• If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

CBS 60 Minutes: Recognizing Concealed Carry Permits Across State Lines

AHM

NES Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2013
Messages
20,401
Likes
24,992
Location
Some caves off Route 40 past Groton
Feedback: 0 / 0 / 0
60 Minutes will air a segment titled "Recognizing Concealed Carry Permits Across State Lines" this Sunday, 11-Feb'18 on CBS:

"

A bill moving through Congress could make state-issued concealed carry permits recognized nationwide. Law enforcement in states with more stringent permit requirements says it's a dangerous idea

The House has passed a bill that would allow Americans licensed to carry concealed firearms in their own states to bring those weapons legally into other states. The president also supports the bill, called the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act. Steve Kroft takes a look at the pros and cons of the controversial bill that the U.S. Senate could make law. His report will be broadcast on the next edition of 60 Minutes, Sunday, Feb. 11 at 7:00 p.m. ET/PT.

"I wouldn't presume to tell the residents of West Virginia what their gun laws should be…but I don't think they or Congress should be having West Virginia laws put on New York City."

Advocates for the bill point to Shaneen Allen as a perfect example of why the new law is needed. The single mother and mugging victim, licensed to carry a concealed pistol in Pennsylvania, was jailed in neighboring New Jersey after police found the gun in her purse during a traffic stop. "So you can easily go from being a responsibly armed citizen, who's 100 percent legal, to being a criminal just by crossing state lines," says Tim Schmidt, president and founder of the U.S. Concealed Carry Association. He says the bill is a way to prevent the arrests of responsible citizens, like Allen, from running afoul of inconsistent state guns laws.

Populous states like New Jersey and New York are among several states where concealed carry permits are difficult to obtain. Such states often require training, background checks and a documented need to carry. Other states' requirements are not as stringent; some states, typically rural ones, have no requirements at all. Manhattan District Attorney, Cyrus Vance is against the law. "You bring that kind of firepower, even with well-intentioned people, it's going to be extremely dangerous," he tells Kroft. "I wouldn't presume to tell the residents of West Virginia what their gun laws should be…but I don't think they or Congress should be having West Virginia laws put on New York City."

"The individual right to carry a firearm in defense of our lives and our families does not and should not end at any state line."

Vance and New York City's police commissioner, James O'Neill, who is also interviewed, have established a coalition of big-city prosecutors and police chiefs from across the country to oppose the law. The U.S. Concealed Carry Association, and other guns rights groups, like the powerful National Rifle Association, are lobbying heavily for it. The NRA's stance is clear, stating on its website, in part, "The individual right to carry a firearm in defense of our lives and our families does not and should not end at any state line."

Kroft also interviews the author of the bill, Rep. Richard Hudson (R-NC) and Robyn Thomas of the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence.
"
 
Kroft is a smarmy chardonnay-sipping beta cuck MSM assh0le, so this should be a perfect segment to get his breathless pearl-clutching anti attitude out there. The moonbats from the 'Gifford Law Center' tell me all I need to know about the slant of THAT segment. Where's Rosenthal? Where's Dimples?
 
Kroft is a smarmy chardonnay-sipping beta cuck MSM assh0le, so this should be a perfect segment to get his breathless pearl-clutching anti attitude out there. The moonbats from the 'Gifford Law Center' tell me all I need to know about the slant of THAT segment. Where's Rosenthal? Where's Dimples?
He drinks it from an anus iirc. Mmmm, yummy.
 
When is Mitch McConnell going to get off his fat ass and present the bill to the Senate? It has already passed the House for Christ's sake. He is allegedly pro-gun, but more likely just pro-Fudd.

Screen Shot 2018-02-10 at 6.58.16 AM.png
 
It's a political loser in an election year. Someone who had a pair would put every Senator in a Trump-won swing state on the record one way or another.

Also, in fairness, McConnell can't schedule or table a vote until it comes out of committee.

So THOSE are the RINO's who should be getting the immediate pressure
 
It's a political loser in an election year. Someone who had a pair would put every Senator in a Trump-won swing state on the record one way or another.

Also, in fairness, McConnell can't schedule or table a vote until it comes out of committee.

So THOSE are the RINO's who should be getting the immediate pressure

I started digging into this deeper this morning. Admittedly, I'm not as well versed as I should be on the process of how bills make it out of committee, but wasn't it passed in late November?

If so, does it go back to the house for a re-vote with the amendments, or on to the Senate?

upload_2018-2-10_8-30-34.png
 
I started digging into this deeper this morning. Admittedly, I'm not as well versed as I should be on the process of how bills make it out of committee, but wasn't it passed in late November?

If so, does it go back to the house for a re-vote with the amendments, or on to the Senate?

View attachment 221129

It PASSED in the House, it is sitting in the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, where it languishes.

Actions - H.R.38 - 115th Congress (2017-2018): Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017

So Grassley and Feinstein (mostly Grassley, since he's the Chairman) are what is holding it up, at least on paper
 
Yes, it's in the Senate Committee now I think:

Senate - 12/07/2017 Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
 
I don’t trust the feds . I’m worried this may affect state rights , and in Time lead to federal bans again as in the 90s. The feds give the and the Democrats take away.
 
I don’t trust the feds . I’m worried this may affect state rights , and in Time lead to federal bans again as in the 90s. The feds give the and the Democrats take away.

It doesn't change anything in this regard. As you said, in the 90s there was the AWB and that was without this bill. So it doesn't increase this risk.

On the other hand, because of the way it defines mags and handguns, state handgun lists and mag limits can't be applied to those who hold a permit in another state where the gun and mag is allowed. For possession, sales restrictions would still be under state control.
 
60 Minutes will air a segment titled "Recognizing Concealed Carry Permits Across State Lines" this Sunday, 11-Feb'18 on CBS:

"
Manhattan District Attorney, Cyrus Vance is against the law. "You bring that kind of firepower, even with well-intentioned people, it's going to be extremely dangerous," he tells Kroft. "I wouldn't presume to tell the residents of West Virginia what their gun laws should be…."

Well.....that's a lie:

Rep. Maloney, Da Vance, Local Electeds, & Gun Safety Advocates Call On Gop Congressional Leaders To Publicly Reject Bills That Would Weaken Gun Safety Protections, In Wake Of Las Vegas Gun Massacre

The leaders also called on Congress to pass common sense gun safety reforms, such as universal background checks, an assaults weapons ban, and increased penalties for gun trafficking and straw purchases.
 
It a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT ! What is so hard about it? Tell me of another right that ends at state lines.
 
It a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT ! What is so hard about it? Tell me of another right that ends at state lines.
Several Supreme Court rulings have upheld the 2nd amendment but have also upheld the ability of state governments to impose gun control laws.
Simply put a state cannot ban gun ownership outright but they can regulate guns.
 
It a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT ! What is so hard about it? Tell me of another right that ends at state lines.
I know it was a rhetorical question, because the true answer should be NONE... but, I’d say the bump stock ban in MA violates the 8th Amendment.
8th Amendment Limitations on Sentencing | LegalMatch Law Library

Not to mention the 2nd and 5th Amendment
“No person shall be…
… deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.”
 
Several Supreme Court rulings have upheld the 2nd amendment but have also upheld the ability of state governments to impose gun control laws.
Simply put a state cannot ban gun ownership outright but they can regulate guns.

And the proper response when the SC gets it wrong, or their ruling is interpreted incorrectly, is for Congress to pass a law that corrects the situation.
 
60 Minutes will air a segment titled "Recognizing Concealed Carry Permits Across State Lines" this Sunday, 11-Feb'18 on CBS:

"

Advocates for the bill point to Shaneen Allen as a perfect example of why the new law is needed. The single mother and mugging victim, licensed to carry a concealed pistol in Pennsylvania, was jailed in neighboring New Jersey after police found the gun in her purse during a traffic stop. "So you can easily go from being a responsibly armed citizen, who's 100 percent legal, to being a criminal just by crossing state lines," says Tim Schmidt, president and founder of the U.S. Concealed Carry Association. He says the bill is a way to prevent the arrests of responsible citizens, like Allen, from running afoul of inconsistent state guns laws.​
"
I thought "responsible citizens" were aware of the law and followed it. Responsible or not, no gun owner who is even minimally aware, could be ignorant that a closely neighboring jurisdiction is anti-gun.

Going from Philly to Cherry Hill is like going from Nashua to Mass, except with a big river to cross that makes the border even more obvious.
 
I think a valid question is why Sugar Daddy Bloomberg is sending the Monsanto Madame out with her whores to get the presstitutes busy streetwalking the marketplace of public opinion all of a sudden. Do they know the SCotUS is likely to take a case this year? Is the Senate going to hold a vote during midterms which will put donk Senators in red states in a bind? Why the sudden blitz? Usually these clowns go for a slow boil. Is it because of all the whacking off they plan in NJ & WA from which they think there will be 'momentum'? If I don some tinfoil, are they planning a false flag with some unstable medicated twits? What's the deal?
 
Several Supreme Court rulings have upheld the 2nd amendment but have also upheld the ability of state governments to impose gun control laws.
Simply put a state cannot ban gun ownership outright but they can regulate guns.

They missed a word "infringed" as in "Shall not be" They are wrong.
 
Several Supreme Court rulings have upheld the 2nd amendment but have also upheld the ability of state governments to impose gun control laws.
Simply put a state cannot ban gun ownership outright but they can regulate guns.


The Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act (LEOSA) permits a special class of citizens to carry in all states despite state requirements. Granted, I don't think the states opposed LEOSA, nevertheless it's a blueprint for federal licensure but maybe not forced state reciprocity.
 
The Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act (LEOSA) permits a special class of citizens to carry in all states despite state requirements. Granted, I don't think the states opposed LEOSA, nevertheless it's a blueprint for federal licensure but maybe not forced state reciprocity.
Yes, MA voted against it and then took >4 years to create the CMR to implement it.

This is DOA, it's not going to get to a vote in this session. It's a political hot-potato and they don't have the guts to deal with it. BTW, LEOSA was proposed for >10 years before it finally got passed into law. There are serious issues still with LEOSA that the Feds haven't addressed (mag limits in particular). Politicians only care about getting re-elected, they don't like dealing with controversial issues unless it is to appease their moonbat voter base.
 
So much for "full faith and credit". I'd love to see conservative states adopt laws that refuse to recognize any license or permit from any state that does not recognize all of their licenses and permits. Start locking up drivers from NY/NJ and such for driving on other states roads with a drivers license that is not recognized by the other state. Fight fire with fire.
 
I don’t trust the feds . I’m worried this may affect state rights , and in Time lead to federal bans again as in the 90s. The feds give the and the Democrats take away.

While you're sitting in the comfy chair, saying constitution this and 2a is my permit, the left just chips away at this civil liberty, until one day in the future when it's gone. I say pass it, make 'them' defend the position that 2A rights are not covered under the 14th amendment even though the SCOTUS has said clearly that it is. Is the fear that the law will get passed and some democrats try to repeal in a voice vote in the middle of the night? Good we have grounds for a lawsuit. The anti-gunners want to challenge reciprocity, then good we will be the ones standing on firm ground. Know thine enemy. These are the exact same people who scream "what about states rights??!??" when talking about reciprocity, but they would have absolutely no problem whatsoever with banning AR's, high capacity magazines, etc at the federal level, usurping those very same states rights. The second amendment is still a civil rights issues and it belongs at the highest level of government. It's not for states to decide who has to 'bend the knee' in order to exercise it.
 
Politically, I think national reciprocity is a bad idea.

Many liberal states are content to limit gun rights locally while looking the other way on federal laws that are permissive. Start forcing full rights in these liberal states and you'll see movement to make anti-gun a federal issue again. Don't poke the bear.
 
As much as I would love to dispense with the shenanigans and pointless BS of dealing with punitive state laws (Mass, NY, NJ etc).......the reason national reciprocity is a "Bad Idea" is because it sets yet another unprecidented federal transgression (essentially national permitting/reciprocity of various things) that the tyranny party will use against us sooner than later....


We don't seem to be very effective at getting the kangaroo courts in this country to take up the civil rights issues with gun ownership. In fact the silence is deafening. Pretty soon you will apply for your permit, hand over 5 years worth of tax returns, your latest credit report, a comprehensive medical history of your entire life, 5 letters of recommendation and a 50 page book report on why you want to own a gun and maybe just maybe, you might be able to buy yourself a BB gun, if you're lucky.
 
So much for "full faith and credit". I'd love to see conservative states adopt laws that refuse to recognize any license or permit (Except for firearms permits, if necessary) from any state that does not recognize all of their licenses and permits. Start locking up drivers from NY/NJ and such for driving on other states roads with a drivers license that is not recognized by the other state. Fight fire with fire.

FIFY...

Actually not on board with this. I prefer freedom of travel out of this state, though the government via some agencies has already started this:

fa7eac86d290d1ae1c3d4bbd806ba88d8b0c157d7b600444c2dca5c42f9a206c.jpg


I do get your point. What I much more prefer are laws such as what Missouri adopted. It's illegal to enforce a federal ban for what is legal in Missouri.
 
Their ‘safety’ lie falls apart when you realize that of 40K die in auto accidents per year and less than 34K die from guns (All events).

Like it has been said many times, it’s not about safety it’s about control. The more laws there are, the more likely you can be violated and controlled/fined.
 
Politically, I think national reciprocity is a bad idea.

Many liberal states are content to limit gun rights locally while looking the other way on federal laws that are permissive. Start forcing full rights in these liberal states and you'll see movement to make anti-gun a federal issue again. Don't poke the bear.

What! Have you listened to/read what the politicians in the "lib" states say when they are pushing an anti 2a law. It's always the same, "If the federal government won't we will", "We will lead the way". They aren't "content", they make it clear they want their restrictions nationally.

Reciprocity isn't poking the bear it's a small positive movement that will push back the lib states and their National move to ban firearms. Drawing a line in the sand and saying OK but don't step over this line, only works if you don't just keep drawing new lines further back.

You're a relatively new member and I'm guessing a younger guy (my apologies if I'm incorrect). Take a look at the history of gun laws in MA, NY, and CA. And look into the people pushing the anti 2a laws, they all make it clear they want a national ban.
 
Back
Top Bottom