1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

S 371, 50 state carry, possible?

Discussion in 'Activism' started by nicki, Jun 12, 2009.

  1. nicki

    nicki Well-Known Member

    A straight up gun bill will not pass, but a gun bill attached to another bill has a chance.

    The credit card bill and national parks is an example.

    S 371, a national 50 state reciprocity bill has no chance of passing on its own, we didn't get it under Bush, and on it's own, no way under Obama.

    That being said, there is a bill in the senate that is on the fast track that everyone thinks will pass, the Matthew Shepard Hate crimes bill.

    The Hate crimes bill is a given, it will pass in it's current form, as such, debatng the merits of the bill itself would be a exercise in futility.

    Personally, I oppose hate crimes bills for numerous reasons.

    There is a move by the Pink Pistols to attach S371 to the hate crimes bill:what:

    Sen Begovich (Alaska D) is considering it and is looking for co sponsors.

    If this gets attached to the hate crimes bill and lands on Obama's desk, he is dammed if he does and dammed if he doesn't.

    The issue with Obama will be who does he want to piss off, Gay rights activists or gun control activists:uhoh:

    Most Senators and Congressmen are from shall issue states.

    Politically, voting against this provision could be considered both anti gun and anti gay at the same time:D

    So call the Wash switchboard at 202 224 3121.

    S371 has 21 co sponsors.http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-s371/show

    So let's make this happen. If you don't want the hate crimes bill to pass you should really jump on it, perhaps push to attach a repeal to the Hughes admendment.:evil:

  2. TexasRifleman

    TexasRifleman Moderator Emeritus

    National carry laws scare me.

    The problem is that you bring Federal coverage into something that is now a state issue.

    How will it work? Will all states have to fall into a common line as far as differences in laws go?

    What state is the basis? Alaska, Texas, or New Jersey?
  3. Prince Yamato

    Prince Yamato Well-Known Member

    I think that the law implies you have to follow the laws of whatever state you are in- just that your license carries weight in whatever state you are in, not just the states with which you now have reciprocity. It will work just like a driver's license. Folks, don't let this one die. I really want to be able to use my Texas permit so that I can carry in NYS when I visit my family. We're going to open up whole other parts of the country to gun owners if we allow this. If not for those reasons, just support it to put some fleas in the Brady Campaign's bed sheets.
  4. alsaqr

    alsaqr Well-Known Member

    We do not need the congress to stick its snotty nose into the matter of CCW reciprocity. No good can come of it in the long run.
  5. hso

    hso Moderator Staff Member

    Please remember we focus on the plan that supports RKBA and not the background politics. If you want to discuss the legislative details of S371 we have other forums for that. Please contribute to the plan the OP has offered instead.
  6. riverrat373

    riverrat373 Well-Known Member

    I support some type of legislation that will enable 50 state reciprocity recognition of CCW's.If you have passed the background check in one state, why shouldn't all the other states honor your CCW? It's not like you become a criminal when you cross state lines! I plan to write my representatives and ask them the same question.
  7. TexasRifleman

    TexasRifleman Moderator Emeritus

    Problem is the plan the OP offers is opposed by many pro gun groups so contributing to the plan is potentially a bad idea.

    I know that arguing the merits is off topic in Activism but should we simply leave the posts calling for action in place when we know the action is a bad idea?

    The "plan" to fix this is to get the Second Amendment incorporated.

    Without incorporation this would have no legal legs to stand on.

    Forcing a state to do something against it's will usually goes counter to the pro gun argument.

    Until the Second has meaning in the states, there is no basis for the Fed forcing this.

    The LE carry law wasn't generally opposed by the states so they haven't challenged it yet.

    You can be this would be challenged immediately.

    FOPA held, which is a similar thing, because it was generally seen as mostly harmless I think, and in addition we DID have states go ahead and prosecute even though FOPA was in place.

    What exactly is the goal ? This, if made law, would really change nothing in the end until incorporation.
    Last edited: Jun 19, 2009

Share This Page