Mikes law being blocked by NRA

Status
Not open for further replies.
Pelo801

Pelo801

Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2014
Messages
399
Which would you prefer - nationwide reciprocity for everyone or a carve-out for a special group?

The NRA has advocated nationwide reciprocity for several years. The NRA does not have to be 'against' or 'block' another initiative to prefer and promote their own broader effort.
 
I don't think LEOSA is a good idea, so why would I think this is a good one?

Everyone or no one.
 
What is the NRA doing besides not specifically supporting this silly law?
Why do truckers deserve a special law? What about carpenters? Fashion designers? Professional gamblers? We all deserve national reciprocity.
Click to expand...

Indeed, and why not start with truckers? The opposition are professionals at incrementalism; it might behoove us to take a lesson from their book. After truckers receive national reciprocity, states that wouldn't otherwise allow it would be forced to implement reciprocity policy. That gap could then be further exploited and widened to eventually include everyone.

There could also be an equal protection claim made after one small group gets reciprocity; after all, what makes truckers more protected than any other citizen? At that point we could easily go from only truckers, to real national reciprocity, with one test case.

I don't see any reason not to let the slippery slope work for our side, for a change. Though I agree on LEOSA and other laws that only apply to certain groups, I wouldn't mind using laws like this as stepping stones to achieve our end goals. The fundamental difference is that constituents often view LEOs as a separate protected class. They don't view truckers in the same light, so the momentum and leverage for our side would be much greater than with something like LEOSA.
 
"...why not start with truckers?"

Probably because of Jimmy Hoffa and the Teamsters? Obviously, convicted felons wouldn't qualify to possess a firearm while driving, but public perception would be a bear to overcome. My father used to work in the trucking industry a long, long time ago. Have the Teamsters cleaned up their act yet?

Google Teamsters and felons or Teamsters and felony. I just did.

John
 
I realize that a lot of truckers are independent, but usually are contracted to various trucking firms. Most trucking outfits DO NOT allow their company drivers and contracted drivers to have weapons in the tractors. The law would be null.
 
I love how people on both sides of the argument believe that the NRA is sitting right there in the statehouse and voting on this stuff.
 
The Bushmaster said:
I realize that a lot of truckers are independent, but usually are contracted to various trucking firms. Most trucking outfits DO NOT allow their company drivers and contracted drivers to have weapons in the tractors. The law would be null.
Click to expand...
How so? A company "policy" and "law" are two entirely different things with different consequences.

Take this Domino's Pizza delivery driver for example. Domino's has a "no gun" policy too. Were the driver's right to carry via the state's Conceal Carry laws nullified by Domino's company policy, or did the "law" protect the driver against forever being a convicted felon and servering a mandatory prison term for defending his life? ( Papa Johns also has a no gun policy, and the "law" kept this female employee out of prison too. She also got to keep her job.)

Also, most owner operators in the trucking industry aren't bound by the same policies that company employees are. That is, they can carry a firearm in the truck they own.
 
Praxidike said:
I agree with this way of thinking which is why Im for, and Im sure you are too, making NSA weapons illegal for everyone until all states allow it.
Click to expand...
I'm sure the anti's would agree with you. This logic is absurd. The fight is to allow the right for all, rather than a limited few. To limit those few serves no purpose other than to further the Anti Agenda.

But you're talking about NSA weapons, which I've never heard of, so I'll have to do more research on those before I can render an opinion.
 
NSA weapons are registered machines guns and other types of weaponry. That are legal to transfer and own at the federal level but illegal at some state levels.
Illinois only allows SBR now. No machine guns. Kentucky, Wisconsin , Missouri all allow ownership.
 
Praxidike said:
...making NSA weapons illegal for everyone until all states allow it....
Click to expand...
USAF_Vet said:
....But you're talking about NSA weapons, which I've never heard of,...
Click to expand...
lilguy said:
...NSA weapons are registered machines guns and other types of weaponry. That are legal to transfer and own at the federal level ...
Click to expand...
Geez! What is all this nonsense?

  • This is no such thing as "NSA weapons" -- unless perhaps you're talking about arms issued to employees of the National Security Agency. And I doubt that they're armed since they pretty much stick to the office to eavesdrop and decode.

  • I think you mean weapons subject to regulation under the National Firearms Act (NFA) -- also known as Title II weapons.

  • But what does the NFA have to do with this discussion?
 
The right to carry a concealed firearm doesn't stop at your door or the state line. The focus should be on national reciprocity for everyone.
 
I also think that this is at most a states' right issue, and before you jump all over me, if New York state wanted to outlaw all magazines over ten rounds in the country due to their magazine round limits everyone would be shouting about how it's every states' right to determine how many rounds or if any should be limited.
 
Frank Ettin said:
Geez! What is all this nonsense?

  • This is no such thing as "NSA weapons" -- unless perhaps you're talking about arms issued to employees of the National Security Agency. And I doubt that they're armed since they pretty much stick to the office to eavesdrop and decode.

  • I think you mean weapons subject to regulation under the National Firearms Act (NFA) -- also known as Title II weapons.

  • But what does the NFA have to do with this discussion?
Click to expand...
I wrote the post on my cell phone which auto corrected.

It was brought up to make a point.
 
The fact that a group has decided to make a law is great. However, there is no reason to expect the NRA, which has been building support for a national reciprocity law, to embrace it.

While company policy cannot over-ride law, it CAN get your silly butt fired without recourse for violating it. We've seen that time after time, and the courts agree.

National Reciprocity would put more people in the streets armed than this bill would. More people means more political clout. Making it harder for companies to go against the numbers.

There are arguments for and against either point. In the end, it boils down to whether or not the NRA has an obligation to support EVERY Bill that comes out of committee that someone has decided is pro-gun.

Why would we, who make our opinions known regularly, ever want to require others to act when we complain when we're told what's right?:confused:
 
I am an over the road trucker currently writing this from my sleeper in fact. As was previously stated almost all companies have a ban on firearms because many customers ban them. So, again as previously stated, the law would be basically useless in terms of full protection. Now, I agree there is a huge difference between policy and law but many proponents of this deal make it out to be the answer when in fact it changes very little for an even smaller group of people. If a guy wants to carry in his truck, he already does, if he doesn't then he doesn't.
 
JohnBT said:
"...why not start with truckers?"

Probably because of Jimmy Hoffa and the Teamsters? Obviously, convicted felons wouldn't qualify to possess a firearm while driving, but public perception would be a bear to overcome. My father used to work in the trucking industry a long, long time ago. Have the Teamsters cleaned up their act yet?

Google Teamsters and felons or Teamsters and felony. I just did.

John
Click to expand...
What are you talking about? I've been a trucker for 10 years and I can't even remember the last time I met a Teamster. Even if that were the case why generalize an entire group of people to make a cheap anti-union comment?
 
I read a little more on this groups Facebook page. Their stance seems to be, as to why their law is the better route, is because the NRA's national reciprocity will get shot down because of state's rights issues. They think their law is better because it uses the commerce clause to "circumvent" the state's rights issues. They also think taking their route will work the slippery slope angle in our favor. Once truckers get in, we can all slip in behind.

Now I would want national reciprocity myself, but I do see some merit to their concerns. Am I wrong here?

Does the national reciprocity have problems with state's rights?
 
"What are you talking about?"

Public perception. As much as I like the truckers I've known, I don't think they'll make the best poster boys for getting out foot in the door.

John
 
Pelo801 said:
I read a little more on this groups Facebook page. Their stance seems to be, as to why their law is the better route, is because the NRA's national reciprocity will get shot down because of state's rights issues. They think their law is better because it uses the commerce clause to "circumvent" the state's rights issues. They also think taking their route will work the slippery slope angle in our favor. Once truckers get in, we can all slip in behind.

Now I would want national reciprocity myself, but I do see some merit to their concerns. Am I wrong here?

Does the national reciprocity have problems with state's rights?
Click to expand...

Surprise - the group that has proposed the trucker's law is not being absolutely accurate in their claims about their bill in comparison to the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act bill. The following is from § 926D(a) at the very beginning of the national bill:

... may possess or carry a concealed handgun (other than a machine gun or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce
Click to expand...

Yep, the national bill is based on the commerce clause. If the national bill has a states rights problem, the trucker's bill does too.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top