MLeake I agree with you. By the Constitution no state can nor the fed can pass a law that is against the constitution. It is our 2a right so the fed will sooner or laider have to rule over it anyway (the supreme court) I do not like the ABA getting involved in this. They are lawyers leave them out as much as we can. Congress has the chance right here to stand for and by the document that gives them the right to even have a job. I would like to see the bill simply state that if a person has been issued a CCW permit in there state of residence then no other state may "infringe" upon their 2a while they are ingaged in travel or visiting another state. I dont think that the fed should be able to tell a state if it will issue a permit or not untill the supreme court makes that decion which they will have to in the near future way to much hype is being brought to it and it is only going to grow over the next few years as more gun rights people and anti-gunners bring case to them. Congress has their worst approval rating ever right now. I think this would improve it with most Americans. For them to stand up and say "look the majority of the states of the union are shall issue states and allready have resiporty and this body believing that it is valid under the Constitution for the United States make this law that if a person is issued a permit in their resident state then no other state may infirng upon the right, or hinder any person from doing so in any other state." I mean we are a country that goes with the majority well suppose to be any way. We need to see good stuff come off capital hill. We need them to stand for the constitution as much as the supreme court does or we will forever be a country where on pass the law we wait the other revokes it and around and around we go. Lets just get it right the first time and then put the issue to bed.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
House Committee to vote on CCW Reciprocity Soon!
- Thread starter dipsomaniac
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
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.
As stated earlier in the thread, Its a waste of time and will any of us any good. Luckily FLA recips with 33 other states. As Al has stated the feds need to stay out of this one. One of the few times in my opinion that we are much better off with the feds not screwing with this gun legislation that some thinking its good for us.
That's what worries me. Borderline states like New York, California, New Jersey, Hawaii, and Massachusetts may simply stop issuing permits altogether to avoid compliance. The net effect to citizens of those states would be worse.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.
secret_agent_man
Moderator
States that stop issuing concealed carry permits will ultimately be forced by litigation to endorse open carry or concealed carry without a permit. Or both. Suspension of permitting simply gains them some ground in a battle they are destined to lose.
Actually, Tom Servo, I have to agree (edit: with s.a.m.). Having lived in Hawaii, and having relatives currently in NJ, I'd say those states' residents would be better off with an outright ban, which a court should overturn, as opposed to their current systems. A present, they effectively have bans in place, but they are harder to overturn than an explicit ban would be.
Last edited:
From the NRA-ILA email today and here is the link so it can be read in full,
http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=7147
A link to the bill, http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.822:
A link to the NRA facts sheet,
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=189&issue=003
http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=7147
The TRUTH About H.R. 822 --
The "National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011"
There's been a lot of misguided, unfounded, and just plain incorrect information circulating on the Internet lately regarding H.R. 822 -- the "National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011." Most of the false characterizations typically come from the anti-gun groups and media. But more and more, a small cadre of self-described "pro-gun" groups continually sound false alarms and "stir the pot" in an effort to be noticed. These repeat offenders peddle mischaracterizations as the gospel, and dilute the good work being done to protect the Second Amendment by legitimate groups.
Some of the misinformation borders on ridiculous. One group circulated an email this week (Thursday, October 20) warning readers that, "H.R. 822 could be taken up for a vote as early as tomorrow morning." What the author failed to realize is that "tomorrow morning," (Friday, October 21) was a day the U.S. House was not even in session! Not very confidence-inspiring.
A link to the bill, http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.822:
A link to the NRA facts sheet,
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=189&issue=003
I got that email too. I don't agree with the NRA on this one. Yes, NAGR, aka Dudley, sent some wrong info, the crux was ok. I still maintain that the NRA and other proponents of this bill don't understand how Federal intrusion can happen. They haven't looked at history.
Nothing that the Fed has become involved in has not been touched by federal rules, intervention, etc. Just look at Education, at first it was just to give financial aid to state education fund. Now they impose "Federal Standards" on education across the country. Same has happened to the Highway safety that was to be funded by the US gasoline tax. Sounds simple. But now after a few decades, Feds set standards for highways or withold fund to states to force compliance. The list goes on and on.
Nothing escapes Fed rules once the Feds get their nose under the tent.
Nothing that the Fed has become involved in has not been touched by federal rules, intervention, etc. Just look at Education, at first it was just to give financial aid to state education fund. Now they impose "Federal Standards" on education across the country. Same has happened to the Highway safety that was to be funded by the US gasoline tax. Sounds simple. But now after a few decades, Feds set standards for highways or withold fund to states to force compliance. The list goes on and on.
Nothing escapes Fed rules once the Feds get their nose under the tent.
MLeake said:Most of us think this is a 2nd Amendment issue, and should apply to all Americans.
While most of us DO think this is a Second Amendment issue, the courts have not yet agreed with us. As far as the courts are concerned, the Second Amendment might stop at our front door and have no effect on CCW.
Jim, that sentiment would also apply to the bill that the GOA is pushing since they both invite federal intrusion into this issue.JimPage said:I got that email too. I don't agree with the NRA on this one. Yes, NAGR, aka Dudley, sent some wrong info, the crux was ok. I still maintain that the NRA and other proponents of this bill don't understand how Federal intrusion can happen. They haven't looked at history.
Nothing that the Fed has become involved in has not been touched by federal rules, intervention, etc. Just look at Education, at first it was just to give financial aid to state education fund. Now they impose "Federal Standards" on education across the country. Same has happened to the Highway safety that was to be funded by the US gasoline tax. Sounds simple. But now after a few decades, Feds set standards for highways or withold fund to states to force compliance. The list goes on and on.
Nothing escapes Fed rules once the Feds get their nose under the tent.
http://www.gainesville.com/article/...02/news01?Title=Stearns-gun-bill-moving-along
Out of Committee and the alarmism is already starting big time....
From page 2 of the article
No surprise from the ole Gainesville Sun trying to frighten people into thinking the mentally ill, drug offenders who are also Felons from other states will be CC'ing in FL soon.
I am far from an expert on CC laws in each state, but I would imagine the VAST MAJORITY ban CC by Felons, The mentally ill/defective, Drug users or convicted of some sort of violent crime.
Out of Committee and the alarmism is already starting big time....
From page 2 of the article
The version approved Tuesday by the Judiciary Committee would prohibit states from requiring visitors to abide by the host state's laws defining who is eligible to possess or carry concealed firearms.
For instance, Florida may reject concealed-carry permits for convicted felons or people convicted of violent misdemeanors within three years of their application; people with a record of drug or alcohol abuse, or with multiple arrests for those charges; people found mentally incompetent; people who are physically incapable of handling a firearm safely or who fail to prove proficiency with a gun; and people who have been issued a domestic violence injunction.
Yet under Franks' amended version, Florida would have to recognize an out-of-state permit granted to people with such histories if the other state did not specifically ban the permit for those conditions.
No surprise from the ole Gainesville Sun trying to frighten people into thinking the mentally ill, drug offenders who are also Felons from other states will be CC'ing in FL soon.
I am far from an expert on CC laws in each state, but I would imagine the VAST MAJORITY ban CC by Felons, The mentally ill/defective, Drug users or convicted of some sort of violent crime.
oneounceload
Moderator
States that stop issuing concealed carry permits will ultimately be forced by litigation to endorse open carry or concealed carry without a permit. Or both. Suspension of permitting simply gains them some ground in a battle they are destined to lose.
Based on WHAT? - No they don't - all they have to do is make it so expensive and arduous
This federal law os OK, but it's only a law
I don't think a simple law carries enough weight. I think we need some over-arching principle. Something like a constitutional amendment.
It's like Title VII of the Civil Right Act of 1964... I mean it's good and all, but it's not exactly the Equal Rights Amendment.
We need something like that only pertaining to firearms, y'know being able to procure, transport, posess and carry firarms. Something that would apply to the entire United States of America.
I don't think a simple law carries enough weight. I think we need some over-arching principle. Something like a constitutional amendment.
It's like Title VII of the Civil Right Act of 1964... I mean it's good and all, but it's not exactly the Equal Rights Amendment.
We need something like that only pertaining to firearms, y'know being able to procure, transport, posess and carry firarms. Something that would apply to the entire United States of America.
I don't think a simple law carries enough weight. I think we need some over-arching principle. Something like a constitutional amendment.
I think we have that in the second amendment but we still have all these problems anyway.
@ Count I agree 100% of you but getting 3/4 of the states to ratify such an amendment would be very difficult.
Currently 29 Republicans, 20 Democrats as Governors. That means you would need all Republicans to co-operate and you would need 9 Democrats to defect OR the required state house/senate majorities to override a veto correct? I don't have the time to look this up but I can imagine more states right now with Republican Governors do not have a monopoly on the State Legislatures than states with Democrat Governors that do not have a monopoly on the State Legislatures. Bottom line, numbers are not favorable and probably will be less favorable due to various demographic shifts as we advance further into the century.
Edit: Had a second to look some things up in regards to who might "turn coat" and support a Pro-Gun constitutional amendment: Might IMO get the Governors of Colorado, Arkansas , Kentucky , Minnesota(long shot), Missouri, Montana and West Virginia. The others are strictly speaking in Anti-Gun Territory. That is 7 of the 9 needed, considering you may have republicans defecting the numbers are even worse.
Currently 29 Republicans, 20 Democrats as Governors. That means you would need all Republicans to co-operate and you would need 9 Democrats to defect OR the required state house/senate majorities to override a veto correct? I don't have the time to look this up but I can imagine more states right now with Republican Governors do not have a monopoly on the State Legislatures than states with Democrat Governors that do not have a monopoly on the State Legislatures. Bottom line, numbers are not favorable and probably will be less favorable due to various demographic shifts as we advance further into the century.
Edit: Had a second to look some things up in regards to who might "turn coat" and support a Pro-Gun constitutional amendment: Might IMO get the Governors of Colorado, Arkansas , Kentucky , Minnesota(long shot), Missouri, Montana and West Virginia. The others are strictly speaking in Anti-Gun Territory. That is 7 of the 9 needed, considering you may have republicans defecting the numbers are even worse.
Last edited:
@Chaz: I agree with you, you have a good number of pro 2A Democrats and anti 2A Republicans, but IN GENERAL terms and I am talking broad general terms Republican politicians have had more Pro 2A records than Democrats as of late. Just looking at the simple numbers of who is the Governor of where and how many in broad terms the numbers would not look good IMO for passing and ratifying any kind of constitutional amendment that is pro-gun. As I listed above, you have 7 Democratic Governors that simply due to what states where they live to would have a semi decent chance of supporting this. Republican or Democrat I can't see the Governors in places like NJ, MA, CA or NY to name a few supporting anything like what count was talking about simply because it would be political suicide. I will eat my hat the day someone wins Governor of NY on a strongly Pro-2A platform.
therealdeal
New member
I have to agree with Chaz. I also think it will be a good thing someday. There will be at the very least less of a gray area where people are getting prosecuted out-of-state as well as other examples. People will understand the laws more, and I believe this will make people respect CCW more and legitimize it(referring mostly to people that don't exercise their rights as much for whatever reason).
- Status
- Not open for further replies.