a citizen of a state giving us equal and the same right and privilages as thos of the serveral states of the union. If we make so many laws that no one can know them all then we will never know how to be truly law abiding. This was a major fear of Washington when he left the White House. Yes I know that this has already happened but why keep going in the wrong direction.

The Supreme Court will not look at state law to determin if carrying is constitutional. They will look at the state law to see if it has violated the constitution though. We have way more gun laws then is needed already so once again if the FED wants to stand up and back the 2nd amendment by making all states honor other states CCW I am still for it. They have been passing laws and waiting fo the supreme court to determin if they are ok or not instead of thinking about it befor they pass the law for to long. Our checks and balance system is not working as it should to me. THe supreme court should only have to hear cases that congress messed up on when passing the law. Congress should not have mind set of well we will pass it and if it is not kosher then they can fix it. our 2nd amendment to keep and bear is our right, NO state can make a law that is legal that infringes upon that right. According to the Constitution. Since many have in my opion then I am glad congress is taking some of the heat off of the supreme court and fixing it before it ever gets to them. Would be one of the very few good things to come off capital hill in a long time. But I will say that I dont feel they should put any more regulation into CCW. Just simply that is citizen X from Texas has a CCW then the state of Florida must honor it.
 
Last edited:
Honestly, I'd rather see the American Bar Association come up with a model CCW code and try to get states to adopt (like they've done with lots of other code sections), than have the feds meddling in this.
 
I could be wrong here so if I am please correct me. IIRC states that have no carry or very restrictive carry such as NYC, D.C., MD, MA, NJ, would override any nationwide CCW bill and those who carry would still have to adhere to those laws and abide by them. So if I am correct still no carry in the above listed places plus most likely others as well.
 
Thank you, s_a_m.

Don P, it (obviously) depends on how HR 822 is written. The title, which isn't (generally) operative, says that it is "to provide a national standard in accordance with which nonresidents of a State may carry concealed firearms in the State." Personally, I'm bothered by the "national standard" language.

Further down, HB 822 tells us that if a CCL holder goes into another state, has his CCL and his DL on him, and the state in which he's traveling allows CC (or at least doesn't forbid it), he can CC a firearm that has traveled in interstate commerce. (As a bit of a silly aside, what if I want to CC something made from scratch in my home state?)

On the other hand, if a state flat-out forbids concealed carry, it won't matter how many permits you have. HB 822 won't let you carry in any state where it's flat-out verboten.

And yes, under HB 822, CCers are subject to the same restrictions as everyone licensed in the state in which they travel.
 
Sure, Stewart works also. They both illustrate the expansion of the Commerce Clause to include just about anything imaginable. The feds jumped into a local child pornography case recently because the video camera used had been manufactured outside of Utah and had been transported in interstate commerce.

Using that sort of loose criteria, the use of electricity to manufacture or operate a product or provide a service would come under the purview to the Commerce Clause.

My apologies for dragging this off topic.

One of the problems with these federal proposals re: CCW is that if the feds assume the authority, through statute, to force the states to recognize CCW permits from other states, they must also, then, have the authority to disallow such a practice. Or so it seems to me. I would much rather have this remain a states rights issue.
 
While I understand that many people are leery of federal involvement in this issue, I still find that a bit perplexing. Most of us think this is a 2nd Amendment issue, and should apply to all Americans. To me, then, it makes the most sense to have the feds force the states to come up with something akin to the driver's license compact.

State's Rights are not supposed to override the Bill of Rights, period.
 
State's Rights are not supposed to override the Bill of Rights, period.
Click to expand...

State's rights supercede Federal grasps at our rights - the whole part about those items not specifically granted, etc.......

The Fed will botch it up and have it wind up in court for decades - NYC, DC, etc., are not going to let you carry in their jurisdiction without major court battles
 
V said:
To me, then, it makes the most sense to have the feds force the states to come up with something akin to the driver's license compact.
Click to expand...
Well, that's the problem. The bills aren't forcing the states to come to an agreement or pact, the proposed legislation is bypassing the states and legislating a CCW statute that will regulate interstate CCW. There's a whole lot of difference between the two concepts.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top