National Reciprocity bill...

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm not sure this one was such a good idea anyway.

You get the Feds involved and the states will want to negotiate a standardized way of issuing permits and testing candidates.

Next thing you know it's a $2000 proposition with 40 hours of classroom and 20 hours of range time jumping through all kinds of hoops.

Best way to fight it is at a state level. This one doesn't need Uncle Sam involved.
 
I agree with Texas.

If we're doing our best to avoid Fed-mandated driver's licenses, why do we want to jump into Fed-mandated CCWs?
 
Still only 3 cosponsors. It isn't going anywhere.
Click to expand...

NO THAT IS WRONG!

HR 226 has only 3 cosponsors and is DEAD. The live version of the bill is H.R.861 which as of now has 62 cosponsors.

This is a good bill. This does not create a federal CCW. This does not give the feds any regulatory powers they don't already have. Call or write your reps and ask them to suppor it.

Track these bills:
HR 861: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:HR00861:
SB 388: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:SN00388:

See for yourself how "dead" these are, with 24 sponsors in Senate and 62 in the House.
 
I'm not sure this one was such a good idea anyway.

You get the Feds involved and the states will want to negotiate a standardized way of issuing permits and testing candidates.

Next thing you know it's a $2000 proposition with 40 hours of classroom and 20 hours of range time jumping through all kinds of hoops.

Best way to fight it is at a state level. This one doesn't need Uncle Sam involved.
Click to expand...

If we're doing our best to avoid Fed-mandated driver's licenses, why do we want to jump into Fed-mandated CCWs?
Click to expand...

Then call your Congressmen and tell them to repeal the Firearms Owners Protection Act's interstate transport provisions while you're at it, so that New York, New Jersey, California, Illinois, and Massachusetts can arrest you for having your handgun in your car transported unloaded in your trunk while you transverse across those states while on your way to a state that allows you to possess.. New York and Massachusetts especially since you can't avoid those states to get to New England or vice versa. Since not everyone can afford plane flights to go above those states, then I guess drivers are screwed, right?

It functions on the same rules of "notwithstanding state law" as the interstate FOPA protections. There is no mandated training, there is no mandated ANYTHING. The only thing that happens if you carry against a restrictions is that you lose your notwithstanding protection against being charged with a state crime. There is no federal crimes involved.

Every time we hear about national reciprocity, we hear "federally mandated CCW". or "Federal CCW" and hue and cry and all this other BS being spread about the bills. Folks, READ THE BILL. Read it closely. Read it and actually understand what it does. This is no different than the FOPA interstate protection. Is it too much to ask people to read it and understand it?

Btw, there's only been one bill proposed to nationalize CCW, and that was by Frank Lautenberg a few years ago. It was called S 967, and it would have done what you "OMG, Federal CCW! KILL IT KILL IT!!!" keep saying that HR861/S226 would be doing, which is a flat out insane belief.
 
Anything that smells of Federal is bad, I don't care what it is, for it erodes the power of the States. Today they say "OK", and tomorrows Senate/Congress says "We really didn't think it was a good idea" (Iraq War *hint*hint*nudge*nudge*).
 
Every time we hear about national reciprocity, we hear "federally mandated CCW". or "Federal CCW" and hue and cry and all this other BS being spread about the bills.
Click to expand...

Yeah, if they want to, they can always threaten to withhold fed. highway funds. They can tell the states whatever they want. They passed a AWB. They passed a MG ban. They passed a ban on non-sporting shotguns. They could, through the same logic, pass a federal handgun ban if they want to. Unless the Parker case changes it, they can go ahead and flat-out ban handguns if they want to.

Opposing this bill is so ridiculous. If you want to fight Federal power put your efforts into repealing drug laws, tax laws, the BATF, whatever. This bill is not the place to vent your frustration about encroaching Federal power.
 
Anything that smells of Federal is bad, I don't care what it is, for it erodes the power of the States. Today they say "OK", and tomorrows Senate/Congress says "We really didn't think it was a good idea" (Iraq War *hint*hint*nudge*nudge*).
Click to expand...

If they were to just repeal HR861, it would leave things back to the state of it was before the bill had passed. Again, if you read the language of the bill, it's a "notwithstanding" bill similar to the protection acts of FOPA.

If you believe so much in the power of the states, then you support repealing FOPA, and as a result, you support New York and Massachusetts running a "Anti-Gun Owner Wall", cutting off New England's gun owners from the rest of the country for fear of being arrested, and vice versa.
 
Opposing this bill is so ridiculous. If you want to fight Federal power put your efforts into repealing drug laws, tax laws, the BATF, whatever. This bill is not the place to vent your frustration about encroaching Federal power.
Click to expand...

It goes to show you that gun owners tend to be their own worst enemies, afraid of their own shadow and some "future government taking away CCW". Well, bills have been introduced to put in a New Jersey style federal carry system. They certainly don't need HR 861/S226 to do it for them.

Personally, I believe that open and concealed carry should be legalized nationwide without license. That is the point of the second amendment, we have a right to keep and bear arms!

However, this is a good second step towards that goal (first step was with the interstate protection provisions of FOPA).

Not to mention that this will keel the remaining may-issue states something fierce, and they can do little to nothing about the people carrying on out of state licenses without affecting their well-off political campaign contributors who managed to score CCW's in places like urban California, New Jersey, Maryland, and urban New York State. Since banning concealed carry would be ineffective under this law, the anti-gun states would only have two choices:

1) Refuse to do anything and see their entire carry permits for campaign cash system dry up as people get carry licenses from out of state and then give the finger to the authorities that play that game (similar to what happened in Missouri after St. Louis and Kansas City refused to issue licenses despite a state law telling them to do).

2) Play ball and make their states shall-issue just so they can keep making money.
 
Good analysis Lonnie. Yes indeed, once again, gun owners are their own worst enemy. There's one bill, that does nothing at all to expand federal power, that is a huge win for gun owners all over the country, that doesn't create any new federal power, and that will bring shall-issue to the remaing states, and yet we have gun owners ready to stand against it because it "smells" federal. Come on, you have thousands of evil federal laws you can work against, from the Patriot Act to the income tax to the NFA, and yet gun owners are ready to pick the ONE of those laws that does no harm, and has tremendous benefits for all of us.

It is so frustrating.
 
Then call your Congressmen and tell them to repeal the Firearms Owners Protection Act's interstate transport provisions while you're at it, so that New York, New Jersey, California, Illinois, and Massachusetts can arrest you for having your handgun in your car transported unloaded in your trunk while you transverse across those states while on your way to a state that allows you to possess..
Click to expand...


Yeah, cause that one is working REALLY well since NJ and NY continue to arrest regardless of FOPA and there is no reason to expect they would honor this either.

These states could care less and there seems to be little that can be done to make them follow existing law, so tell me why it would be different in this case?
 
WIth the Democrats in power - U can forget about it.
Click to expand...

That is so true. If we could only have a few years where the House, Senate, Presidency, and Supreme Court were all controlled by Republicans, we could not only get laws like this passed, but also roll back some anti-gun legislation as well...

Oh wait...
 
A national reciprocity bill is a violation of the Tenth Amendment.

Drivers licenses are recognized by other states as a courtesy, not a constitutional requirement.

If I'm wrong, point me to the section of the Constitution that says I'm wrong.
 
Article 4, Section 1 of the US Constitution. Acts, Records, and Judicial Proceedings. This is the clause where marriage licenses (which are not issued by courts, btw, divorces go through courts) are recognized nationwide, and Congress has regulated (though unconstitutionally based on sex IMHO) under DOMA.

Again, this bill is a "notwithstanding" bill. If HR861 violates the 10th amendment (which it doesn't), then so does FOPA's interstate transport protections.
 
There are SO MANY evil laws, why pick this one particular law, which helps us, and try to convince ourselves that this is one of the evil laws? Instead of opposing this, what about supporting this one and working on something else which really is evil, like the Patriot Act?
 
Lonnie, you and I have talked many times before.

Let's assume for sake of argument that we have or will have a Supreme Court that will actually interpret the Constitution as written. (And pigs will fly).

How long do you think it would take such a court, or any court, to strike down a national reciprocity bill?

Assuming the court would strike down the bill, how many hours of effort on behalf of supporters would have been wasted?

We've been screwed by the courts for decades. If a national reciprocity bill actually passed, and the courts gave it approval, that would be fine. But I wouldn't bet $1 on that outcome.
 
If you believe so much in the power of the states, then you support repealing FOPA, and as a result, you support New York and Massachusetts running a "Anti-Gun Owner Wall", cutting off New England's gun owners from the rest of the country for fear of being arrested, and vice versa.
Click to expand...


I left Illinois because of it's politics. I live in a place now that I involve myself in it's politics because the politics is closer to my liking. I say if the sheeple of Illinois like the way they live, who am I to say otherwise.
One man who did try to change Illinois law and failed is John Birch of concealcarry.org, he admitted failure and last I heard is looking for a friendlier state, as I have. There has to be a place where sheeple and the wolves can live, they have chosen places like NYC and Chicago to name a few. Those people who live in these places and cannot or will not leave them, is their perogative. Places like Montana fight to keep their freedoms, unlike these other places that desire to live as servants. I don't say that one or two bills from Washington aren't good, all I am saying is that a dog tied to a post must rely on it's master for food and water, an unchained dog can choose to whom to be faithful. One more point, sometimes a chained dog that gets loose will go nowhere for fear of the unknown or because it has been so domesticated that it prefers servitude to freedom. Please don't make me go all out and paste this possibility on some of the people who have made remarks that we don't appreciate "some of the good" coming out of Washington. Gee guys, maybe you oughta thank Washington for breathing, according to your way of thinking, we should say thanks to Washington for not selling us bottled air. The same goes for their damn laws on CCW, the 2nd has been so eroded that you appreciate Washington allowing you to do what the Constitution has already allowed you to do. If anything, the individual state has more (rights) power (changed in respect to Lonnie) in restricting your gun rights than the Federal Government.
 
Last edited:
Ummm not exactly

Texasrifleman said that the FOPA is ignored. No it's not. Name me one conviction that would prove me wrong. We always hold the anti-gunners to facts so I'm holding you to facts as well.

The Utah man arrested my the PAPD at Newark Airport???? Not only were the charges dropped when the prosecutor saw federal law (FOPA) but now the Utah man is asking for $3,000,000.00 in damages and he will probably see a bunch of that money as the PAPD screwed up royally.

To the man who asked where in the constitution does it say that drivers licenses are recognized federally. It does not; however, Article 1 Section 6 clearly allows for a Federal Law permitting something.

No one has answered Lonnie's question, if you do not support HR861 for the reason stated, then please lobby to get rid of the FOPA since that law is a violation of states rights? This is a hard question but the truth hurts doesn't it.

The fact of the matter is that gunowners are their own worst enemy. I can already carry federally (better then HR218) so I really don't care, yet I still spend enormous resources in one state trying to improve the situation for gunowners. Believe me, I do it out of principle and not for many gunowners who are their own worst enemy.

That being said I really hope Parker makes it to SCOTUS and is upheld in our favor. But some points were left out of parker because it did not deal with CCW. The 2nd Amendment by strict reading and original intent never protected concealed carry; however, it did protect open carry. This would be ok because if open carry was legal in all 50 states and terrirories, all anti-gun localities would be passing shall-issue and reciprocity bills overnight, even New Jersey.
 
If anything, the individual state has more rights in restricting your gun rights than the Federal Government.
Click to expand...

Thus we get into the crux of the argument by those saying "It's a federal power grab": They believe that California has the right to ban gun carry, more so than the federal government.

That's a load of crap. That states do not have the "right" (FYI folks, state do not have "rights", they have powers. There's a big difference between the two) to ban gun ownership any more than the DC City Council does.
 
Drivers licenses are recognized by other states as a courtesy, not a constitutional requirement.

If I'm wrong, point me to the section of the Constitution that says I'm wrong.
Click to expand...

You know how many people think that driving is a constitutionally protected right though? It's sad.
 
I have used the FOPA act myself. It is a good argument and I agree many of us are our own worst enemies.

George29: Not everyone can just pick up and leave. If it was only that simple. I am in college and I cannot afford out of state tuition. I applied and was accepted at a few different schools in friendlier states but they want a lot of money to attend them. You are correct when you say that the individual states limit our rights more than the federal government.

For those of you who oppose this bill please call the PAPD and tell them to continue to arrest gunowners. Tell them that the rights delegated to the state our more important then the rest of the bill of rights which are god given to the individual. So you support the arrest of gun owners when they do nothing but travel and you support unconstitutional laws because you think that this law (which is completely constitutional but many refuse to see that) should not be passed because of some unbased fear.

I am tired of not being able to carry. As I type this there are screaming drunk college kids in all directions. A fight broke out on the lawn of the apartment building next door. Last night there was one in the parking lot as a bunch of kids were just screaming threats at kids as they walked down the street.

I dont like to walk down the street on the weekends because of the large amount of drunk people. Not to mention that there seems to be a large amount of crackheads on the other side of town and I have seen a few of them sleeping in the bushes when I was riding my bike the other morning.

What many of you fail to see is that this law would allow people like us who are unable to move for various reasons to carry. It would also allow you to carry here. I know some of you, for example El Tejon comes to Chicago on occasion and is unable to carry. I remember he asked about being able to carry in Oregon but his permit was not recognized. I have seen many threads where people ask about being able to carry in this locale or that locale. And what permits to get so that they can carry in State A because the permit from their home state is not recognized.

Well if a national reciprocity bill was most of these problems would be eliminated. Many threads would be about where you are legally able to carry in states.

How many of you have permits from more than 1 state? I know the Florida permit and Utah permit are popular because they give reciprocity to a majority of states. You would only need one permit if this bill was passed. No more wondering about if it is legal or not.

It just seems that many gunowners are so afraid of the possibility that the government might usurp their rights that they are afraid to imagine any federal legislation which may actually help them. The worst part in all of this is that many do not understand the bill and just base it on their fears rather than reality.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top