lostone1413
Member
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2004
- Messages
- 447
Be a cake walk getting it through. Remember last Noverber all the Pro gun people we elected. You mean the so called Pro Gun people made a fool of us voters LOL I think so
Nationwide Concealed Carry Bill has 72 Consponsors
- Thread starter LAR-15
- Start date
- Status
TallPine
Member
Hmmmm ... so does this mean that residents of states like MT, AZ, CO, etc can carry a gun in their car anywhere in the USA without a permit ??? 
And nationwide open carry ...?
And nationwide open carry ...?
Lupinus
Member
If enough people called and wrote theit sentors you could get a LOT passed that doesnt have a snowballs chance up Satans backside. If you get a voice to them that balances out the anti voice that screams at the top of it's lungs and remind them where their base lay you could get a lot done. And if it doesn't well then show them where their base is with campaigning and at the voting booth.
I say it is a good law so long as it doesn't get ammended to give control of CCW over to the feds.
Do you like being able to drive into other states with your license from another state and be legal? How about being married? Want to be married in one state and then move to another and not be recognized as married anymore? Or even while jsut traveling through it? State's rights are great but there is also a federal goverment. You are COMPLAINING about the feds for once trying to PROTECT your rights for a change. I am all for callign them on it when they are wrong but for protecting your rights?
I say it is a good law so long as it doesn't get ammended to give control of CCW over to the feds.
Do you like being able to drive into other states with your license from another state and be legal? How about being married? Want to be married in one state and then move to another and not be recognized as married anymore? Or even while jsut traveling through it? State's rights are great but there is also a federal goverment. You are COMPLAINING about the feds for once trying to PROTECT your rights for a change. I am all for callign them on it when they are wrong but for protecting your rights?
MrTuffPaws
Member
If this passes, California is going to panic. Just a hop skip and a jump to NV to get a CCW permit. CA would have to honor it. HE HE HE!!!!!!
jobu07
Contributing Member
ElTacoGrande 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
Bobarino
member
to all the touters of states' rights...
lest you forget the tenth amendment:
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
the right to keep and bear arms IS delegated to the UNITED STATES by the Consititution. the states do not have the right to restrict your right to keep and bear arms!
Bobby
lest you forget the tenth amendment:
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
the right to keep and bear arms IS delegated to the UNITED STATES by the Consititution. the states do not have the right to restrict your right to keep and bear arms!
Bobby
dasmi
Member
No, it's delegated to the people.
But the result is the same.
ElTacoGrande
Member
Don't Tread On Me said:
I agree with your analysis DTOM. As you rightly observed, the only people who are supporting this are people like me: people in states that may never get CCW, so this would be our only ticket. I know you're right, it could mess things up for the others, but emotionally, it's hard for me not to support it. And for people in a place like Hawaii, they will NEVER EVER have CCW unless there is a bill like this or some kind of Fed. court case (very unlikely) that forces it, well, of course they are going to support this. CCW is as likely in Hawaii as it is in Japan, if it depends only on their state govt.
But as you said, legislators from solid pro-gun states have no reason to support this bill. And most of the legislators from anti-gun states would oppose it, so the only legislators with a solid reason to support it are the few strong pro-gun legislators from anti-gun states. That does not make it seem likely to me.
Henry Bowman
Senior Member
Add to that the left-of-center majority in the Senate . . .
Well, since you asked - no, I don't like to drive to other states, tho some are better than others. In general, I don't like to drive anywhere. I live about 20 miles from both Washington and Montana - I really dislike driving into WA - it's a place the DemoRATS seem to have firm control over. Montana isn't bad.
Being married? Have you ever been married? If they'd drop the rule that if I'm married in state X - and when I move to or pass thru state Y and I'm not married - WOW - then the answer to your first question would change to a YES. I'd be driving all the time...I might even take up residence in my car.
1. I agree, this would be a whole lot easier if the "full faith and credit" clause was just affirmed to apply to CCW permits like it applies to driver's licenses. That, however, has not happened.
2. Until the 14th amendment, the 2nd amendment in the BOR applied only to the federal government. Your state and local critters could infringe your RKBA as much as you allowed them. The 14th seemingly applies the BOR to the states as well, but the courts have been odiously selective in which amendments they apply. We have yet to have a SCOTUS case that says, to wit: state/local gov't X has infringed upon the right to keep and bear arms f citizen Y, and we find that in violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. Until we get that, Chicago will continue to ban handguns, etc.
Mike
2. Until the 14th amendment, the 2nd amendment in the BOR applied only to the federal government. Your state and local critters could infringe your RKBA as much as you allowed them. The 14th seemingly applies the BOR to the states as well, but the courts have been odiously selective in which amendments they apply. We have yet to have a SCOTUS case that says, to wit: state/local gov't X has infringed upon the right to keep and bear arms f citizen Y, and we find that in violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. Until we get that, Chicago will continue to ban handguns, etc.
Mike
Henry Bowman
Senior Member
Apples and oranges.
Marriage is an institution -- a status -- that is recognized by state governments. Full faith and credit applies. This is not the same with a state issued license. If I get a marriage license in state X and then "get married" in state Y, they don't recognize it. If I have a lisense to operate a brothel in Nevada (legal there), it will not be recognized in Utah. My OH drivers license is recognized in other states -- not because of the full faith and credit clause, but because that states have all agreed among themselves to do so. Now if 4 or 5 states suddenly decided not to play nice anymore, or one started issuing them to blind 11 year-olds, things might change. And the Feds might get involved in the solution if interstate commerce was effected.
geekWithA.45
Moderator Emeritus
Bobarino,
I'm afraid you've got it wrong.
It is not delegated to either the United States or the individual States.
The right to individually keep and bear arms is a right SPECIFICALLY RESERVED TO THE PEOPLE. Not the USG. Not the various States. The PEOPLE.
The Power to organize a standing Navy and a non standing army is delegated to the US, as is the Power to _call forth_ the Militia, organized or not.
The power of various states to _organize_ militias falls under the Xth amendment, as it has not been delegated to the US nor prohibited to the states.
I'm afraid you've got it wrong.
It is not delegated to either the United States or the individual States.
The right to individually keep and bear arms is a right SPECIFICALLY RESERVED TO THE PEOPLE. Not the USG. Not the various States. The PEOPLE.
The Power to organize a standing Navy and a non standing army is delegated to the US, as is the Power to _call forth_ the Militia, organized or not.
The power of various states to _organize_ militias falls under the Xth amendment, as it has not been delegated to the US nor prohibited to the states.
Lupinus
Member
And (up till recently anyway) so was being self reliant and taking care of yourself without expecting others to do so.
TwoGun
Member
Ahh, I don't think states have rights. States have powers and only people have rights. The states rights thing is part of the argument that the 2nd Amendment applies to states under the Bill of Rights.
While I'm certainly interested in seeing this bill pass I personally have little hope of it. On the other hand, South Dakota became I believe the 4th state to go total recognition. We will recognize any other states legitimate CCW permit. Alaska, Idaho, Oklahoma are the other three I think. I'm hoping the trend continues. Amazing enough when bill passed through legislation, there was not a single vote against it. South Dakota is definatly one of the more gun friendly states.
While I'm certainly interested in seeing this bill pass I personally have little hope of it. On the other hand, South Dakota became I believe the 4th state to go total recognition. We will recognize any other states legitimate CCW permit. Alaska, Idaho, Oklahoma are the other three I think. I'm hoping the trend continues. Amazing enough when bill passed through legislation, there was not a single vote against it. South Dakota is definatly one of the more gun friendly states.
HR 1243 is just a civilian version of HR 218 (which grants "cops" who retired 20 years ago and thus have been CIVILIANS for two decades the authority to carry concealed anywhere).
If those CIVILIANS can carry, so should I. That bill passed both Houses of Congress with large margins.
If those CIVILIANS can carry, so should I. That bill passed both Houses of Congress with large margins.
- Status