House Committee to vote on CCW Reciprocity Soon!

[batjka]

I don't understand how anyone that supports the 2nd Amendment can be against this bill.

It DOES NOT invite feds into this issue. All it does is to force states to accept other states' permits and associated laws. This is completely constitutional as part of Full Faithe and Credit clause.
It doesn't undermine State Rights as the CCP holders will have to abide by the local laws and ordinances. So if you're visiting a ban state, your mags will have to be 10 rd capacity maximum.

I would even support having "temporary visitors' CCPs". For example, you visit a state, you go to an office, show your home state's CCP and are issued a temp card on the spot for a small fee. This way states can make a little revenue and everyone's happy. At the same time, this would eliminate all kinds of confusion in case of LE contact.

So, what are you guys up in arms about? Freedom will be extended to all parts of the country if the bill passes. Let's make sure it does!

 

[oneounceload]

It DOES NOT invite feds into this issue. All it does is to force states to accept other states' permits and associated laws.

Where do you think it will end up? In Federal Court

Do you REALLY think the anti-gun meccas of NYC, DC, NJ, etc. are going to roll over and give up?

So, if I am reading your comment correctly, if it passes and I go to NYC, I would have to abide by their carry laws, even if they are more strict than my own, because NYC is NOT going to adopt Florida's rules.

 

[Spats McGee]

I don't understand how anyone that supports the 2nd Amendment can be against this bill.

Easy. I already have an Amendment that says my right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Why would I want to invite the feds to go meddling here?

It DOES NOT invite feds into this issue. All it does is to force states to accept other states' permits and associated laws. This is completely constitutional as part of Full Face and Credit clause.

I disagree. It does invite the feds to start setting standards. If it passes, it won't be long before some representative says, "Wait. We require training in our state, and we don't want guys from states that don't require training running around totin' guns in our towns. Let's set some minimum training standards."

Further, while I agree that such a law might well be constitutional, that doesn't make it a good idea.

Freedom will be extended to all parts of the country if the bill passes. Let's make sure it does!

No, it won't. The way this bill is written, the freedom to use my CHCL will only be extended to those parts of the country that do not prohibit concealed carry. Thirty-some-odd of those already recognize my CHCL.

 

[BGutzman]

The cases where the legislature can leave its fingers off anything once it touches them are few and far between. If this passes this will start as something good and immediately turn to something bad... Absolute power corrupts absolutely.....

 

[batjka]

[/QUOTE] So if I am reading your comment correctly, if it passes and I go to NYC, I would have to abide by their carry laws, even if they are more strict than my own, because NYC is NOT going to adopt Florida's rules[/QUOTE]

That is exactly correct. States are not forced to adopt a different standard or adopt to other states' laws. You will have to adapt to the destination state's CC policies/gun laws. This does not violate anything.

What NY and NJ argue is their business. They will lose in Supreme Court. In the mean time, one will have an opportunity to protect himself while traveling throughout the country, with exception of IL.

 

[CowTowner]

So, if I am reading your comment correctly, if it passes and I go to NYC, I would have to abide by their carry laws, even if they are more strict than my own, because NYC is NOT going to adopt Florida's rules.

A different analogy
Your current state's driver's license is valid in every state that issues driver's licenses. If you drive from Florida to NYC, don't you have to follow the laws in GA., S.C., N.C., VA., MD., N.J. or PA., and N.Y. depending on your route?
Of course you do. This would work the same way.

 

[secret_agent_man]

No they don't - all they have to do is make it so expensive and arduous

The states will be unable to do that under either strict scrutiny or heightened scrutiny. Under either, the burden of obtaining a permit cannot be anything more than incidental. Much like completing the current federal background check. A few clicks of the mouse, and you got it.

 

[therealdeal]

I don't understand how anyone that supports the 2nd Amendment can be against this bill.

It DOES NOT invite feds into this issue. All it does is to force states to accept other states' permits and associated laws. This is completely constitutional as part of Full Faithe and Credit clause.
It doesn't undermine State Rights as the CCP holders will have to abide by the local laws and ordinances. So if you're visiting a ban state, your mags will have to be 10 rd capacity maximum.

I would even support having "temporary visitors' CCPs". For example, you visit a state, you go to an office, show your home state's CCP and are issued a temp card on the spot for a small fee. This way states can make a little revenue and everyone's happy. At the same time, this would eliminate all kinds of confusion in case of LE contact.

So, what are you guys up in arms about? Freedom will be extended to all parts of the country if the bill passes. Let's make sure it does!

I agree with this completely, but the only way to find out who wins this bet is to see what happens when it happens. People are scared of change; in This Case the fed gov't can help. It doesn't mean all of a sudden or after some stupid lawsuit people in AK or TX aren't gonna be able to CCW in peace! It will allow them to go to NYC and carry CCW like law-abiding citizens whether NY likes it or not. The ones aganst it will be the states agnst CCW. Tough.

Easy. I already have an Amendment that says my right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Why would I want to invite the feds to go meddling here?

Well Spats, many states already meddle in this issue. Let's move past this together the best we can because it is not gonna change in one form or another.

 

[alloy]

They could try leading by example, if they want trust. But this was less than 2 weeks ago.
Apples to oranges maybe, but the fact is...DC has issues of it's own, yet it's home to the Federal Government and the Supreme Court....and they don't want guns there, nor understand the 2a in a manner that I'm comfortable with. How about removing restrictions @ post offices, to show how much they care.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/oct/13/house-committee-defeats-dc-concealed-gun-amendment/

 

[motorhead0922]

In the Washington Times article posted by alloy, Trey Dowdy appears to be in favor of uniform national gun laws:

Rep. Trey Gowdy, South Carolina Republican and chairman of the House subcommittee with oversight of D.C. affairs, voted “present” on Mr. Gohmert’s amendment.

“It was a combination of my preference to deal with D.C. gun laws in another vehicle and a general belief that the Second Amendment is just as important as the other nine amendments in the Bill of Rights and should not be subject to the vagaries of 50 different interpretations — 51 if you include the District,” he said.

 

[Spats McGee]

I agree with this completely, but the only way to find out who wins this bet is to see what happens when it happens.

That's a little like saying "the only way to know what's in the bill is to pass it."

People are scared of change; in This Case the fed gov't can help.

It can help, but I don't think it will help.

Easy. I already have an Amendment that says my right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Why would I want to invite the feds to go meddling here?

Well Spats, many states already meddle in this issue. Let's move past this together the best we can because it is not gonna change in one form or another.

Sooo, . . many states already meddle in my 2A right, so I should just suck it up and invite the feds to do the same thing?

No, thank you. I do not want the Distinguished Ladies and Gentlemen from Illinois, New York, New Jersey and California to have a chance to set standards for Arkansas' concealed carry laws. And it sets the stage for people in the restrictive jurisdictions to have to fend off limitations to their RKBA on both the federal and state levels.

No, thank you.

 

[Patriot86]

uniform national gun laws

Those words right there chill me, because it is more likely as times go on for "national gun laws" to become like NJ rather than say Texas. National CCW reciprocity I think is where it should stop, Like others have said your drivers licence is good in all 50 states so should your CCW Permit. let the courts decide about AWB's HGB's and the rest.

 

[icedog88]

Def in favor of this as I live in CT,work in RI, and family in Mass. My carry permit stops at the border, so I only have the right to protect myself with a handgun in my state? In the words of Iron Mike Tyson,"That's Ludicrous!". RI, and Mass don't recognize my permit and to get a carry permit in those states is damn nigh impossible. So from my vantage point, I hope it passes as is.

 

[therealdeal]

Alloy

How about removing restrictions @ post offices, to show how much they care.

Let's worry about one thing at a time. I agree w/Patriot in post 72 between yours & this one.

Spats, you give a good argument, and that's what I meant about the bet: there doesn't seem to be any clear answer. Holding on for your dear life to keep what you got in razorback country isn't helping all of the other true CCWers though // case in point: icedog post 73

...and it isn't progressing our God given rights + upholding our Constitutional rights. I have no problems with my CCW, but why shouldn't everyone be able to carry throughout the great United States of America? It should be an automatic, but legislation like this is needed to make it so.

 

[wally626]

So if I am reading your comment correctly, if it passes and I go to NYC, I would have to abide by their carry laws, even if they are more strict than my own, because NYC is NOT going to adopt Florida's rules

A lot of the strict permit states have fairly lenient carry laws. If you can get the permit you can carry it many more places than in some states that make it easy to get permits.

What will happen if NY is forced to accept out-of-state permits is they will start passing lots of laws to restrict carry in sensitive places. Overturning a sensitive place carry restriction would be very tough unless sensitive was so broad as to preclude carry at all.

 

[alloy]

Alloy

Quote:
How about removing restrictions @ post offices, to show how much they care.

Let's worry about one thing at a time.

Let me put it this way, to avoid any what if's or worry....I hope it fails. Because right now, some states need to get thier houses in order. And the Federal Government, needs to do the same.

 

[JimPage]

I stand by my original objection to HR822.

I think despite the well meaning intentions of it's authors and sponsors and supporters, that the NRA is making a huge mistake backing this bill. It's the camel's nose under the tent.

I can think of no program or law from the Feds that has not resulted in eventual interference, control, or sometimes a down right takeover of the program. Examples: Education department - supposed to "help" states with financing education. Sounds good and is well intentioned. Result is Feds dictate to states how they build schools, what curriculum is, even to what social and quasi political issues to promote.: Highway: Feds dictate to state what traffic laws they must have, what safety measures they must take, limit speed limits, how to build roads.: Environment: dictate how much water to use, limit shower head production to conserve water, dictate fuel mixes (ethanol), even banned some light bulbs (Congress did that beauty), mandate toilet tank capacity making toilets that have to flush at least twice to work, ad nauseum

These are just three examples. I can think of no programs the Feds are involved in that has not resulted in various degrees of Fed control, and the control is always advancing, rarely if ever decreasing.

Reasonable people can disagree without vitriol and belittling those who have different opinions. It doesn't make them good or bad, or enemies.

 

[oneounceload]

What will happen if NY is forced to accept out-of-state permits is they will start passing lots of laws to restrict carry in sensitive places. Overturning a sensitive place carry restriction would be very tough unless sensitive was so broad as to preclude carry at all.

Exactly - they will make it so impossible to have a loaded gun on your person that you might as well leave it at home

I have a FL CCW - combined with a Utah one I would have most states covered, WITHOUT the Feds getting into this


I agree with Jim - this is the camel's nose - those who think this is great must be younger then I am. The feds have screwed up EVERY social program since FDR and especially since LBJ's Great Society

This will give the gov't just another excuse for a President to appoint yet another "czar" to oversee the "fairness and reciprocity" while developing new programs and training and costs and fess and more taxes, etc......with way too much power and no checks and balances

 

[Chaz88]

I can think of no program or law from the Feds that has not resulted in eventual interference, control, or sometimes a down right takeover of the program.

I agree. The federal government was never intended to create such a huge imbalance of power between them and the states. They often do it indirectly so that they can say they are not infringing on state power. Case in point, for those of us that remember when 18 was a legal drinking age. The states did not have to adopt the Fed. mandate that it be 21 but if they did not the Fed. cut highway funding. Eventually every state caved to the power of the Federal money.

 

[icedog88]

If a state restricts where you can carry, the onus is on the state,not the Feds right? The point being that it would allow me to carry over state lines. If the state law restricts WHERE in that state I can or cannot legally carry, it becomes no different than the places that have signage now in the state in which I reside. It would be my choice to go in or stay out. I care about driving anywhere in this country I choose and not having to worry about being arrested for trying to protect my family by carrying a gun. If I have to defend, I'd rather have the means 20ft away in my car because I had to leave it in there, rather than 2000 miles away. I may be simplifying the law to a degree, but in the end, that's how I read it. The government already has it's nose in my business through the fed background checks. And I'm happy to let them. That process is designed to keep guns out of the hands of someone who shouldn't have them. does it always work? No. No system, state or federal is going to please everyone. If it takes a Federal law giving me the right to protect myself or loved ones outside of confines of my state, sign me up.