National Concealed Carry Reciprocity Bill Drawn Up for Next Congress

[Dadstoys]

I'm not seeing any violations of states rights in all this.
They have been playing fast and loose with this with this for too long.
No state has the right to step on any enumerated rights guaranteed by the COTUS.
Let's see some state try and require women to pass a test and get approval from the local COP to vote.

 

[MarkT]

Nobody seemed to bitch about states rights when it came to LEOSA.

Just amend the act to include any duly licensed individual if their home states issue permits or licenses. For residents of Constitutional Carry states then your regular DL is acceptable.

You're welcome.

I have a beef with LEOSA. It creates a class of citizens that is better than the rest of us.

I know many cops, and most are not "gun guys", meaning they do the minimum to qualify, but do much less than most on this forum. So they should be allowed to carry, but not us?

However, I agree with your comment about amending the act to include the rest of us.

 

[firestorm]

I have a beef with LEOSA. It creates a class of citizens that is better than the rest of us.

I know many cops, and most are not "gun guys", meaning they do the minimum to qualify, but do much less than most on this forum. So they should be allowed to carry, but not us?

However, I agree with your comment about amending the act to include the rest of us.

So what is the difference you see between amending LEOSA to include everyone, and writing a new law that functions the same way for the rest of people?

 

[MarkT]

So what is the difference you see between amending LEOSA to include everyone, and writing a new law that functions the same way for the rest of people?

There is no difference, but it removes separate classes of people, which I support.

 

[UNSUB]

Match with the silencer bill too please. And I'd have a raging boner that I'd need to call a doctor for and that would be cheaper too if he repeals obamacare

Not even an attempt to conceal your raging boner.

Sent from my SM-G928P using Tapatalk

 

[Individualist]

Trump isn't even in office and they are beginning to turn the libtards' world upside down and inside out.

I can not wait for the tidal wave that will be hitting 50 shores come Jan 20th.

This man approves...

 

[Garys]

I think that LEOSA requires annual requalification. Which is one of my objections to the federal government legislating this issue. If it's just a straight reciprocity law, that's one thing. If the feds decide that they are also going to set minimum standards, then it could get ugly. Imagine the ATF setting the rules for nationwide reciprocity.

Nobody seemed to bitch about states rights when it came to LEOSA.

Just amend the act to include any duly licensed individual if their home states issue permits or licenses. For residents of Constitutional Carry states then your regular DL is acceptable.

You're welcome.

 

[Fixxah]

Queen Maura is up for reelection in 2018. Time to mobilize soon and take her down, we do t need a republican, we could try to identify someone with a D to primary her. The angle is 1) how much of the states money she's wasted on frivolous lawsuits and 2) how she's failed to prosecute true corruption in the commonwealth. 3) how she's a political hack that isn't serving the people.

People will respond to those.

Avoid the bald guy. He is a dupe with perceived penile pertrusion who was assumed to be worse than "she" is.

 

[Matt_SERE]

So what is the difference you see between amending LEOSA to include everyone, and writing a new law that functions the same way for the rest of people?

One of the many things the law would have to deal with is the requirement for 'Yearly qualifications". People with constitutional carry would suddenly have all sorts of hoops to jump through.

 

[42!]

How would this affect standard capacity mags? It seems odd that you would have to use reduced capacity mags when you plan on traveling to MA.

 

[firestorm]

There is no difference, but it removes separate classes of people, which I support.

Makes sense, there are issues to be sorted out. like standard capacity mags in ban states, where you can carry, and hopefully the feds wouldn't be adding annoying extras like the LEOSA qualification or some kind of forced training.

 

[Waher]

Somehow I see this as enabling legislation to get 50 state constitutional carry, as will be defined by the court in their decision, before the USSC.

 

[Len-2A Training]

I have a beef with LEOSA. It creates a class of citizens that is better than the rest of us.

I know many cops, and most are not "gun guys", meaning they do the minimum to qualify, but do much less than most on this forum. So they should be allowed to carry, but not us?

However, I agree with your comment about amending the act to include the rest of us.

So what is the difference you see between amending LEOSA to include everyone, and writing a new law that functions the same way for the rest of people?

Politically it is easier to amend an existing law than create a new one.

I think that LEOSA requires annual requalification. Which is one of my objections to the federal government legislating this issue. If it's just a straight reciprocity law, that's one thing. If the feds decide that they are also going to set minimum standards, then it could get ugly. Imagine the ATF setting the rules for nationwide reciprocity.

The annual re-qualification is a significant hoop to jump thru, as each state has different requirements, some of which are totally ridiculous even for retired LEOs. MA made it very difficult for retirees intentionally, some other states do the same. IIRC NJ requires 2x/yr re-qualification, etc.

If this was invoked on everyone, it would be both expensive and ridiculous.

 

[AHM]

Yes Marsha, there is a Supremecy Clause

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.

Peesa cake: pass a statute declaring that anyone permitted to buy/carry/store/shoot guns'n'ammo in any state automagically possesses a Federal license which is Good Everywhere.

But see below about the fleeting nature of laws...

... 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.

Yahbut I'd actually like to see a suitably stacked Supreme Court issue a decision creating a national right to carry out of the penumbral emanations of Heller and MacDonald. Because when the political pendulum swings in the other direction, a Donk President can appoint an AG who stops suing gun-grabber jurisdictions, and a Donk Congress can repeal a Law-Abiding Resident Safety Act statute, but stare decisis makes a sufficiently bold SCOTUS precedent very difficult to reverse. (It took how many hundred thousand deaths to reverse Dred Scott...?)

---

Nobody seemed to bitch about states rights when it came to LEOSA.

Just amend the act to include any duly licensed individual if their home states issue permits or licenses. For residents of Constitutional Carry states then your regular DL is acceptable.

You're welcome.

Another advantage of cloning LEOSA for regular people is that there are comparatively few prohibited areas for LEOs, and virtually all of the remaining prohibited venues allow cops to check their carry pieces at the front door with no fuss or muss(*). Sauce for the goose, yadda³.

(*) I want a Settled Law that prohibited venues must have free gun checks, and 24x7 armed guard stations with magnetometers at all building entrances - even loading docks and alley stage doors. I feel entitled to a gun check just like a coat check; and if you are in the building disarmed, you want some reassurance that you're not a sitting duck for someone going postal, or even a modest terrorist attack. If the venue complains that they don't have the manpower, they don't have the resources; then tough - they have to allow lawful gun owners to carry inside.

 

[ChevyGuy91]

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.

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.

I hope all of you puds cheering this shit on reread this again, it is dead on. I know MA sucks, and you want the feds to fix it, but the rest of us don't want the feds involved. Be careful what you wish for.

the silencer bill too please.

Now that we can talk about, dig this shit.

https://www.instagram.com/p/BNovDv1jQvj/

https://www.instagram.com/p/BNsZI2iDOTt/

Dat LFOD Honeybadger has me Granite State in the pants over here.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

I want a Settled Law that prohibited venues must have free gun checks

Apparently AZ has this. The one man think tank formerly from NE (Chris Tavares) showed up at a Arizona library with a no-guns sign and insisted the check his carry weapon.

 

[pastera]

A person who carries or possesses a concealed handgun in accordance with subsections (a) and (b) may not be arrested or otherwise detained for violation of any law or any rule or regulation of a State or any political subdivision thereof related to the possession, transportation, or carrying of firearms

Says nothing about confiscating the firearm...

 

[jkelly1229]

I hope all of you puds cheering this shit on reread this again, it is dead on. I know MA sucks, and you want the feds to fix it, but the rest of us don't want the feds involved. Be careful what you wish for.



Now that we can talk about, dig this shit.

https://www.instagram.com/p/BNovDv1jQvj/

https://www.instagram.com/p/BNsZI2iDOTt/

Dat LFOD Honeybadger has me Granite State in the pants over here.

I agree about the Feds getting involved will just f it up for 36 other states

 

[CatSnoutSoup]

States like MA, NY, NJ and CA will not stand for this without long, long, drawn out letigation. They would have a pretty good argument under states' rights, and in the end even if they lost they would just ignore it like NY and NJ do now with the FOPA of 1986.

I would personally prefer the political capital be expended elsewhere. Getting those states ignoring FOPA to honor that exisiting law seems like it would be more obtainable.

I admitt my bias though -- I have MA, NH, FL and PA permits so I am pretty much GTG for anywhere I need to be.

 

[usp45ct]

States like MA, NY, NJ and CA will not stand for this without long, long, drawn out letigation. They would have a pretty good argument under states' rights, and in the end even if they lost they would just ignore it like NY and NJ do now with the FOPA of 1986.

I would personally prefer the political capital be expended elsewhere. Getting those states ignoring FOPA to honor that exisiting law seems like it would be more obtainable.

I admitt my bias though -- I have MA, NH, FL and PA permits so I am pretty much GTG for anywhere I need to be.

Go to NYC, NJ, CA or DC and let me know how that works out for you. It a right that makes you jump through hoops to get a permit to limit how, where, and when you can exercise it, but your OK with it because you jumped through the hoop this year.

Dance banana, dance.

 

[mac1911]

I don't like it for what I read so far.
1. On its face you need to be licensed in your home state.
What about states that don't require license.
2. It doesn't address what illegal to posses in each state.
3. What I would like to see is a bill that says any regulation on the state level above and beyond age and felony is a clear violation of the 2nd
4. Like to see them both federal and state just plain and simple state once your 18 you can buy a posses firearms and ammo.... shall not be infringed and all.
5. Federal licensing does solve much now they have even bigger list.

 

[CatSnoutSoup]

Go to NYC, NJ, CA or DC and let me know how that works out for you. It a right that makes you jump through hoops to get a permit to limit how, where, and when you can exercise it, but your OK with it because you jumped through the hoop this year.

Dance banana, dance.

I am a pragmatist, if they will not honor FOPA and let you drive through those states, what makes you think they will roll over when the Fed tells them they have to honor another states laws?

BTW I admitted my biased and you want to basically call me a dick becuase of that rather then simply argue the point -- you have a good day also.

 

[VetteGirlMA]

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.

I get this statement but let's be honest, our chances of prevailing in MA against Healey and her machine are zip. I'm using this as an example. Even if we do win, it will take 100 years for the legislators and law enforcement to get on the right side of the issue. The courts are stacked with anti-gun, anti-rights liberals. Lawyers make money and everyone on the receiving end scratches their collective heads and just accepts new restrictions on their rights. The same concept can be applied to the Boston AWB, the Chicago one, the 'you need to prove you need a concealed carry license' etc. All we will end up with is a patchwork of laws that make no sense whatsoever. Whatever happened to the idea in the McDonald decision that the 2A was incorporated into the 14th and applied to the states? Isn't national reciprocity an attempt by the government to fix over-reach of states on 14th rights?

I think we've been doing the 'gun rights' thing the wrong way. Let's pass a law, and put these doofuses on the other side of the equation for a change. Let them take 100 years to roll it back instead of the ordinary person being the recipient of their evil. Can't we still win when we create pro-gun laws and work on legal challenges for a change? I agree that we shouldn't have to create new laws, but here we are, and liberals would love nothing more than to pass new laws, new regulations, more places where one cannot carry, less personal choice in firearm desired to carry, etc. We're never going to get anywhere with a 50% success rate in challenging laws, just ever increasing regulations.

 

[Shakeyfly]

Way to many tender foots in America and with the butch ag at the helm and a limo weekdays gov, this ain't going to happen in mass.

 

[knfmn]

Nobody seemed to bitch about states rights when it came to LEOSA.

They did bitch, they just kept it low-key because LEOSA applies to cops, not the great unwashed masses. I don't think national reciprocity has a snowballs chance in hell of passing. If it does pass, states like Kalifornia and NY will ensure that the training requirements are so ****ed up that nobody can comply with them. "This is fine, but the training requirements need to include the ability to hold a 3/4" group at 100 yards with a snub nosed revolver, 2 1/2 months of legal education every year, monthly range qualifications and 1,200 hours of non-lethal force training."

 

[Chevy 2 65]

I get this statement but let's be honest, our chances of prevailing in MA against Healey and her machine are zip. I'm using this as an example. Even if we do win, it will take 100 years for the legislators and law enforcement to get on the right side of the issue. The courts are stacked with anti-gun, anti-rights liberals. Lawyers make money and everyone on the receiving end scratches their collective heads and just accepts new restrictions on their rights. The same concept can be applied to the Boston AWB, the Chicago one, the 'you need to prove you need a concealed carry license' etc. All we will end up with is a patchwork of laws that make no sense whatsoever. Whatever happened to the idea in the McDonald decision that the 2A was incorporated into the 14th and applied to the states? Isn't national reciprocity an attempt by the government to fix over-reach of states on 14th rights?

I think we've been doing the 'gun rights' thing the wrong way. Let's pass a law, and put these doofuses on the other side of the equation for a change. Let them take 100 years to roll it back instead of the ordinary person being the recipient of their evil. Can't we still win when we create pro-gun laws and work on legal challenges for a change? I agree that we shouldn't have to create new laws, but here we are, and liberals would love nothing more than to pass new laws, new regulations, more places where one cannot carry, less personal choice in firearm desired to carry, etc. We're never going to get anywhere with a 50% success rate in challenging laws, just ever increasing regulations.

Compromise is the problem. PRO gun people/groups in this state, compromise. FID's were SHALL issue, not any more. AWB was OK, not anymore. They take more and more each year. Soon it will be like California or worse.

 

[Cabinetman]

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.

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.

+++1

If the congress can giveth, the congress can taketh away. What's going to happen to your reciprocity the first year of a liberal leaning congress? I can tell you; it would be on the list of the first 100 days of the liberal president's agenda.

I, too, would much prefer that we use the existing language in our Constitution to prohibit legal barriers for us to carry between state lines. IT's really ludicrous if you look at it seriously. I can buy/earn just about any other type of permit/license for any other activity in any state and not have to worry about being a criminal with serious charges being brought just going over a border. Only firearms are so severely restricted. If the states have the right to require training or earning a certificate of some type, fine, but it should be recognized by fellow states and that's where the efforts should be made to change the law during this uber conservative conclave of president, house, and senate. Pounding the states down by trying to throw a blanket edict over all of them demanding reciprocity will end up poorly, methinks.

Rome

 

[VetteGirlMA]

+++1

If the congress can giveth, the congress can taketh away. What's going to happen to your reciprocity the first year of a liberal leaning congress? I can tell you; it would be on the list of the first 100 days of the liberal president's agenda.

I, too, would much prefer that we use the existing language in our Constitution to prohibit legal barriers for us to carry between state lines.
Rome

If you read between the tea leaves it's not working out too well for us, is it? CA's gunpocalypse is a great example. The only thing that is being fought is micro-stamping. Every ordinary citizen takes the rest on the chin, while the liberals pack the state employee payrolls with more of their buddies and more forms to fill out and paperwork to stuff into filing cabinets. Where is the challenge to the MA LTC (may issue) that's an infringement since someone can arbitrarily decide who has rights and who has none, oh that's right, never gonna happen. Soooo, we either accept more infringements, more and more and more until the 2A isn't worth the paper it's printed or fight back. Let the liberals try and turn the law back. Take it to court. Let the supreme court decide if a person has the rights to carry firearms across state lines. It is physically impossible to win an argument with a person who actually believes that the second amendment applies only to police and not ordinary people.

 

[firecontrol123]

All this law will do is add more confusion to an already complex system. The problem isn't the right to carry anywhere in the U.S.A., that right is already ours !!!!! The second amendment gives us that right. But that right has been hijacked by the state. When the federal government allowed state to regulate firearms, they allowed the states to supersede federal law. This made it possible for each state to decided who will or who will not carry a firearm. So, if this law does pass, NY, Ma. and all the other liberal states will just make new laws to supersede this new federal law.You will NEVER see the day when an ordinary citizen will be carrying a pistol in N.Y.C. or D.C. ,not as long as the state can regulate the second amendment. The only way to get the second amendment back is to take the power away from the states. Once every state recognizes the second amendment covers not only ownership but transportation of firearms, then no other laws will be needed.

 

[robjax]

"[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]she won’t hesitate to take Trump to court if he carries out what she described as his unconstitutional campaign promises."[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]She either doesn't get it or she has an agenda to subvert the US Constitution and the B.O.R.

Restrictive gun laws and other infringements on 2A are unconstitutional. [/FONT]