National Concealed Carry Reciprocity Bill Drawn Up for Next Congress

[MGnoob]

Yup thats our legal justice system in a nutshell, modern day inquisition..
"Dunk her in water if she floats shes a witch, if she drowns shes with the lord."

 

[EC1]

If and I mean if the reciprocity law is passed and passes constitutional muster, and the dipshit dictators in NY, CA et al decide to ignore the law, I see a mega law suit and significant award putting a dent in their coffers.

 

[firestorm]

If and I mean if the reciprocity law is passed and passes constitutional muster, and the dipshit dictators in NY, CA et al decide to ignore the law, I see a mega law suit and significant award putting a dent in their coffers.

Law provides for "Reasonable attorneys fees" and "Damages" whatever that amounts to.

 

[usp45ct]

What worries me is how quickly the states in question will take to tighten up the amount of permits they issue.

 

[Varmint]

This is never gonna pass with Ryan and the other traitors in there, guys.

 

[firestorm]

What worries me is how quickly the states in question will take to tighten up the amount of permits they issue.

Only way to avoid it is to repeal the law allowing carry at all. Depending on the bill that makes it out we will either have 2 classes of people in shit states (NYC, CA, NJ, HI, MD) where those from out of state can carry but resident's cant. (Senate current bill) or anyone can get a no resident permit from any state and carry allowing those in shit states to get say a NH NR and carry at home. (House bill)

 

[Coyote33]

If and I mean if the reciprocity law is passed and passes constitutional muster, and the dipshit dictators in NY, CA et al decide to ignore the law, I see a mega law suit and significant award putting a dent in their coffers.

Um, you forgot MA.

 

[SKumar]

This is never gonna pass with Ryan and the other traitors in there, guys.

Do you think the NRA would allow this bill to fail? What would Trump say to them?

 

[Coyote33]

Unless there is direct punishment for all those that disreguard the carry Bill what's to stop states from just ignoring it like so many other laws,regs,bills.

Browsing through the MGL Ch 265 when I see this...

Section 37: Violations of constitutional rights; punishment


Section 37. No person, whether or not acting under color of law, shall by force or threat of force, willfully injure, intimidate or interfere with, or attempt to injure, intimidate or interfere with, or oppress or threaten any other person in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the constitution or laws of the commonwealth or by the constitution or laws of the United States. Any person convicted of violating this provision shall be fined not more than one thousand dollars or imprisoned not more than one year or both; and if bodily injury results, shall be punished by a fine of not more than ten thousand dollars or by imprisonment for not more than ten years, or both.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Law provides for "Reasonable attorneys fees" and "Damages" whatever that amounts to.

Remember, having a penalty for police misconduct in the MA Katrina Bill is what killed it at a point in the process where bills are generally a fait accompli.

Um, you forgot MA.

MA would go along grudgingly. We already have a culture where tens of thousands of "ordinary, unimportant, unconnected" people can carry, so it would not be a huge shift. NJ, NYC, and much of CA have a culture where having a carry permit ranks right up there with having the governer's private cell # on speed dial.

What worries me is how quickly the states in question will take to tighten up the amount of permits they issue.

Probably not much change, since doing so will have no effect on little people from out of state carrying in their empires.

 

[Green_Manelishi]

On the other hand, how many of you are NOT in favor of national "right to marry anyone you damned well please", "health care", and abortion? I suspect many will view that as Federal over-reach but if YOU like the desired outcome it's OK for the Fed to over-reach. Thus you/we are no different from anyone on the wrong side of the aisle who goes apeshit when their knickers are knotted.

"Personally", having found myself in the position, I'd like "National MOT" standards so I will know I can have my car registered and inspected without being told "well bub, it might have been legal in ... but it's not here."

 

[Green_Manelishi]

If and I mean if the reciprocity law is passed and passes constitutional muster, and the dipshit dictators in NY, CA et al decide to ignore the law, I see a mega law suit and significant award putting a dent in their coffers.

If the COTUS had half a sack, they would realize that the SCroTUS has no authority to rule on the constitutionality of laws, and that the ConTUS gives them the authority over the SCroTUS: " .. with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."

 

[Bonesinium]

It is not at all obvious to me that the federal government had the constitutional authority to force states into recognizing concealed carry permits issued by other states. And if they do by means of some BS reading of the commerce clause (it shall be lawful to carry any gun that's been in interstate commerce....) it would be a significant blow to states right.

They have as much right to force states to recognize concealed carry permits as states have to require permits to carry, exactly none. But that hasn't stopped them yet.

I, for one, would rather see the Justice Department sue individual cities and states for infringing upon the rights of people to keep and bear arms in just the same way that they sue local governments for infringing upon other rights.

Why would they do that when they enforce unconstitutional federal statutes that infringe on our rights to keep and bear arms?

 

[EC1]

Um, you forgot MA.

MA is part of the et al.

If the COTUS had half a sack, they would realize that the SCroTUS has no authority to rule on the constitutionality of laws, and that the ConTUS gives them the authority over the SCroTUS: " .. with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."

the scotus would be tasked with ruling on any constitutional challenge to law, assuming someone brings it to trial .

 

[mac1911]

Browsing through the MGL Ch 265 when I see this...

Maura and all the swine in this state would just toss the $1000 out and say NEXT. As no judge would actually set jail time.
See these .gov folks have made it very hard to get punished for not doing their job or violating laws.
Punishment for elected/apointed/hired officials and employment positions violation of the constitution should be harsh... at minimum pulled and banned from any local, county, state, federal job. Then also should be sentenced to several years and become a PP. Also pension should be withdrawn.

Start putting loss of pension on the list of mandatory punishments for getting fired or messing up at your job I would bet you see a decrease in some of this bull shit.

Those of you who thought trump was going to do more for 2a really did not listen to his lip flapping.
At best he will only veto any new laws.

Currently we have everything the so called Republicans have been crying for for the past 8 years. POWER! I'm,still waiting for the Don to wipe O's EO' from the books.
Yet they have done little...
See the problem is where does the money go.
Or house and Senate all make money off of Obama care. Insurance company kick backs , increased drug and supply cost all created by Obama care.
Obama care only cost citizens money it's making money for the shit bums on the hill.

 

[Green_Manelishi]

...

the scotus would be tasked with ruling on any constitutional challenge to law, assuming someone brings it to trial .

Only because they usurped that power, and the Congress lacks the sack to reign them in.

 

[NFD9]

On the other hand, how many of you are NOT in favor of national "right to marry anyone you damned well please", "health care", and abortion? I suspect many will view that as Federal over-reach but if YOU like the desired outcome it's OK for the Fed to over-reach. Thus you/we are no different from anyone on the wrong side of the aisle who goes apeshit when their knickers are knotted.

"Personally", having found myself in the position, I'd like "National MOT" standards so I will know I can have my car registered and inspected without being told "well bub, it might have been legal in ... but it's not here."

Where exactly are these specifically located in/protected by the constitution like the 2A?
That is why they may be deemed as an over-reach...no?

 

[Bonesinium]

Only because they usurped that power, and the Congress lacks the sack to reign them in.

Well, congress has usurped their power too, so it shouldn't be a surprise.

The intentions of having checks and balances has simply resulted in each branch defending the other for the same mutual favor and benefit. Mainly, increased power. It's really a great system in that regard. Not so great in terms of the Constitution or individual rights.

 

[pastera]

If the COTUS had half a sack, they would realize that the SCroTUS has no authority to rule on the constitutionality of laws, and that the ConTUS gives them the authority over the SCroTUS: " .. with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."

Not certain you are interpreting that correctly as the section is speaking to the appellate process

 

[Horrible]

I don't expect this to go anywhere with mealy-mouthed RINOs at the helm.

Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell Mum on National Reciprocity for Concealed Carry

http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...-on-national-reciprocity-for-concealed-carry/

 

[CAR]

I'm surprised to see them picking this up - did I miss that this was on the schedule all along? Wouldn't be the first time I was the only one who didn't know.


http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/h...aled-carry-across-state-lines/article/2641736

The House this week will push ahead with legislation allowing concealed carry permit holders to bring their guns to other states.

The House Judiciary Committee is scheduled on Tuesday to consider the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017. The legislation was introduced in January by Rep. Richard Hudson, R-N.C., and followed reports of gun owners getting arrested for traveling through states with stricter gun laws.

 

[evalance]

its just a distraction from tax fail, amnasty push and a pile of other bullshit they dont want to pay attention to

They wont actually do anything on this

so you're basically saying nothing changed and we all got tricked?

what good is a non politician president if we dont get rid of the rest of the looneys

 

[browncoat]

so you're basically saying nothing changed and we all got tricked?

what good is a non politician president if we dont get rid of the rest of the looneys

Things are changing. There is less and less of an excuse, the mask is falling off as all these RINO are being shown to be no different than democrats. They want to go back to a minority so they can whine and do nothing.

 

[TruthTellers]

So the committee is "considering" bringing this bill to a vote tomorrow? Obviously if this gets out of committee it probably passes the house, but the two Republican women in the senate along with mental incompetents like McCain will vote this thing down.

There's a good chance of it getting a vote out of committee, but once it hits Speaker Ryan's desk it's DOA. If Ryan gets it mixed up with some other bill and it does pass the house in the next few weeks/months, you can bet your bottom dollar we're getting another mass shooting with 20+ dead the week it comes up for a vote in the Senate.

At this point, I'm convinced any and all Pro-2A legislation is going to have to be done state by state. Federally it's either a keep the status quo or it's gun control bills that get passed. We haven't had any pro-2A legislation on the federal level since 1986 with FOPA, which considering the Hughes Amendment, really was a zero sum gain.

 

[42!]

So the committee is "considering" bringing this bill to a vote tomorrow? Obviously if this gets out of committee it probably passes the house, but the two Republican women in the senate along with mental incompetents like McCain will vote this thing down.

There's a good chance of it getting a vote out of committee, but once it hits Speaker Ryan's desk it's DOA. If Ryan gets it mixed up with some other bill and it does pass the house in the next few weeks/months, you can bet your bottom dollar we're getting another mass shooting with 20+ dead the week it comes up for a vote in the Senate.

At this point, I'm convinced any and all Pro-2A legislation is going to have to be done state by state. Federally it's either a keep the status quo or it's gun control bills that get passed. We haven't had any pro-2A legislation on the federal level since 1986 with FOPA, which considering the Hughes Amendment, really was a zero sum gain.

God I hope not, otherwise MA is doomed. We'll never see anything positive here.

 

[browncoat]

So the committee is "considering" bringing this bill to a vote tomorrow? Obviously if this gets out of committee it probably passes the house, but the two Republican women in the senate along with mental incompetents like McCain will vote this thing down.

There's a good chance of it getting a vote out of committee, but once it hits Speaker Ryan's desk it's DOA. If Ryan gets it mixed up with some other bill and it does pass the house in the next few weeks/months, you can bet your bottom dollar we're getting another mass shooting with 20+ dead the week it comes up for a vote in the Senate.

At this point, I'm convinced any and all Pro-2A legislation is going to have to be done state by state. Federally it's either a keep the status quo or it's gun control bills that get passed. We haven't had any pro-2A legislation on the federal level since 1986 with FOPA, which considering the Hughes Amendment, really was a zero sum gain.

Considering the Hughes amendment it was a loss

 

[TruthTellers]

God I hope not, otherwise MA is doomed. We'll never see anything positive here.

Move. That's what I plan to do next year and I don't even live in Mass. Just work there.

 

[42!]

Move. That's what I plan to do next year and I don't even live in Mass. Just work there.

Easy said than done. I've been looking for work in NH for a year now.

 

[TruthTellers]

Easy said than done. I've been looking for work in NH for a year now.

Don't mean to bring this off topic, but it pertains to gun freedom somewhat.

Ya know, I don't think that NH, VT, or ME are the answer because there is no work in those states, just like in RI, and by work I mean work that's going to pay enough to live comfortably because it's so damn expensive to live in New England.

The only solution to me is leave and move to the Midwest or the South simply because the cost of living is so much less. Anything that's not Mass, NY, NJ, Maryland, Virginia is going to be gun friendly in comparison. Tennessee is booming, the Carolinas are in good shape, Texas is grand. You can try New Hampshire, but eventually, over time, it's going to turn into Massachusetts. As the old folks die off and are replaced with Mass refugees, the state will change. In fact, it already has.

It's only a matter of time that gun rights there will go. They won't in flyover country.

 

[JayMcB]

The House can pass this bill to virtue signal how Pro-2a they are, knowing full well that McConnell will either sit on it or the spineless Senate RINOs will torpedo it and it is DOA. I believe if it did pass Trump would sign it though......