Could the right president pass National Carry Reciprocity?

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by usmarine0352_2005, May 31, 2015.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. txblackout

    txblackout Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    339
    i hope not. within the scope of the constitution, states should have the right to be more restrictive. If liberals want a state with constitutional, but restrictive gun laws, then they should be able to have it.

    The power of the united states is that we get 50 chances to experiment with different systems. Any law done at the federal level removes that chance.
     
  2. DeepSouth
    • Contributing Member

    DeepSouth Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2009
    Messages:
    4,037
    Location:
    Heart of Dixie
    What?
    Do tell what these "constitutional, but restrictive gun laws" would be.

    Sounds like an oxymoron.
     
  3. MisterMike

    MisterMike Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2009
    Messages:
    758
    Location:
    Midwest USA
    Hey, I've got an even better idea. Why don't we propose a Constitutional amendment guaranteeing the right to keep and bear arms?
     
  4. B2Tall

    B2Tall Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2015
    Messages:
    55
    Location:
    S. Florida
    SCOTUS has always given individual states a certain amount of leeway with gun laws (and laws in general). As much as I'd like to be able to carry in every state I just don't see it happening any time soon.
     
  5. Sheepdog1968

    Sheepdog1968 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2009
    Messages:
    3,518
    Location:
    CA
    I think it needs to be added to a bill that one side desperately wants passed. If someone had added it to Obamacare, it would have passed into law.
     
  6. 1911 guy

    1911 guy Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2005
    Messages:
    6,868
    Location:
    Garrettsville, Oh.
    But with what onerous baggage? I wish people would stop putting blind faith in the government, regardless of which party holds power, to "do the right thing".

    Every law passed at the federal level expands federal power. Period. Are you willing to cede more of your 2A to the government?
     
  7. B2Tall

    B2Tall Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2015
    Messages:
    55
    Location:
    S. Florida
    Unfortunately the anti-gun states would immediately challenge the law and SCOTUS would probably side with them. Unfortunately I think that every state would first have to become a "shall issue" state before anything on a national level could happen.
     
  8. txblackout

    txblackout Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    339
    Whatever they already have in place that hasnt proven to be unconstitutional. For example, rules about the disposition of your gun when driving in a car.

    In texas a handgun must be hidden from view. In other states it cannot be concealed.
    Whatever kinds of state level background checks they want to institute. Background checks for person to person transactions.

    etc
     
  9. oneounceload

    oneounceload member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2008
    Messages:
    15,710
    Location:
    Hot and Humid FL
    Guess some folks don't get "States' Rights", while others do...........
     
  10. 22-rimfire

    22-rimfire Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2005
    Messages:
    11,781
    Location:
    TN
    Pretty much the way I feel. I don't really want the Federal government handling a national carry permit.
     
  11. DeepSouth
    • Contributing Member

    DeepSouth Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2009
    Messages:
    4,037
    Location:
    Heart of Dixie
    So "constitutional" is what ever the legislature and courts say it is?

    While legally correct, it's also one of our founders greatest fears.

    Makes one wonder what the point of the constitution is in today's society.
     
  12. gtodan

    gtodan Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2006
    Messages:
    17
    Too much intervention in State's rights now. Why would we want more?

    Screw the Feds
     
  13. SDGlock23

    SDGlock23 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2005
    Messages:
    891
    Location:
    Kentucky
    It would be okay with it as long as it meant that each state had to accept any other states concealed carry licenses, but the idea of a national concealed carry license is terrible because then in one sweep of the pen our carry rights could vanish forever.
     
  14. AKElroy

    AKElroy Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2009
    Messages:
    3,425
    Location:
    Past & Future Republic of Texas
    Exactly. A national reciprocity would likely rescind all of the state-to-state agreements that already exist in favor of the more encompassing federal law. As has been stated, once the national climate swings to the left, a single bill could undo all of that leaving the states to start over. Our gains have been at the local state level. That is where this fight is most effectively waged.
     
  15. we are not amused

    we are not amused Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2011
    Messages:
    931
    Location:
    Smallvile, Kansas
    I keep hearing this phrase "onerous baggage" Could you, or any one else explain just what this "onerous baggage" is?

    Give details. What specific "onerous Baggage" is being proposed that you fear?

    As far as I can determine it is just paranoid blathering.
     
  16. we are not amused

    we are not amused Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2011
    Messages:
    931
    Location:
    Smallvile, Kansas
    Why do you believe that such a Law would necessarily abrogate the existing State compacts?
     
  17. we are not amused

    we are not amused Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2011
    Messages:
    931
    Location:
    Smallvile, Kansas
    That is what is being proposed! That each State which has a Concealed carry Licence Law be required to honor the permits issued by other States.

    Even if the Federal Government decided to issue a FederalConcealed Carry License, it would not necessarily ban individual State licenses or the State Compacts that honor those of other States.

    To insist otherwise is just tin foil hat paranoia.
     
  18. we are not amused

    we are not amused Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2011
    Messages:
    931
    Location:
    Smallvile, Kansas
    All of this blathering about "States Rights" reminds me of the Last time it was invoked during the 1960s, when the people who were invoking that were seeking to defend the "Jim Crow" Laws.

    Now people are invoking it to defend the "right" of States to strip Citizens of their Second Amendment Rights.

    Way to go guys!:rolleyes:
     
  19. 1911 guy

    1911 guy Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2005
    Messages:
    6,868
    Location:
    Garrettsville, Oh.
    Quote:
    I keep hearing this phrase "onerous baggage" Could you, or any one else explain just what this "onerous baggage" is?
    Give details. What specific "onerous Baggage" is being proposed that you fear?
    As far as I can determine it is just paranoid blathering.

    Nope, I asked you first. Come up with a SINGLE federal law passed that did not expand federal power and thus erode the rights of the states and individuals. Cough it up. You're so convinced the rest of us are wrong that you must have some basis for that opinion. Other than your own "blathering", I mean. We are gaining ground for CCW and other firearm related issues at the state level at a rate unthinkable in the last several decades. Why turn that progress over to federal regulation?
     
  20. Hypnogator

    Hypnogator Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2002
    Messages:
    1,863
    Location:
    AZ, WA
    I still think a lot of the objections to a "National Concealed Carry Law" would evaporate if, instead of trying to pass such a law, Congress would simply deny any law enforcement assistance funding to any state which did not recognize concealed carry permits from every other state.

    No Federal mandate.
    No Federal "standards."
    No Federal record.

    :cool:
     
  21. maple flats

    maple flats Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2015
    Messages:
    8
    I agree that the fed gov't has no right to regulate firearms, either for or against, that is the realm of each state. That being said, this and several former presidents have by "Executive Order" done things that far exceed their authority. Many still stand simply because they are not challenged.
    I would love to have the states recognize every other states CCW permits, but there is no way I want the Fed. Government to handle any aspect of it.
    The Constitution's Bill Of Rights is a list of things the Fed. Gov't can not do, not a list of what they are allowed to do. Unfortunately most of the bureaucrats ignore that point.
     
  22. AKElroy

    AKElroy Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2009
    Messages:
    3,425
    Location:
    Past & Future Republic of Texas
    How can you be so convinced it wouldn't? With what recent evidence has this government persuaded you that they defer to the power of the separate states?

    Logistically, the federal law would have to abrogate the state agreements for the simple reason that each of them has different wording, requirements, fees, etc. The national law could not be written to leave all of those intact without being ridiculously onerous, so they would all go away in favor of the national statute.
     
    Last edited: Jun 13, 2015
  23. AKElroy

    AKElroy Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2009
    Messages:
    3,425
    Location:
    Past & Future Republic of Texas
    The fact that 36 states already reciprocate with a middle of the road carry provision speaks more against the need to cede this to the Feds than for it.
     
  24. DeepSouth
    • Contributing Member

    DeepSouth Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2009
    Messages:
    4,037
    Location:
    Heart of Dixie
    One problem, think of it like this

    "Instead of trying to pass such a law, Congress would simply deny any law enforcement assistance funding to any state which did not recognize" higher gas taxs or ........anything else.

    If you give the Federal gov power to deny individual States funding if a state doesn't do what they want, that could lead to problems. Honestly, It's probably already being done and I just don't know it.
     
  25. txblackout

    txblackout Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    339
    that is the essence of ALL federal government overreach. This debate goes back to the founding fathers. Jefferson and madison believed in the enumerated powers only, hamilton believed that the general welfare clause gave congress power to tax for any purpose that helped all the states.

    Current rulings are that the federal govt can use the power of the purse to influence states. That has been defacto legislation that overrides states (which has been the ultimate constitutional bypass for 100 years)

    Speed limits
    drinking age
    all kinds of school programs
    etc

    were all instituted this way.

    The states will take back their power some day. The state legislators can call a constitutional convention. They can simply grant themselves power and remove it from the federal government.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice