Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn will reintroduce the Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act
http://conservativetribune.com/senate-concealed-carriers-love/ (http://conservativetribune.com/senate-concealed-carriers-love/)
I would love for something like this to become reality, but there are some other interesting hurdles to address that may make this more of a nightmare.
For instance, under this bill my Utah CWP would allow me to carry in California the same way my Utah DL allows me to drive there. Does that then extend to my equipment the same way it does for cars? I can drive a Utah car in CA even though the car may not meet CA's more restrictive emissions guidelines. Could I carry my standard capacity Witness or ParaOrdnance 10mm's there that are not on CA approved firearms lists as long as I don't leave the gun behind by sale or gift when I leave?
Same goes for NY.
The other issue here is the standards. Drivers Ed courses and requirements are pretty standard state to state. The standard to get a concealed weapons permit not so much.
I would love to have some kind of national, 50 state legal, shall-issue. I just see logistically that this could be a nightmare.
Obama will not sign this without a compromise to include what he wants.
No thanks, seriously the laws between states vary to much for it to work and I absolutely don't want the federal government doing a one size fits all.
"No thanks"...? Seriously? This is what's wrong with gun owners today! If the United States Congress is introducing a bill that advances 2A rights....even a LITTLE BIT, ALL gun owners should be ON BOARD!
Obama is on the way out...
Recent Supreme cases have put gun owners and the lobbying groups that support them in the driver's seat!
It's TIME someone passed a FEDERAL law that forces California (by way of 14A) to comply.
ALL gun owners need to be more like the libs when they do their "get out the vote" campaigns....ANY pro-gun 2A legislation, ANYWHERE is good for gun owners! The smallest, most meaningless case can become the lynch pin that collapses decades of illegal, antigun legislation in this country.
There is not a SINGLE "gun law" on at any level that functionally "prevents" ANY criminal from possessing a gun....NOT ONE! This means ALL current antigun laws are contrary to PUBLIC interest...and completely irrelevant beyond the scope of criminalizing lawful possession by law abiding citizens.
I live in Kalifornia and I SEE the "wave" coming in our direction from the DC and Chicago cases....I KNOW that the days of Kalifornia's ridiculous 10 day waiting period and "Approved for Sale" Roster are NUMBERED thanks to ALL these "little" efforts over the last decades!
If the FEDS pas a law that HELPS the citizens and 2A....it HELPS US ALL!
Or it acts as a registry.
Here's the list to move on first if they feel a need to "take weapons off the street to protect the people".
It sounds like transforming a right into a privilege.
Sorry for being cynical. Our government made me that way.
Greg
I just think it will backfire and hurt many states gun laws, help some States but damage many.
Quote from: kilibreaux on March 25 2015 04:00:05 AM MDT
If the FEDS pas a law that HELPS the citizens and 2A....it HELPS US ALL!
I don't disagree with this sentiment. I am just unconvinced that this law, in a form that would pass and get signed, would actually advance the 2A cause.
If it takes away constitutional carry in the states that have it, and enforces draconian DC style requirements to obtain the permit, then for me it is a huge step backward, not forward.
First of all......are you sure you want the fed involved in CCW? What happens when a more unfriendly congress is seated? They ram-rodded Obamacare through, do you think they would hesitate to attack reciprocity for CCW? Do you think they want start placing more requirements on CCW's, in addition to state requirements?
Also, there are always strings attached.....for instance, DL have federal funds attached...meaning as long as the state follows what they want, they will get federal $$$ for road projects. Remember the switch on Interstates to 55mph? Do you recall all the states changing their speeds to 55mph? Why? Because the feds had $$$ tied to the cooperation clause. Accordingly, now, most states have a similar driving test...albeit not identical, but the feds have helped structure similar tests and material.
Then the bottom question, has the Fed involvement into really anything remained static? Once their nose in under the tent, the whole camel will be there shortly.
So far, there has not been any bill proposed for reciprocity that does any good. So far, all they say is CA, you have to accept MO CCW....but one still has to abide by all the CA laws, including illegal bullets, mag capacity etc. (I use these as general, because I'm not familiar with CA regulations.) The national reciprocity would be an attempt for the fed to start their encroachment.
Quote from: sqlbullet on March 24 2015 03:41:45 PM MDT
I would love for something like this to become reality, but there are some other interesting hurdles to address that may make this more of a nightmare.
For instance, under this bill my Utah CWP would allow me to carry in California the same way my Utah DL allows me to drive there. Does that then extend to my equipment the same way it does for cars? I can drive a Utah car in CA even though the car may not meet CA's more restrictive emissions guidelines. Could I carry my standard capacity Witness or ParaOrdnance 10mm's there that are not on CA approved firearms lists as long as I don't leave the gun behind by sale or gift when I leave?
Same goes for NY.
The other issue here is the standards. Drivers Ed courses and requirements are pretty standard state to state. The standard to get a concealed weapons permit not so much.
I would love to have some kind of national, 50 state legal, shall-issue. I just see logistically that this could be a nightmare.
It is not illegal to posses a gun that is not on the roster, nor is it illegal to bring one in from out of State. It is illegal to bring in a magazine that can hold more than 10 rounds, if it wasn't in California before the 10 round law went in to effect.
Supposedly if you lived in California before the magazine ban, and purchased high-cap mags, and then moved out of State. You could bring them back in if you returned.
You can do in inter-family transfer of non-rostered guns in California. If I had a sibling or parent that lived in another State they could buy any handgun and transfer it to me as long as it wasn't an assault weapon or came with magazines that held more than 10 rounds.
.
Yeah...But you see my point. I can drive my non-ca approved vehicle there for a visit. My Witness, not so much.
Quote from: 10mmfan on March 24 2015 06:21:42 PM MDT
No thanks, seriously the laws between states vary to much for it to work and I absolutely don't want the federal government doing a one size fits all.
I agree. The only way this would work is for them all to suddenly have a paradigm shift and then realize what "shall not be infringed" means.
A new Constitutional Amendment is whats needed that spells out gun rights specifically.
In order to do that you will need Democratic support. In order to do that background checks and a ban on assault weapons would be a must.
This is the only way to do that without worrying about future Congresses. The time to move on it is now, Obama would cut a deal. Hillary will not.
Quote from: Wolfie on March 25 2015 06:41:20 PM MDT
A new Constitutional Amendment is whats needed that spells out gun rights specifically.
In order to do that you will need Democratic support. In order to do that background checks and a ban on assault weapons would be a must.
This is the only way to do that without worrying about future Congresses. The time to move on it is now, Obama would cut a deal. Hillary will not.
Don't forget hicap mags, serial printed firing pins and fingerprint sensors.
Quote from: 10mmfan on March 25 2015 08:07:36 PM MDT
Quote from: Wolfie on March 25 2015 06:41:20 PM MDT
A new Constitutional Amendment is whats needed that spells out gun rights specifically.
In order to do that you will need Democratic support. In order to do that background checks and a ban on assault weapons would be a must.
This is the only way to do that without worrying about future Congresses. The time to move on it is now, Obama would cut a deal. Hillary will not.
Don't forget hicap mags, serial printed firing pins and fingerprint sensors.
And the thing that goes up!
This is why I said Constitutional amendment.
You guys against everything are just dooming gun owners in the future. This is the time to get something done. Its called NEGOTIATING, its what built this county.
You mock fingerprint sensors and I love the idea. I have kids and keep my guns in a safe, I would love to keep one out open on my nightstand that no one else can use.
The same ones against new technology are the same bunch that prefer cars with drum brakes and no seat belts.
We already have a constitutional amendment that protects gun rights and that gets ignored. I too have kids and keep my guns in a safe outside of whatever my current carry gun is and that stays out of reach. My biggest problem with the sensors is batteries and reliability but even if it worked it shouldn't be forced on anyone.
From the Declaration of Independence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed
Some of those rights were spoken of in the Bill of Rights, and one was special enough to be listed second of the ten amendments.
Two things here:
1. The rights come from our creator.
2. Governments are instituted to secure these rights.
I have these rights. I repeat, I have possession of these rights. God gave them to me. Any government that denies the right(s) is outside of their charter.
Greg
Excellent Greg. It's very sad that even needed to be said. The fact that people don't grasp this and actually vote sends chills.
Its called the Second AMENDMENT, they added it to the Constitution, they can AMEND it again to make it clearer and better.
You guys need to take your head out of the sand, Demographic trends do not favor us in 20 years. In a few years no one is even going to bother with gun guys as we will be a small portion of society.
Then what?
Quote from: Wolfie on March 26 2015 08:56:52 AM MDT
Its called the Second AMENDMENT, they added it to the Constitution, they can AMEND it again to make it clearer and better.
You guys need to take your head out of the sand, Demographic trends do not favor us in 20 years. In a few years no one is even going to bother with gun guys as we will be a small portion of society.
Then what?
The Second Amendment is very clear.
It only becomes unclear when you refuse to acknowledge what is stated, or, reinterpret meanings.
You are the one that needs to get your head out of the sand.
If we are going to amend, lets not create a new one, just update the existing one
QuoteA well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, tThe right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed
Of course, with the Heller and McDonald rulings, we pretty well have that now.
If the Second Amendment is clear, then why do I have to fill out a federal form to buy a gun and cannot take it across state lines now?
The Constitution was written by LAWYERS, lawyers who can make it say what it wants.
All it takes is one more Democrat on the USSC to give Democrats the power and they will INTERPRET it the way they see it.
Lets see what happens then.
Quote from: sqlbullet on March 26 2015 09:29:01 AM MDT
If we are going to amend, lets not create a new one, just update the existing one
QuoteA well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, tThe right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed
Of course, with the Heller and McDonald rulings, we pretty well have that now.
Excellent idea, one that I've always been baffled hasn't been stressed more; do away with the nonessential first half regarding the militia. It seems recently that most argument for the curtailment of the Second Amendment is aimed squarely at the "militia" clause which, while not entirely baseless, does sometimes become hard to defend. Is anyone here in a "well regulated militia" or do they know anyone that is? At the time of its conception a militia was a very real and important, and powerful, thing but today it is less so. Now that they are less significant, and individual ownership is more significant/purposeful, why not focus entirely on that and ensure it's as protected as possible.
I prefer this version even more so: "Being necessary to the security of a free State, The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not infringed."
If you haven't noticed....Wolfie is a DU troll....loves King Obama....will do/support anything that will limit the 2nd amendment. Look at his first post....more background checks, and more AWB.
It consumes the DU talking points and regurgitates them here. I wouldn't waste my time trying to be reasonable with it.
:P
How can the 2nd Amendment be worded any stronger? Wolfie needs to look up the definition of "infringed".
While I would like CCW reciprocity between all states, the last thing I want is our govt. sticking it's head into concealed carry. If it were a simple bill that allowed it without govt. intrusion, then great but I fear it would never be that easy. Once it goes all 50 states it's not a far cry for the govt. to push for national CCW licensing and that is VERY VERY bad as it would only take the stroke of an egomaniac like Obung-hole to ban concealed carry for us all.
A bigger issue is why we have to be licensed to carry concealed in the first place, doesn't infringed mean something?
God gives the rights.
The bee has its weapon to defend itself and its hive.
The Skunk has its weapon.
The Ram has its tools that would easily kill a man.
The deer has its antlers, the bear, its teeth and claws, the same with the cats.
Man has been a creator and user of tools, and the use of these tools are a god given right, just the same as the above.
Don't believe the right of the use of weapons are god given?
Luke 22:36 as announced by Jesus himself:
And He said to them, "But now, whoever has a money belt is to take it along, likewise also a bag, and whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one.
Greg
What the current government is doing is twisting the laws, truth, and constitution in the effort to rip it in half like a dish rag!
It is our mission to preserve it because it can stand on its own without further explanations.
All that they have done, is not to clarify anything, but rather muddy the process by interpretations that do nothing to eliminate crime or criminal intent...
Red what's wrong with you?
You are now bringing politics into a thread after YOU complained and had a Political Section created.
You want to talk about politics I will embarrass you, start a link over in the Political Section and I will join you.
Otherwise stay on topic troll.
Quote from: Wolfie on March 26 2015 03:26:11 PM MDT
Red what's wrong with you?
You are now bringing politics into a thread after YOU complained and had a Political Section created.
You want to talk about politics I will embarrass you, start a link over in the Political Section and I will join you.
Otherwise stay on topic troll.
LOL!!! :P :D ;D :))
Politics? Nope, just your history. 8)
And you created a spot for politics and I have abided by the rules.
My recent studies have grown from my desire to retain the rights God has given me.
Again, from the Constitution, 7th amendment:
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
A bit of an idea of what Common Law is.
http://www.halexandria.org/dward266.htm (http://www.halexandria.org/dward266.htm)
Common Law is not friendly to government throwing its weight around!
I'm novice at this, and knowing who you are is necessary, but an injured party or damaged property is necessary to receive damages from you. The bigger issue is to be successful in getting the proceeding transformed from a regular court to a common law court and then knowing how to run that show.
Know your rights, and know how to keep them!!!
Greg
Quote from: Wolfie on March 26 2015 09:41:43 AM MDT
All it takes is one more Democrat on the USSC to give Democrats the power and they will INTERPRET it the way they see it.
Lets see what happens then.
Another, if not
the best, reason never to vote for a (D).
Demographics are not our friend.
I just hope when we are the minority they don't take our gun rights away.
The R's need to fix this omce and for all. They pissed away so much opportunity infighting back when bush had both houses and they didnt do shit. Still better than dems but all pur probs couldbhave been solved during Bush 2.0 . Kimd of sad really. I hooe they can pass this.
When I first posted this, it was to bring it to the memberships attention, and many of you all brought out some very interesting points. Especially those that pertain to California and a few other restrictive places.
The educational value allows for other points of view, but we are all in this together and the constant attacks on our gun rights, shows just how close they are to being pencil whipped away, by a Greedy Government Gone Wild for Control and Power.
My position is to continue to fight for preservation of our gun rights and vote for people that understand and hopefully will work to do the same from their political office as elected.
Quote from: The_Shadow on March 27 2015 08:31:30 AM MDT
When I first posted this, it was to bring it to the memberships attention, and many of you all brought out some very interesting points. Especially those that pertain to California and a few other restrictive places.
The educational value allows for other points of view, but we are all in this together and the constant attacks on our gun rights, shows just how close they are to being pencil whipped away, by a Greedy Government Gone Wild for Control and Power.
My position is to continue to fight for preservation of our gun rights and vote for people that understand and hopefully will work to do the same from their political office as elected.
I have to admit.....several years ago when one of the national reciprocity bills came to light....I was in favor of it. But, I had some good educational conversations, some research on the DL/Transportation authorizations and soon realized the surface looked good and simple. Then pondering how it would effect me traveling through IL and other states, I realized it didn't do a lot because it was written in such a way, the individual states regulations still applied....from bullets/guns to mags.
Then looking at the encroachment of politicians after it would have passed pretty much pushed my thinking the other way. I am very jaundice about letting the Feds get involved in the process.
Just my $.02 plus $3 will get you a small black coffee at Starbucks. ;)
I just read a report that Harry Reid is retiring. If true, that's the best news I've heard in a LONG time.
Quote from: Mike_Fontenot on March 27 2015 09:28:42 AM MDT
I just read a report that Harry Reid is retiring. If true, that's the best news I've heard in a LONG time.
Harry Reid is just about opposite of my beliefs, but he wasn't anti-gun. He blocked all sorts of things that came up when Dems had it all. He maintained decent NRA rtings al the way through.
Glad he's running the show any more though.
Greg
Harry is a waffling weasel. He did what he needed to do to get the vote in Nevada, but would do the D thing when it came to guns on a tight vote.
But Schumer will replace him. He's worse!!!
Schumer is worse when it comes to guns.
When he is the Majority Leader in 2016 you will see.
Quote from: Geeman on March 27 2015 11:19:41 AM MDT
Harry Reid is just about opposite of my beliefs, but he wasn't anti-gun.
Anyone who in any way helped the last two Supreme Court justices get confirmed IS anti-gun.
The federal government has a very poor 'track record' when they involve themselves in 'national legislation'. One-size, does not fit all, by any means. If the 'Second Amendment' is to be 'abridged and clarified' a Constitutional Convention must be convened. During such a conclave, any and all rights could be amended, changed, or totally repealed. Not just one amendment. Could you imagine the damage, all these RINO's, and communists would/could invoke with their ideas on relevant 'political darwinism'. I say, no thank you, no sir!
This law isnt a grand federal scheme to regulate carry. It just says another state needs to recognize a carry permit from another. Like a drivers license. The entire carry permit system needs to go away but this is a good first step. So you need to have a 10rd mag when you go to cali, so what. that can be fixed with enough money. Our side needs to open up our wallets and pulll some bloomberg type campaign as well.
Quote from: mag360 on March 27 2015 04:47:06 PM MDT
This law isnt a grand federal scheme to regulate carry. It just says another state needs to recognize a carry permit from another. Like a drivers license. The entire carry permit system needs to go away but this is a good first step. So you need to have a 10rd mag when you go to cali, so what. that can be fixed with enough money. Our side needs to open up our wallets and pulll some bloomberg type campaign as well.
May not be an initial grand scheme; however, if you are naive enough to believe it won't expand beyond to more than what it initially is, I have a bridge in Arizona for sale. Show me a federal program that hasn't expanded....and been a benefit to all of America, not a just a minority. Once established, Executive Orders and Executive Memos may be all that is necessary to change the interpretation.....look at the EPA regs.....no more congress...just the president issuing a EO or EM. I would rather take my chances as they are.
Just a FYI, you do know drivers license are a permited privilege; it is by no means a right?
There is a reason that the drivers license is the "forgotten right". It is so forgotten at this point that almost no one even recalls that it was once known thusly.
First a nasty "exercise accident" and then a retirement. Good thing I believe everything the Mainstream Media tells me or I'd think something funny was going on. ::)
Quote from: radiotom on March 27 2015 08:38:52 PM MDT
First a nasty "exercise accident" and then a retirement. Good thing I believe everything the Mainstream Media tells me or I'd think something funny was going on. ::)
What was that accident all about anyway?
Quote from: mag360 on March 27 2015 12:08:29 AM MDT
The R's need to fix this once and for all. They pissed away so much opportunity infighting back when bush had both houses and they didn't do shit. Still better than dems but all our probs could have been solved during Bush 2.0 . Kind of sad really. I hope they can pass this.
Why fix something when there is money to be made prolonging the problem. That is the philosophy of the government and most doctors. You wouldn't pay them if they weren't needed.
.