beerslurpy
member
Keep the pressure on. Call, write, email. We need to make sure this comes for a vote. There is an election coming up and they need to remember that we are watching them and we will rememeber when voting time comes around.
Nationwide Concealed Carry Bill has 72 Consponsors
- Thread starter LAR-15
- Start date
- Status
The states dont have the right to strip their populations of their constitutional rights. It is the place of the Federal Government to correct such things. On the other hand, the whole notion of needing a permit to carry goes against the constitution anyways, so this bill is actually a little misplaced.
The Freeholder
Member
Yee Haw!
Howard Coble is my Representative. Consider the letter on the way.
Howard Coble is my Representative. Consider the letter on the way.
Igloodude
Member
jobu07 said:I'm glad my Congressman is on the list, NY-29. We've had pretty strong and un-obstructed ccw in NY for many many years now. The only catch is that NY won't let anyone outside of her carry a handgun period. This law should change that
Strong and unobstructed?
Maybe in your county, but in NYC at least, there are fairly serious obstructions. Saratoga, Albany, and Rennsalaer counties are almost as bad, from what I've read.Pilgrim
Member
California needs it. The state still hasn't come to grips with accommodating H.R. 218.
Pilgrim
Sheldon J
Member
That would be the best part, jamming in down the anti's throat in NY and CA.Pilgrim said:
ElTacoGrande
Member
Sheldon J said:
It's not just CA and NY. CA will probably get shall-issue CCW sooner or later. It may take a while but I think it will happen. CA is a lot more conservative than it might seem. NY will probably never get shall-issue CCW, but it's going to get it a century before Hawaii gets it. For people in a place like HI, NY or NJ, this bill is the only shot they have at CCW.
As far as I know, HI would be the last state in the Union to have CCW if it were up to the state gov't.
mwelch8404
Member
TwoGun said:
OH. You mean full reciprocity under the law? Just like provided for in the constitution? What a novel thought
El Rojo
Member
Ah, I remember when I was young and naive and still thought we had a chance here in the PRK. I would think Taco would know by now we are a liberal hell hole. Sadly the only chance we have to turn this state around is a green glow and mushroom cloud coming up over the Grapevine. I don't think any of us would consider that worth it.
Gray Peterson
Member
...
There is such BS in this thread it is not even funny:
Read HR1243 again. The BATFE is not given any sort of authority over state CCW permits in this particular bill.
If people would actually READ the bill instead of thinking "Oh god, federal CCW permits! OH NOES!", they'd start realizing that the concerns are overblown.
Simple fact: If you oppose this bill, then you support New York State, New Jersey, and Massachusetts being able to arrest you merely for transporting from one state to another even if locked in the trunk seperate from ammo, just as 18USC922A, aka the Firearms Owners Protection Act's Transportation protection clause.
There is such BS in this thread it is not even funny:
Read HR1243 again. The BATFE is not given any sort of authority over state CCW permits in this particular bill.
If people would actually READ the bill instead of thinking "Oh god, federal CCW permits! OH NOES!", they'd start realizing that the concerns are overblown.
Simple fact: If you oppose this bill, then you support New York State, New Jersey, and Massachusetts being able to arrest you merely for transporting from one state to another even if locked in the trunk seperate from ammo, just as 18USC922A, aka the Firearms Owners Protection Act's Transportation protection clause.
gunsmith
member
amen
this is a great Bill.
this is a great Bill.
Don't Tread On Me
Member
It doesn't matter what the bill says. You cannot force one state to recognize another states CWP. This is NOTHING like a marriage license, in that 1] they are actually different in how they work 2] there is a bias against guns.
California will never accept a Florida license, because 1] they don't want to give their own people licenses 2] They don't like the way we do licensing (freely and fairly)
This will lead to bickering among the states, and guess who is Constitutionally obligated to deal with that? You guessed it, the FEDS. Please, please do not nationalize ANYTHING. Like I've said, I feel for you guys in California and what not, but your going to sink the hole ship because you refuse to shut your hatches.
This is a gateway to eventually setting either Federal oversight, Federal regulation, or making it entirely a Federal issue. As it is right now, their evil fingers are not involved in CCP standards. We've worked hard for how well we've liberated the laws in Florida, we don't want to jeapordize this because you guys in the ban states are trying to weasel your way around your states extreme anti-gun government and culture.
California will never accept a Florida license, because 1] they don't want to give their own people licenses 2] They don't like the way we do licensing (freely and fairly)
This will lead to bickering among the states, and guess who is Constitutionally obligated to deal with that? You guessed it, the FEDS. Please, please do not nationalize ANYTHING. Like I've said, I feel for you guys in California and what not, but your going to sink the hole ship because you refuse to shut your hatches.
This is a gateway to eventually setting either Federal oversight, Federal regulation, or making it entirely a Federal issue. As it is right now, their evil fingers are not involved in CCP standards. We've worked hard for how well we've liberated the laws in Florida, we don't want to jeapordize this because you guys in the ban states are trying to weasel your way around your states extreme anti-gun government and culture.
TwoGun
Member
Okay someone explian this:
"Article IV
Section 1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.
Section 2. The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states."
This is straight out of the US Constitution. Why does this not include CCW? I've even asked a judge why this didn't extend to CCW and he didn't have an answer for me. Doesn't the issueing of a CCW fun under public acts?
"Article IV
Section 1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.
Section 2. The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states."
This is straight out of the US Constitution. Why does this not include CCW? I've even asked a judge why this didn't extend to CCW and he didn't have an answer for me. Doesn't the issueing of a CCW fun under public acts?
jefnvk
Member
That is the part of the bill I disagree with. IF I am reading that right, then the gun must always be carried in accordance with what your state says. Not what the state you are in says, that is only for areas off limits.
When I am driving in FL, I don't get to follow MI road rules. If I CCW in FL, I should not be following MI CCW laws, but FL ones.
Scott F
Member
OK let’s take this further. I live in Oregon. If this law is bad then all reciprocity is bad. If you want to drive in Oregon then stop at the border and pay for an Oregon license. That is what I have to do now if I want to defend myself when I visit Florida. I have to spend a hundred dollars on a non resident permit. Again, if I visit Florida should I obey Oregon driving laws or Florida’s laws? I would think any Florida LEO would get a good laugh when I said to him “But officer, I can drive that way at home.” If you were to drive across this country your license would be good in every state and if this law passes so would your CCL issued in your home state.
I have seen several posts here declaring the only people who want this are people who live in non CCL states. I live in a shall issue state. I want this law. It only makes sense that if I have passed a background check I should be able to carry in America, not just in Oregon.
For those in Il and CA I feel sorry. Your rights are being denied. I do not see how this law will help you as the permit must be issued in your home state.
I have seen several posts here declaring the only people who want this are people who live in non CCL states. I live in a shall issue state. I want this law. It only makes sense that if I have passed a background check I should be able to carry in America, not just in Oregon.
For those in Il and CA I feel sorry. Your rights are being denied. I do not see how this law will help you as the permit must be issued in your home state.
voilsb
Member
That's how I read it. All this bill does is take your existing CCW and requires all states to recognize it.TwoGun said:
Unfortunately, it doesn't look like any Oregon Reps signed onto this
No_Brakes23
Member
When States violate the Constitution.Sistema1927 said:
Sistema1927 said:
We already settled this one during the War of Northern Agression.
As a Californian who has been contemplating getting a multi state permit just for travel, I would support this.
Not even that far, Classes are given in-state for out-of state permits.MrTuffPaws said:
No_Brakes23
Member
Not even that far, Classes are given in-state for out-of state permits.MrTuffPaws said:
Moparmike
Member
I may have missed a few posts, so forgive me...
How does this apply to full-cap mags in CA and MA? If I conceal a pistol without the proper gizmos or registraton (CA, MA, NY), whats next?
How does this apply to full-cap mags in CA and MA? If I conceal a pistol without the proper gizmos or registraton (CA, MA, NY), whats next?
ElTacoGrande
Member
Moparmike said:
If this bill passes (a big if) that kind of thing would be worked out in courts. Also, states like CA and NY would try to pass restrictions, like "can't carry in your car, on the street, in any shop that sells merchandise, in any restaurant that sells food, within one mile of a public place, any place above sea level, any place below sea level, etc". All that would be worked out in court. My guess is that CA's "safety" law and mag ban would continue to be in force.
Note that CA's handgun "safety" law already doesn't apply to non-residents. For example, if a non-res has a handgun which is not otherwise banned (under the CA-AWB) he is free to bring that handgun into the state.
TwoGun
Member
Originally posted by mwelch8404
I think there is a bit of a misconception here. I CAN keep and bear arms in any state. Certianly there are more restrictions in some states than there are in others, and we may not like those restrictions. But it becomes a matter of what types of arms, and how we may keep and bear them, not weather or not we can. Heck even in Washington DC there is a mechinism for keeping guns. A terrible one I will be the first to point out, but it is there.
Because we have RTKB does not immedietly include CCW. Why would think that? Even the right of free speach has limitations on it.
The bill would not grant any additional power to the federal goverment. But rather would make states confomr to Article IV of the US Constitution that says basically that one state must recognize another states pubicly issued license and certificates. I personally don't understand why we have to have a special bill in place to make that happen anyway. I asked eariler if anyone had any idea as to why that was not being applied and so far no one has answered.
I think there is a bit of a misconception here. I CAN keep and bear arms in any state. Certianly there are more restrictions in some states than there are in others, and we may not like those restrictions. But it becomes a matter of what types of arms, and how we may keep and bear them, not weather or not we can. Heck even in Washington DC there is a mechinism for keeping guns. A terrible one I will be the first to point out, but it is there.
Because we have RTKB does not immedietly include CCW. Why would think that? Even the right of free speach has limitations on it.
The bill would not grant any additional power to the federal goverment. But rather would make states confomr to Article IV of the US Constitution that says basically that one state must recognize another states pubicly issued license and certificates. I personally don't understand why we have to have a special bill in place to make that happen anyway. I asked eariler if anyone had any idea as to why that was not being applied and so far no one has answered.
orionengnr
Member
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2005
- Messages
- 5,709
out of the 72,
six from Texas...including mine!
Excellent!
I will write all of them, regardless.
six from Texas...including mine!
Excellent!
I will write all of them, regardless.
Graystar
Member
As I recall, the AWB renewal bill had well over 300 co-sponsors.
RealGun
Member
I don't see how this is ever going to work, because States have varying licensing requirements. Some have no requirements. Some have no licensing. If the Feds are going to get involved, seems to me they will inevitably get involved in the uniform licensing requirements. Watch out! He giveth and he can taketh away. Suddenly carrying a gun becomes a privilege administered by the federal government.
I would be against any special privileges or exceptions for LEOs, including non-uniformed open carry. I would not want the feds to officially declare that non-uniformed LEOs were a special class of citizens.
I would be afraid of the conciliatory anti-gun amendments that went with any such bill.
All of this goes away if you simply do away with CCW licensing. The quickest way to do that is to treat it as unconstitutional, infringing upon the right to bear arms. Those who don't like the implications can discuss altering or repealing the Second Amendment. The important thing in the end is not to ignore the Constitution.
Personally I think we should all be required to have militia training so we had some uniformity in knowledge of gun handling and safety and could be counted on to hit the broad side of a barn.
I would be against any special privileges or exceptions for LEOs, including non-uniformed open carry. I would not want the feds to officially declare that non-uniformed LEOs were a special class of citizens.
I would be afraid of the conciliatory anti-gun amendments that went with any such bill.
All of this goes away if you simply do away with CCW licensing. The quickest way to do that is to treat it as unconstitutional, infringing upon the right to bear arms. Those who don't like the implications can discuss altering or repealing the Second Amendment. The important thing in the end is not to ignore the Constitution.
Personally I think we should all be required to have militia training so we had some uniformity in knowledge of gun handling and safety and could be counted on to hit the broad side of a barn.
- Status