You can whine and pretend the beast doesnt exist, but congress is currently full of people that know their constituents are gun owners and want to do stuff to please them.
Well then they can start by repealing NFA, GCA'68, Sec923, etc...
You can whine and pretend the beast doesnt exist, but congress is currently full of people that know their constituents are gun owners and want to do stuff to please them.
No, it is not. It is a national reciprocity law. The federal government would not be issuing licenses or permits, and would not be maintaining any records. Would it result in CCW holders being able to carry nationwide? Of course -- that's the point. But it is NOT a nationwide CCW bill. It does not establish a single, nationwide CCW license or permit. It only requires the individual states to recognize the validity of what the other states have done in licensing or authorizing their citizens to carry concealed weapons.The way the bill is currently written, any Illinois resident could obtain a FL non-resident and carry in Illinois. It IS a de facto nationwide CCW law as currently written, even though it is not framed as such.
Lets say Congress did repeal NFA, GCA 68' Sec 923, etc.. Would it then be your opinion that each State could then regulate fully the private ownership of some classes of firearms?
Wouldn't this law, if passed, provide an ideal opportunity to achieve full incorporation of the 2nd?
Yes I would. If the law says I can, I will. I pack in Los Angeles and San Francisco. If a cop has an issue with that, they will have to get over it because I have justice on my side. I will not be intimidated by people who are clearly wrong. So if this thing passes, I will pack everywhere I can. With the law on your side, you have nothing to fear.WOULD YOU PACK IN A PLACE LIKE NYC?
Would you care to quote where anyone said the states are sovereign powers? Of course not, because you can't due to the fact that you are too busy using personal insults instead of sticking to the issues. This sounds awfully similar to a knee-jerk liberal reaction. Of course there are enumerated powers and we are not arguing that the federal government should be completely laisser faire. However, you are correct that some of feel the federal government has grown too large and they are too powerful. I would like to see them get their paws off of so many programs they have hijacked and now ransom the states with. So I will vote for Congress people who have this in mind. (not really, Bill Thomas will die or quit before he gets taken out of office in Kern County)I love how this thread has brought all the "states are sovereign powers" nutjobs out of the woodwork.
Not so fast my arrogant friend. For calling us nutjobs, you sure don't have a good grasp on the Supreme Court. Not only can their ruling shoot down the laws we might try to get passed, it might invite an "opinion" by the court to clarify the issue. If you think the Supreme Court Justices are all good ole boy hunters that believe in an individual right to keep and bear arms, you are the nutjob. There are some on there who would be more than happy to spout their "well regulated militia" misconceptions into making sure the National Guard will never be disarmed and making the 2nd Amendment a collective right for the National Guard. We have to pick and chose our Supreme Court battles or we do literally risk losing everything. I know you chose not to think long term and would rather call me a nutjob, but you might want to think it over some.If these laws turn out to be unconstitutional, then SCOTUS will overturn and we lose nothing.
At this point, has there been any discussion on the actual bill in congress?
I forget who actually made the asinine comment about state soviergnty, however, all 50 states are soverign in their laws from each other so long as their laws obey the Supreme Law of the Land.