|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
November 22, 2017, 09:55 PM | #101 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 14, 2004
Posts: 447
|
Not bad enough we have to fight gun banners all day everyday - we have to fight fuds over AR15's, property rights advocates over being able to keep a firearm in your own vehicle, and pre-civil war and marbury vs madison states rights advocates over national reciprocity.
Yeah national reciprocity kind of like a federal law stopping states banning free speech or banning rights for minorities or women - how awful. |
November 29, 2017, 08:52 AM | #102 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 23, 2005
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 2,949
|
It appears that National Reciprocity may be moving forward to a floor vote.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...ng-floor-vote/ |
November 29, 2017, 09:33 AM | #103 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 2, 2013
Posts: 975
|
If it were just a matter of jettisoning the draconian gun laws of the 10 or so anti-gun states, then I'd agree with you. I don't believe it will turn out that way though. If National Reciprocity passes, I suspect the remaining 40 or so pro-gun states will have more restrictive gun laws as there will likely be some uniform standard for buying, carrying, etc. guns/ammo. If that is the case, your analogy won't be correct as the majority will have their rights curtailed and the minority will have their rights enhanced.
|
November 29, 2017, 10:10 PM | #104 |
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
National reciprocity is getting a floor vote in the House. We'll see if it goes anywhere in the Senate.
On another note, the worst possible RKBA bill moves forward. The SHARE Act even with the Hearing Protection Act stripped out would be a much bigger win for gun owners. Instead, we get a (potential) small short term win that lets the Feds put down roots in CHL accreditation. The only unforeseen aspect of that is whether it will be the Dems or GOP who slip the knife in. |
November 30, 2017, 07:08 AM | #105 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 17, 2005
Location: Swamp dweller
Posts: 6,187
|
A can of worms that should never be opened. Tell me one thing the government has done that they have NOT SCREWED UP ????? What comes as a result of this that the majority of us do not need?? Registration?? States have registration in place. Which in my opinion gives the nit-whits in DC a way to get their hands up my kiester and the opening for confiscation when the time is right
__________________
NRA Life Member, NRA Chief Range Safety Officer, NRA Certified Pistol Instructor,, USPSA & Steel Challange NROI Range Officer, ICORE Range Officer, ,MAG 40 Graduate As you are, I once was, As I am, You will be. |
November 30, 2017, 08:49 AM | #106 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,439
|
Quote:
I question whether federally mandated reciprocity will be a short term win. If this were to pass, it would almost certainly face an immediate challenge. If the challenge is successful, we will have a NY or CA case over-turning it. Despite what the decision may say, it will be popularly greeted as a partial roll-back of Heller. (Do we think Clarence Thomas would see this regulation of intrastate activity as authorized by the commerce clause?). If it survives challenge it produces precedent for the proposition that intrastate carry is a matter of federal regulation, which has to be the very opposite of the meaning of the text of the 2d Am. It will do for liberal carry laws in most states what Obergafell did for state marriage laws.
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php |
|
November 30, 2017, 02:58 PM | #107 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 15, 2007
Location: Blacksburg VA
Posts: 750
|
Quote:
The bill specifically avoids setting any standards for buying, carrying, etc. It literally says that if a state issues Concealed carry permits, or has Constitutional carry, then it has allow anyone who can legally carry concealed in their home state to carry concealed. The methods of carry, types of guns allowed, mag capacity, places you can't carry, etc. Are all still set by each state. The only area even close is that it prohibits states from banning carry on many federal lands. So no matter how many times people say it I still can't see how this Bill as written does anything to undermine Gun Rights, or CCW. Yes it could be changed to do so, but if your basis for opposition is that it might be changed, then you have to oppose every single bill no matter what.
__________________
I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain. |
|
December 1, 2017, 12:25 AM | #108 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 1, 2011
Posts: 356
|
Quote:
|
|
December 1, 2017, 04:55 AM | #109 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 16, 2013
Posts: 280
|
IMO, I do not believe National Reciprocity would survive in the courts. You can bet your butt that IF it manages to pass both the House and Senate and get signed into law by President Trump, that immediately the anti-gun states and cities will all file suit against it. And given how these various courts and judges have no problem blatantly violating the Heller decision and the Constitution period in upholding these various crazy "Assault Weapons" Bans, I have no doubt that they would do the exact same thing in refusing to uphold National Reciprocity. And then the Supreme Court would probably decline to hear the case, and we'd be back to square one.
|
December 1, 2017, 05:53 AM | #110 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 22, 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 5,295
|
be just like everything else they oppose - lawsuit after lawsuit after lawsuit, with leftist federal judge after leftist federal judge putting a "hold" on the law forever. I still want the SHARE Act to go through, but I think it may be dead forever as well.
|
December 1, 2017, 06:51 AM | #111 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,439
|
Quote:
State laws are generally getting more liberal. Congress is the body that decided that for a decade you shouldn't be able to buy a new rifle with a bayonet lug, flash suppressor and 11 round magazine. When you federalize a matter, like carry within a state, you make an all or nothing bet that Congress won't turn on you at their convenience.
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php Last edited by zukiphile; December 1, 2017 at 09:33 AM. |
|
December 1, 2017, 10:24 AM | #112 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
Quote:
Some states have more liberal gun laws and some are increasing controls. The issue is whether a federal law that instantiates should be considered protected under the BOR will be passed. The states rights issue is an old one. Lest we forget that argument was used to allow states to institute racially based tyrannies. Federal action broke those. I do not see why well crafted Federal legislation cannot break the unconstitutional actions of the states in a similar manner. Of course, it could go bad. What if the Feds instituted a law that only property owners of a certain level could vote? Oh, wait.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
|
December 1, 2017, 10:26 AM | #113 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 15, 2007
Location: Blacksburg VA
Posts: 750
|
Quote:
You say state laws are getting liberal, but this bill if passed will mean I can drive the faster way home from work without committing 54 felonies because a less than 1 mile section of road is randomly determined to be in another state.
__________________
I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain. |
|
December 1, 2017, 10:38 AM | #114 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,439
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php |
|||
December 1, 2017, 11:03 AM | #115 | |||||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,439
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php |
|||||
December 1, 2017, 02:14 PM | #116 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 15, 2007
Location: Blacksburg VA
Posts: 750
|
Quote:
They could propose a law that requires training and federal background checks for CCW now at any time. How does passing this law somehow give them the ability to do something they can already do?
__________________
I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain. |
|
December 1, 2017, 02:53 PM | #117 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 14, 2004
Posts: 447
|
Materially this law would be a huge step towards allowing carry in restricted states - with people visiting being able to carry those states politicians would be put in the position of defending restrictive issue carry laws on their own citizens that don't apply to visitors from out of state. A difficult position to defend. One that would open the door to pushing through shall issue in some if not all of those states.
As per previously stated, passage of this law would not give the federal government any power that it already couldn't exercise at anytime by passing restrictive gun laws - they already historically have and they can/could at anytime in the future. This reciprocity law sets no precedents. As per this law being the subject of lawsuits from the states - so what - what difference does that make - all federal laws are so subject. |
December 1, 2017, 03:03 PM | #118 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,439
|
Quote:
Quote:
If you can't, why do you think that is?
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php |
||
December 1, 2017, 06:03 PM | #119 | |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,675
|
Quote:
Ok, you can consider it "federal mandate, lite" but its still a federal mandate on state actions. Consider for a moment the other side of the issue. States rights. And please, don't think states shouldn't have rights, or that their rights don't matter because you (or I) happen to disagree with them. You want to carry everywhere, for personal protection, I get that. But, how does your desire (not right) play out when you go to your neighbors home? You don't get to decide if you can carry there, THEY DO. Its their property. If your argument for wanting the Fed to force states to allow you to carry is the "shall not be infringed" part of the Constitution, I agree, in general principle, but to have the moral high ground to make that claim, you'd better get all the FEDERAL infringement repealed first. And not just NFA34, GCA 68 and the others but including restriction on carry on Federal property. Courthouses, Federal buildings, etc. And GUN FREE ZONES at schools, airports, etc. I'm afraid all I see in this issue is a very small, but very vocal minority risking having the rest of us live under increased restriction of our firearms rights, so their lives will be a little easier. And, that's if they WIN... I grew up in a very restrictive state. I live in a much less restrictive state now, and I simply do not want more restrictions on my life, in order that you can feel better about yours. I get it, that you want to have a level playing field. We SHOULD have one, we should have kept the one we made in the 1790s. We didn't. And today, because we didn't then, we can't now, not without raising the restrictions on those who have none or few, in order to convince those who have many to accept fewer. I don't have a dog in this fight, in once sense, since I don't travel to restrictive states. But I do have a dog in this fight in the sense that any FEDERAL action will affect me and mine.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
|
December 1, 2017, 11:14 PM | #120 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 14, 2004
Posts: 447
|
It was once a states rights issue that blacks were property and women couldn't vote. Heller recognized the right to keep and bear arms as an individual right and McDonald incorporated that right to the states.
Ensuring that people may exercise their inalienable rights is at the core of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Individual rights should supersede government powers of the federal or state government. Much like the federal government had to step in to ensure the rights of blacks and women earlier in this past century it is necessary that it do so in states that restrict the inalienable rights of citizens in states that deny their exercise. The national reciprocity act is a minimal intrusion to help the exercise of the right to carry - not requiring a state to issue a carry license, not defining a states carry laws as to where or when or how one may legally carry - except to say that if carry is legal then individuals who are licensed to carry in another state may carry in that state subject to that states restrictions on manner, time, and place. Of course no prior federal carry legislation has been passed as the 2nd wasn't formally acknowledged as an individual right applicable to the states until Heller and McDonald recently. Federal law seems to have had no problem in the least in the past regulating private possession or ownership of firearms even if not in commerce. During the assault weapons ban me taking my own rifle and altering it with a group of modifications or a modification that created a so called assault weapon was a crime as was modifying a magazine to take more than 10 rounds. |
December 2, 2017, 12:42 AM | #121 | ||||||||
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,675
|
Quote:
Later, that changed. Later still, the law was changed. Quote:
Quote:
HOW significant the differences are is worthy of discussion, I think, because we do need to see that there are differences between what the situation is today, with this issue and what went on in the past with those issues. First off, those people in the past who suffered their rights denied were having that happen in the state of residence. At home. BY their own state govt. Also the mistreatment was being done to them because of who they were. Not because of something they wanted to do. I think this is something significantly different than not recognizing another state's permit. I agree there are some of the same principles at work, but they are far from identical situations. I'm going to use NY as the representative of the restrictive states, in general, recognizing that there are some differences between the various states and their laws. So, if you go to NY, and don't carry a gun, NY doesn't care. NY isn't denying your right to carry in your home state, only in their state, because you do not meet their legal requirements. And this is where things start to go sideways.... Quote:
Quote:
And, no, not defining a state's laws...which are an internal matter to the state, where, as I understand it, at this time, the federal govt doesn't have the authority to do. Which is one of the cruxes of the issue, the viewpoint of one side that the Fed does have that power, and of the other that the Fed does not. Quote:
What if the state chooses to say, ok, you can carry on your non-resident permit, never, in our state. This is essentially what we have now. Quote:
Look at what happened to those wheat farmers.... Not something I agree with, but they keep telling us, it IS the LAW. Quote:
No, the law didn't make sense, no, it wasn't a good law, but it was the law. They set a cutoff date on certain features. You couldn't put them on new guns, couldn't import gun with those features. AND if you did put them on a gun made/imported after the date, you were breaking the law. Guns (and magazines) that pre-existed the cut off date (when the law went into effect) were grandfathered, they could have those prohibited features and still be sold. They could be modified with those features if they didn't already have them, and still be sold. They were exempt from that law. SO, if the gun or magazine you modified existed before the law went into effect, you committed no crime. If you modified a gun/mag that fell under the law, then you were committing a crime doing so. Even if it was your own property.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
||||||||
December 2, 2017, 06:52 AM | #122 | |
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,817
|
Quote:
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
|
December 2, 2017, 11:40 AM | #123 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 3, 2017
Posts: 1,583
|
The bill has been passed to the floor for a general vote that might come in the next week. I guess it is not "dead" quite yet.
|
December 2, 2017, 01:09 PM | #124 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,433
|
Quote:
Whether it's under the umbrella of a national reciprocity bill or addressed as free-standing legislation, carry across state lines is (or "affects) interstate commerce and could be address by federal legislation by invoking (as they always do) the interstate commerce clause. The feds could just say that nobody is allowed to carry a firearm outside of their state of residence unless a+b+c+x+y+z. |
|
December 2, 2017, 01:42 PM | #125 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,439
|
Aguila, thanks for that last observation. I think it could provide an opportunity to convey a point that isn't being absorbed.
Quote:
Spats' point is different. Carry laws are currently a matter of state police power. Making carry law within a state a federalized matter for the purpose of allowing it, also makes it a federalized matter for the purpose of prohibiting or licensing it. That isn't something Congress ca do currently unless it posits a link to interstate commerce or some other basis for asserting federal power over the matter. Federally mandated reciprocity hands that point to those who would be happy to use federal authority to "regulate" carry. If your response is that congress will just author whatever fiction to allow to do what it wishes, you might be right. Do you want to be the force that destroys that constitutional impediment to federal control?
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php |
||
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|