National Ccw Reciprocity

I'm of the opnion that it's a good thing,Steve,but that bill has been "in committee" since December,so it's quite likely it'll die there...:(
 
H.R. 4547, introduced by U.S. Reps. Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.) and Rick Boucher (D-Va.), would allow any person with a valid concealed firearm carrying permit or license, issued by a state, to carry a concealed firearm in any other state ... In states that do not issue carry permits, a federal "bright-line" standard would permit carrying
Click to expand...
I think this Bill is absurd and I'm concerned that Boucher is on board with such a thing. If a State doesn't allow CCW, then the US has no authority to say that people from other States can CCW there.
 
Too bad some of the worthless legislators don't "die an undignified death" in committee rather than some of the worthwhile bills they leave there.:rolleyes:
 
While I don't sponsor state or federal gun controll, I think that any law which makes it easier to carry [in this case, across state lines] is a good thing.
I hope it all works out.
 
It will never happen. States like CA will set the standard for a CCW so high that no other states will meet it.
 
Most states don't have reciprocity on other types of licences (CPA, Bar, Engineer, Real Estate, Teachers) so why would they want to do it for CCW? Driving is standard enough and is vital to our economy. Convince states that CCW is and then maybe it will change. I've met plenty of people in the professions above that I named that would love for there to be a national reciprocity.
 
A lot of states already reciprocate. States whose economy is dependent on tourism should allow reciprocation or tourists will be targeted. We may be better off without national reciprocation just state pacts.
 
I think that any law which makes it easier to carry [in this case, across state lines] is a good thing.
Click to expand...

The US has no power or right to force CCW on States that do not desire CCW, therefore any such attempt is unconstitutional and that's a bad thing. In limited federal government, the end does not justify the means.
 
I find it nothing short of amazing that most people on this board will decry the amount of federal control we have... Unless it matches their pet project of the day.

The feds already intrude way too much into our lives, and here we have people that are ready to give them more power, if it just allows them to carry concealed wherever they want to go.

Has anyone ever really wondered why Drivers Licenses are accepted by each and every state? It has nothing to do with federal involvement. It was by individual state compacts that slowly allowed people of one state to drive in another state.

The same exact process is being persued, by the states, with CCW reciprocation.

Back in 2000, even though under Idaho law, we recognized everyother states CCW, I could only travel in a bare handful of states: Montana; Wyoming; Arizona; Florida and Vermont. Today, it is much easier to list the states I can't travel in than to list those I can.

In six years time, the number of reciprocating states grew from 5 to 37. All without any federal involvement whatsoever. Now look to the history of your own state. Do you really think we need federal involvement here?

Not moving fast enough for you? Then get active and ask your state reps why states like Idaho, Wyoming, Utah, Alaska, Vermont, Florida, etc. trust their citizens more than your state trusts you! Ask your reps why they think that you are less trustworthy than these other citizens. And don't settle for simple and private answers. Ask your reps in public meetings, where they have to make a public answer.

Hoist them by their own petard!
 
I find it nothing short of amazing that most people on this board will decry the amount of federal control we have... Unless it matches their pet project of the day.
Click to expand...
I don't think this board stands out in that respect ... it has been my experience that RKBA forums attract what I can only call "gun law abolitionists".

In six years time, the number of reciprocating states grew from 5 to 37. All without any federal involvement whatsoever.
Click to expand...
And I think that lack of federal involvement is what makes it all possible. It seems to me that Floridians had a crime problem and so they started carrying handguns but it didn't look good so they started carrying concealed handguns. Just like that! Imagine instead if the US was one big State and Floridians had a crime problem and needed the US to pass a national law that endorsed open carry and then concealed carry ... we'd still be waiting (and many Floridians would be dead due to their unchecked violent crime). But as it is, Florida did their thing, other States saw that it was good and they did it too, and it seems like a great system to me. I think that is how you take over the world, not by forcing your views on others, but by causing them envy.
 
Antipitas said:
I find it nothing short of amazing that most people on this board will decry the amount of federal control we have... Unless it matches their pet project of the day.

~snip
Click to expand...

You're right Antipas. BUT, since the states do not honour the Second Amendment, the feds have the obligation to do something to force them to do so.

I disagree with the feds becoming involved in almost everything else - including a bunch of my personal interests - but it is their job to enforce the Constitution and resolve conflicts between the states and between the states and the Constitution.
 
Libertarian said:
You're right Antipas. BUT, since the states do not honour the Second Amendment, the feds have the obligation to do something to force them to do so.
Click to expand...

Do they really? To accept, nay, to encourage ill use of federal power when it serves our own ends is tempting, but it scythes our own positions from under us when the time comes to argue strongly against federal power.
 
Libertarian said:
BUT, since the states do not honour the Second Amendment, the feds have the obligation to do something to force them to do so.
Click to expand...
Let's see (in no particular order), Idaho; Wyoming; Montana; Utah; Arizona; Florida; Texas; Georgia; Alaska; Vermont; New Hampshire... To name a few, these States need a cattle prod up their derriere? I think the citizens of these fine states wouldn't think they needed prodding by the Feds! In fact, I'll go one further. The citizens of these States think their State is doing just fine as regards the Second Amendment.

Because some States don't do right, we need another national law to affect all the states?

What is needed is for the Courts to act in a constitutional manner and simply tell those few reluctant states they have to abide by the BOR, rather than to force a one-size-fits-all scheme onto the statutes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top