US Senate concealed carry bill gains support

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Don't Fall For This

Some say this would come under the Fourth Amendment. If Congress wanted to follow the Constitution, this carrying guns state to state would be protected by the Second Amendment, and the Fourth Amendment wouldn't even come into play. To give to anything concerning the carrying of guns any standing under the Fourth is to say the carrying of guns has no standing under the Second Amendment, and that the prohibitions in the Second Amendment do not apply to the states.


We must be very careful what we are willing to give up in order to acquire a privilege that is supposed to be an inalienable and uninfringeable right. And, don't be fooled into thinking such law is a step in the right direction. It wouldn't be. It would only entrench all the unconstitutional law that are on the books now more deeply. This is only a placation designed to fool us into thinking our right to keep and bear arms is being enforced. Don't settle for anything less from Congress, the Court, or your local and state government than adherence to the Constitution and your inalienable rights, freedoms, and their attendant powers.

Without the power we wield from our rights, we are nothing more than villein. (Look it up. You need to know precisely what it means, because that is what we are without our rights and freedoms.)

Woody

Look at your rights and freedoms as what would be required to survive and be free as if there were no government. Governments come and go, but your rights live on. If you wish to survive government, you must protect with jealous resolve all the powers that come with your rights - especially with the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Without the power of those arms, you will perish with that government - or at its hand. B.E. Wood

 

[Vitamin G]

Feinstein, Schumer, et all will be co-sponsoring the bill...

As soon as they make a little addendum...

"All citizens will be permitted reciprocity on right to carry firearms.
1) All state-issued permites to carry concealed firearms will be valid in any other state.
2) All US citizens will be eligable for a licence to carry concealed firearms except a) those with felonious history. b) those addicted to illegal drugs. c) those mentally unstable
3) Fee for licensure shall be dependent on the individual state, as will training requirements, etc.
4) All firearms will be illegal. "


Wont it be great to have their vote?

 

[ilove45acp]

here's what i got

Dear Mr. ILove45ACP:

Thank you for contacting me regarding the National Right to Carry Act (S. 388). I appreciate hearing from you and would like the opportunity to respond. I apologize for the delay in my response.

On January 25, 2007, Senator John Thune (R-SD) introduced S. 388, of which I am an original cosponsor. The National Right to Carry Act would require states to recognize the right to carry a concealed firearm for valid permit holders from another state. Concealed carriers would be required to abide by the rules regarding concealed firearms of the state they are in regardless of the rules of the state in which they received their permit. S. 388 has been referred to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary where it awaits further action.

A similar measure (H.R. 4547) was introduced in the House of Representatives by Representative Cliff Stearns (R-FL) on January 4, 2007. H.R. 226 was referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary, where it awaits approval.

Again, thank you for sharing your views with me. If you have any additional questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me. In addition, for more information about issues and activities important to Florida, please sign up for my weekly newsletter at http://martinez.senate.gov.

Sincerely,

Mel Martinez
United States Senator

 

[ilove45acp]

BTW

I promise, if this, by some act of God becomes law, I'm going to visit NYC and seriously piss off all my liberal friends there!

I wonder if Blumberg's gestapo would arest me if they found out I CCW in their gulag, upss, i mean city, with my FL license.

 

[strat81]

I promise, if this, by some act of God becomes law, I'm going to visit NYC and seriously piss off all my liberal friends there!
I wonder if Blumberg's gestapo would arest me if they found out I CCW in their gulag, upss, i mean city, with my FL license.

There's no doubt in my mind: they would arrest you. Legal or not, I'd be prepared for the hassle of a lifetime.

 

[Coronach]

Before you start cooing and strutting about a serving of crow, just remember that they could have passed this years ago.

And remember, YOU are a civilian as well. If you think of the citizens in your jurisdiction as "civilians" it puts you in a mindset of being at war. Don't be shocked if the "civilians" see you as a jack-booted occupier.

More to the point, those citizens (civilian or otherwise) could have directed their elected officials to "have passed this years ago." Seeing as how YOUR vote (since you like caps) counts as much as the vote of a LEO or military serviceman, I'm not sure I see your point.

There's no doubt in my mind: they would arrest you. Legal or not, I'd be prepared for the hassle of a lifetime.

If we're looking at a grey area in the caselaw, perhaps. Otherwise, if they did, I would not view it as a hassle, I would view it as a profit opportunity for me and my lawyer.

Mike

 

[Smurfslayer]

There it is, the civilian counterpart to HR 218. Let's hope it doesn't take as long to pass.

All of you who posted such nasty things about carry for the elite and other such nonsense can now help yourself to a large serving of crow.

Don't think you've got an out because the badged politicians won't support it. They didn't support HR 218 either.

Didn't FOP support HR218? I remember being called by FOP...

A quick google brought up a host of state lodges and this thread
http://forums.officer.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-23553.html

identifies LEAA and supporters. LEAA is an arm of NRA-ILA that does NOT support nationwide reciprocity; they didn't last year so unless their position has changed, no help there. I called LEAA (because they wouldn't respond to email), getting in touch with someone there was like pulling teeth and they wanted absolutely no part of taking a position on it. Eventually, after the conversation became more adversarial I got 'no, we're not going to support it'.

What about that crow? Do you like yours with the feathers still on?

So, I ask again - where are all these law enforcement advocacy groups who came to the public, hat in hand as it were for all of us to support HR218 and enact it into law for their benefit; Where are these same groups now to support the current national reciprocity bills?

 

[LAR-15]

HR 218 didn't have a lot of support for years and many high ranking politicians in Washington still fought it's enactment into law.

 

[shield20]

NYC carry would still be illegal, because NY state permits are not valid there, neither will other state's.

 

[k_dawg]

I asked my democratic senator to please consider championing the civil rights of minorities, of any race/gender/creed or location. I doubt it would work, but who knows. At least I'll know if he is against civil rights.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

So, I ask again - where are all these law enforcement advocacy groups who came to the public, hat in hand as it were for all of us to support HR218 and enact it into law for their benefit; Where are these same groups now to support the current national reciprocity bills?

They've been placated, my friend. They've got what they want. HR218 was a divide and conquer play and it worked. Hundreds of thousands of police officers who were in this battle with us are now silent. They got their carry. Why should they help us?

The same will happen again. A bunch of us will get "bought off" with some move to further divide us and weaken our numbers - those of us fighting for the removal of the infringements - and our chances of success will be diminished even further. These politicians know what they are doing. Everyone else should know as well.

That which "can be given" can be taken away. The right can't be. Unfetter it and defend it - to the death if necessary. Our government and our society will get along just fine with our populace armed as it was for the first hundred years or so. The only threat an armed populace poses is to a dictatorship or tyranny.(Makes you wonder why those in government are pressing to disarm us now.... Doesn't it?)

Woody

"It is up to We the People to decide if and when we shall revolt. It is not up to those in government to prevent it. It is up to those in government to see that revolution never becomes necessary." B.E.Wood

How are they doing so far?

 

[RealGun]

The Constitution proposed for Iraq specified that one may own a gun with a government permit. That is the new model for democracy. The national permit or national reciprocity, Congress making it their jurisdiction, is moving in the same direction, step by step. Meanwhile, they ignore that the Constitution, combining the 2A and 14A says that States may not infringe upon the RKBA. Licensing is therefore "unconstitutional" in my mind. Why would I support institutionalizing that abuse of the Constitution?

I believe that if one carries a gun they should know how to use it and have the cool head and knowledge of the law to use it responsibly. The problem is that viewing the 2A as unconditional is damned inconvenient and quite impractical. There should be a sound basis for regulation. What I don't like is ignoring (officially) what the law says, so the real issue is that the Constituion or its interpretation should be revisited.

This national carry bill is a workaround to the legacy of court rulings or the ongoing avoidance of what the 2A and 14A really mean. Basically it abuses the rule of law and underlines that due process is a joke, especially when it comes to the RKBA.

 

[romma]

Again,,, How is forcing States to recognize each others permits, infringing? Jeeez!

 

[RealGun]

Again,,, How is forcing States to recognize each others permits, infringing? Jeeez!

It officially condones their infringing. Get it?

 

[armoredman]

If they simply acknowledge the right to carry via permit, under the full faith and credit clause, similar to what we've been doing with drivers' licenses, and marriage licenses, for years, then all good. If they try to "Real ID" the thing, by tacking on goofy restrictions, changes in all state CCW permits, (AZ doesn't have a picture on it, not firearm specific), firearm restrictions, etc, then it goes from good to sour.
All academic, will not pass, unless Pelosi successfully attaches AWB II to it.

 

[romma]

It officially condones their infringing. Get it?

I get your point, but I disagree on the fact that it is only having/forcing states to reciprocate on their laws, not enacting federal controls on the licensing requirements or States restrictions themselves..

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

It's About INFRINGMENT

It's about infringement. The government - ALL government- is forbidden to infringe upon the right! What is so difficult to understand about that! Government had to pass unconstitutional law to forbid carrying arms before it could pass more law creating exceptions to that law for you to be able to "lawfully" carry your arms(and even keep them in some states!).

The battle royal is to remove those infringing laws - hopefully by the legislatures repealing all those laws, or the Court shooting them down - not to have Congress pass law that will by default recognize all the state law that infringes upon the Right to Keep and Bear Arms in direct violation of the Second Amendment.

Think about the implications of this stuff, my friends, before you start tasting all that pie in the sky. All that pie in the sky is gonna hit you in the face. It may taste good, but believe me, it is not very becoming. It paints you as someone who has swallowed all those cooked-up recipes that can only lead to dictatorship, tyranny, unchecked despotism, and subjugation. Look at the damned chefs! You got Feinstein, Schumer, Bloomberg, Boxer, and every one else of their ilk!

Eat hardy of the sweet tasting pie and suffer the inevitable indigestion, or go without and get a true feast of freedom later - a feast you cooked up yourself that no one would dare take away!

Woody

Look at your rights and freedoms as what would be required to survive and be free as if there were no government. If that doesn't convince you to take a stand and protect your inalienable rights and freedoms, nothing will. If that doesn't convince you to maintain your personal sovereignty, you are already someone else's subject. If you don't secure your rights and freedoms to maintain your personal sovereignty now, it'll be too late to come to me for help when they come for you. I will already be dead because I had to stand alone. B.E.Wood

 

[romma]

Maybe if this bill gets passed into law, and there are no wild west shoot outs, we can argue for Vermont or Alaska style carry. I believe it may be our Governments "Olive Branch" to gun owning citizens acknowledging their screwups all these years. Call me crazy, I've been called worse. Oh, if Any Gov elected official tries to attach anything all bets off, if it stays clean, I say why not?

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Why Not? Because It Is Wrong. And, There Are Reasons It Is Wrong.

Maybe if this bill gets passed into law, and there are no wild west shoot outs, we can argue for Vermont or Alaska style carry. I believe it may be our Governments "Olive Branch" to gun owning citizens acknowledging their screwups all these years. Call me crazy, I've been called worse. Oh, if Any Gov elected official tries to attach anything all bets off, if it stays clean, I say why not?

Why go that route when we can argue for removing the restrictions/unconstitutional law first and then talk about it! We already have proof that Constitutional Carry is just fine! Yes, in those same two states you mentioned - Alaska and Vermont. What more proof do we need!

Let's not forget that all these laws are unconstitutional to begin with! That has to count for more than something. It must count for everything. It must count for abiding the law! The Supreme Law of the Land, to be specific.

Look, if you want to be able to apply restrictions to the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, get the Constitution amended. Until then, abide the Constitution as it is, and demand no less from those of us we place in positions of power. Our Founding Fathers knew what they were doing when they wrote the Constitution and demanded the inclusion of direct protection of our rights in it before they would ratify it. They knew what the Jews would rediscover in Nazi Germany. A disarmed and gagged populace can be enslaved and exterminated with impunity.

We've already let the Camel push his nose into the tent and he spits on us. You want to let him in where he can take a dump on your carpet? You want to let him in where he can infest your bed with his fleas? Swat him on the nose and get him the hell out of your tent now. You may have to kill him if he gets in any further. Government must be treated just like the camel. If he sticks his nose in your tent, he must know it'll get slapped.

This government of ours, as great a system it is(when held to the Constitution) is made up mostly of people just like you and me, except they possess enough corruption that they feel no guilt in ignoring or outright disregarding the Constitution for their own incumbency, enrichment, empowerment, or idyllic(though misguided) agenda(s). It's just people. Be just as careful who you vote for as which animal you would allow in your tent.

Don't mistake this for an Olive Branch. It's more like Hemlock.

Woody

Look at your rights and freedoms as what would be required to survive and be free as if there were no government. Governments come and go, but your rights live on. If you wish to survive government, you must protect with jealous resolve all the powers that come with your rights - especially with the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Without the power of those arms, you will perish with that government - or at its hand. B.E. Wood

 

[romma]

I believe leftist cesspool pockets in major cities would ride their elected officials to vehemently oppose Vermont or Alaska carry at this stage. Can imagine their outcry of people running around their liberal elite strongholds with "hidden guns" unlicensed no less?... I believe reciprocity would be a good start.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Screw those few states with all those infringements. It ain't about those states or any states. It's about WE THE PEOPLE! It's OUR right and not in their power to interfere with it. The states can enact all the law they want that would govern when and where you may discharge your gun(s) beyond self defense, but not how you keep and bear them.

Fight for that. Fight for the right to be protected as per the Second Amendment. The end result will be the same. You'll be able to carry anywhere but you won't need a permit.

Woody

Look at your rights and freedoms as what would be required to survive and be free as if there were no government. Governments come and go, but your rights live on. If you wish to survive government, you must protect with jealous resolve all the powers that come with your rights - especially with the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Without the power of those arms, you will perish with that government - or at its hand. B.E. Wood

 

[kbheiner7]

Federalizing any gun law is not a good thing people.

 

[Gray Peterson]

Federalizing any gun law is not a good thing people.

Neither are people with reading comprehension problems.

 

[Gray Peterson]

There is no benefit to anyone but the feds. Most states either recognize other states permits or issue out of state permits. Most of the states which do not, would immediately pass laws on restricted carry locations which would de facto ban concealed carry in spite of the new federal CCW reciprocity law.

Addressed in this statement:

"Well if this bill passes, New York, California, and New Jersey will just ban carry on all public property, and then pop out of state residents that way"

Any such ban will have to affect in state residents as well as out of state residents just as much. I don't see lucky folk who managed to score a full license in NYC, NJ, or urban California, considering how much in campaign contributions and networking they had to do to be able to get their license, to all of the sudden allow their license to be completely worthless. They will fight for their licenses, and state legislators will face a choice: continue doing what they're doing and have the power brokers try to boot them out something fierce, or sit down and shut up.

And your argument for the law is any different? You want to carry in a few more states, and to get that you're willing to allow federal regulation of STATE issued CCW permits (the same way they regulate state issued drivers licenses, but probably stricter)?

Federal regulation? Do you have any idea what you are talking about? Did you even read what I had posted? Do you even understand what a "Notwithstanding" law is?

As I stated before, and I'll put this in upper case letters letters to get everyone's attention because it's obvious that some peole cannot read:

THERE IS NO PENALTY AS FAR AS THE FEDGOV IS CONCERNED IF YOU CARRY AGAINST THE RESTRICTIONS IN THE BILL. THE ONLY THING THAT HAPPENS IS THAT YOU LOSE THE NOTWITHSTANDING PROTECTION AGAINST THE STATE CRIMINAL LAWS AGAINST CONCEALED CARRY, WHERE YOU WOULD BE SUBJECT TO CHARGES BY THE STATE THAT YOU'RE CARRYING IN! JUST LIKE IF YOU LOADED YOUR GUN THAT'S IN YOUR TRUNK WHEN THE FOPA INTERSTATE PROTECTION LAW (18USC926A) ONLY PROTECTS UNLOADED TRANSPORT ACROSS STATE LINES AGAINST STATE LAWS LIKE NEW YORK AND MASSACHUSETTS WHERE ALL POSSESSION OF UNREGISTERED/UNLICENSED HANDGUNS IS TOTALLY ILLEGAL. IF YOU DECIDE TO LOAD UP THAT GUN IN YOUR TRUNK, YOU FALL OUTSIDE OF THE PROTECTION AND SUBJECT TO STATE LAWS AT THAT POINT.

YOU NEED THE FOPA LAW FOR TRANSPORTING ACROSS PLACES LIKE NEW YORK STATE AND MASSACHUSETTS, NOT PLACES LIKE LOUISIANA AND NEW MEXICO WHERE YOUR VEHICLE IS CONSIDERED AN EXTENSION OF YOUR HOME AND THAT YOU MAY CARRY WHATEVER YOU WISH INSIDE OF YOUR VEHICLE IN THESE STATES.

If you still do not understand, or still oppose this bill, then call your Congressman and tell them to repeal 18USC926A so New York can charge people for unloaded trunk carry again, just like they did before 1986.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

If you still do not understand, or still oppose this bill, then call your Congressman and tell them to repeal 18USC926A so New York can charge people for unloaded trunk carry again, just like they did before 1986.

I got a better idea. Call your representative and tell him to sponsor legislation to force the repeal of all infringing law in stead. Won't need 18USC926A after that passes. That would be much better, don't you think?

Woody