• 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.

House bill would grant universal concealed-carry reciprocity in all 50 states

frenchman said:
First step towards a federally issued carry license. Oh, wait, it'll be a PERMIT. Big difference.
Click to expand...

Yep, it's definitely one of those "be careful what you wish for" kind of things. I'd love reciprocity, just not sure if I want the government handling the process. It's f'd up enough at the state level now, so you can only imagine how much better that would get with the .gov in control...[rolleyes]
 
Man, I wish. I love that when I go to Vermont I can carry without any sort of license there. If it was like that everywhere it'd be great, no one should have to face jail time for legally carrying.
 
Just the first step to a completely new and updated registry, not of guns but people. Watch what you wish for!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
dgrafton said:
Just the first step to a completely new and updated registry, not of guns but people. Watch what you wish for!
Click to expand...

They already have a registry. They may not call it a registry and it may be several different lists, but it looks to me like every time there is a shooting they know exactly who owned the gun, where it was purchased and when it was purchased. We are all on a list.
 
fencer said:
They already have a registry. They may not call it a registry and it may be several different lists, but it looks to me like every time there is a shooting they know exactly who owned the gun, where it was purchased and when it was purchased. We are all on a list.
Click to expand...

We have a registry in MA. I don't think there is a national registry.

But yes. Here in MA and I bet a lot of other northern states have a list.

I don't think Arizona, Texas, and Tennessee have a clue on who own what.
Unless the gov. Went to the gun shop to collect the 4473's.
 
In order for this to pass there would need to be some poison attached (FOPA and mchine guns) - knowing that, it should die a fast death.
 
pastera said:
In order for this to pass there would need to be some poison attached (FOPA and mchine guns) - knowing that, it should die a fast death.
Click to expand...

Of course it will have, they will get what they wanted to do last year after all. Have a national background check data base and registry.
 
Rick1987 said:
We have a registry in MA. I don't think there is a national registry.

But yes. Here in MA and I bet a lot of other northern states have a list.

I don't think Arizona, Texas, and Tennessee have a clue on who own what.
Unless the gov. Went to the gun shop to collect the 4473's.
Click to expand...

Even if they did collect all 4473s, it would probably net them less than half of where the guns are due to ftf sales, of which there is no requirement in most states to keep any records at all, then of course you have a percentage of guns that were handed down after people died, some relocate to other states, etc. It would be virtually impossible to track down most of what was originally sold at gun shops even with the original transfer records.
 
Garys said:
I agree. Which is why it's a bad idea. There is too much of the federal government telling states, counties, cities, towns, and individuals what to do. We need much less of that, not more.
Click to expand...
One of the actual intended functions of the Federal Government was as an arbitrator between the states and specifically to protect our rights as we moved between them.

It is not a per se abuse of power to do something like this. The devil is in the details. One of the very few types of "good laws" are those that limit power and set punishment for abuse of power.
 
frenchman said:
First step towards a federally issued carry license. Oh, wait, it'll be a PERMIT. Big difference.
Click to expand...

This.

The Feds need to stay out of this.

- - - Updated - - -

cekim said:
One of the actual intended functions of the Federal Government was as an arbitrator between the states and specifically to protect our rights as we moved between them.

It is not a per se abuse of power to do something like this. The devil is in the details. One of the very few types of "good laws" are those that limit power and set punishment for abuse of power.
Click to expand...

If the federal government wanted to use the constitution to support 2A the pathway is to sue states in court for trying to have permits at all. You don't "support a right" by passing another law declaring it a right.
 
xtry51 said:
This.

The Feds need to stay out of this.

- - - Updated - - -



If the federal government wanted to use the constitution to support 2A the pathway is to sue states in court for trying to have permits at all. You don't "support a right" by passing another law declaring it a right.
Click to expand...
You can absolutely support a right by imposing a specific punishment or making specifc punishment for violating rights or limiting power of government by act of law.

Certainly having the courts interpret the constitution correctly is also valid, but so is having the legislature make their intent clear and in conformance with the constitution.

Simply put, the states have no constitutional authority to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms. That should be all that needs to be said, but clearly it is not as we can see ingringement today.

A the job of the federal government is to arbitrate between the states, protecting a resident in one state from abuse of power in another is certainly within the scope of their mandate. Whether that is done through the courts or legislature does not change the legitimacy of it.
 
weldingmachine said:
I agree 10000%!!
It will make ALL states comply with the stricktest set of rules.
IE:Chicago would remain the same, while states like VT would have to match those rules...
No good..
Click to expand...
Is this fact or opinion?
Got a link to this?

“If I have a driver’s license issued by the state of Florida and I drive all the way across the country to California, my driver’s license is valid the entire way. Even though the requirements for obtaining a driver’s license may vary from state to state, we have a system that recognizes the need for reciprocity,” explained Rep. Richard Nugent, (R-FL), sponsor of the bill.
Click to expand...
It looks like the sponsor is aware of this issue.

“Sen. Cornyn’s bill dangerously introduces a lowest common denominator when it comes to who can carry a concealed weapon,” said Erika Soto Lamb, spokeswoman for Mayors Against Illegal Guns.
Click to expand...
Erika Lamb would disagree with you. [laugh]
 
Last edited:
weldingmachine said:
I agree 10000%!!
It will make ALL states comply with the stricktest set of rules.
IE:Chicago would remain the same, while states like VT would have to match those rules...
No good..
Click to expand...
As I said, the devil is in the details, there are a great many things that make such a bill an abortion, but a blanket precluding of federal protection of fundamental rights between the states, which is one of their very few actual jobs should not be one of them.

The courts are a lousy substitute for power curtailed by principle at the legislature in the first place. Lousy in that they do a terrible job at this and lousy in that it means injustice persists for decades or centuries while they wait for the most intellectually stimulating example to use to change a law we all know is invalid.
 

Similar threads

Nebraska lawmakers pass bill that would allow smaller school districts to arm staff members
Replies
0
Views
43
Reptile
Reptile
State Sen. Pushes Campus Carry for AZ College Students with Concealed Carry Permits
Replies
0
Views
46
Reptile
Reptile
Carry in Post Office
2
Replies
49
Views
1K
LTCRN
LTCRN
Colorado House Democrats Pass Bill Banning AR-15s and 9mm Pistols with Threaded Barrels
2
Replies
49
Views
1K
Amputee Marksman
Amputee Marksman
These Are The Worst States To Be A Gun Owner In 2024
Replies
9
Views
492
Zappa
Zappa
Back
Top Bottom