National reciprocity bill

[pdm]

Huh. Where in Congress' enumerated powers can they do something like this?

 

[Climbnsink]

They ain't supposed to, but it sure is fun to watch a bunch of (allegedly)freedom loving people encourage them to.

Huh. Where in Congress' enumerated powers can they do something like this?

 

[Terminator03]

Say this passes, say it works, we can all switch to VT DLs and carry willy nilly anywhere. Guess what happens when the other team gets the ball? Perfect setup for a national gun license. I know some people here would love a national license. Some of us, that live in or will live in free states would rather not.

Clearly you are missing the whole point here. Just because you live in a so-called "free state" does not mean you are free to roam about the country with your gun, anymore than someone from a more restricted state like MA. They are not proposing a national license, nor was that even suggested. You are just postulating about what could happen down the road, but the reality is that many other things would come way before national gun licensing would ever be an issue.

 

[Jose]

From a federal law perspective think of this as the federal govt saying the second amendment can be licensed by states but is otherwise recognized nationwide.

My second amendment rights are not subject to a f-ing license.

I can own as many G-D firearms as my credit can stand without so much as a by your leave to the state of Ohio.

I can open carry anywhere in public without a license, and guess what, the state supreme court has recognized that as an intrinsic right (bearing arms).

It is YOU who lives under the heel of a police state where the exercise of a right has been turned into a privilege at the whim of some police bureaucrat. YOU fix your shithole and leave the rest of us alone. WE DO NOT NEED YOUR HELP.

Bill Nance is spot on: some of you need to GTFO out of Massachusetts for a while and actually LIVE in a place where you do not need to get .gov permission to widen your f-ing driveway, let alone exercise a basic freedom.

You, Terminator3, and a couple others do not have an earthly clue how things work elsewhere and have the unmitigated gall to tell us how you are going to help us.

GMAFB

 

[Jose]

Clearly you are missing the whole point here. Just because you live in a so-called "free state" does not mean you are free to roam about the country with your gun, anymore than someone from a more restricted state like MA. They are not proposing a national license, nor was that even suggested. You are just postulating about what could happen down the road, but the reality is that many other things would come way before national gun licensing would ever be an issue.

You are naive in the extreme if you think your national reciprocity will never go wrong.

And no, we are not missing your point. I can carry in 35 states with just my Ohio and NH licenses. I can also possess and use firearms in even more of them WITHOUT ANY LICENSE AT ALL.

 

[cekim]

You are naive in the extreme if you think your national reciprocity will never go wrong.

It's ok, government can run healthcare, lending, retirement, schools, automakers, etc...

It always ends just peachy:

 

[Terminator03]

You are naive in the extreme if you think your national reciprocity will never go wrong.

And no, we are not missing your point. I can carry in 35 states with just my Ohio and NH licenses. I can also possess and use firearms in even more of them WITHOUT ANY LICENSE AT ALL.

I believe you are totally wrong regarding that last part of your statement. Just because a particular state has no licensing does not mean that you, as a non resident can carry there without a permit of some sort. This no different than someone coming to MA from VT, where they didn't need a permit at all.

 

[Terminator03]

damn double post.

 

[Jose]

I believe you are totally wrong regarding that last part of your statement. Just because a particular state has no licensing does not mean that you, as a non resident can carry there without a permit of some sort. This no different than someone coming to MA from VT, where they didn't need a permit at all.

Reading comprehension failure. Try again.

 

[piman]

Do you even read before you post or does this urge to write something completely overtake? I give a rats behind what you can or cannot do, and have the least intention to help you so...

The point here was to extend anyone's right beyond their home state. I continue to think it had merit independent of your home states view on 2A. Clearly you are going to repeat the drivel here so I will stop.

BTW I do believe this is a forum dominated by the interest of the North East States, so if you want us to leave you alone, you do have a choice. It's a free country after all...

My second amendment rights are not subject to a f-ing license.

I can own as many G-D firearms as my credit can stand without so much as a by your leave to the state of Ohio.

I can open carry anywhere in public without a license, and guess what, the state supreme court has recognized that as an intrinsic right (bearing arms).

It is YOU who lives under the heel of a police state where the exercise of a right has been turned into a privilege at the whim of some police bureaucrat. YOU fix your shithole and leave the rest of us alone. WE DO NOT NEED YOUR HELP.

Bill Nance is spot on: some of you need to GTFO out of Massachusetts for a while and actually LIVE in a place where you do not need to get .gov permission to widen your f-ing driveway, let alone exercise a basic freedom.

You, Terminator3, and a couple others do not have an earthly clue how things work elsewhere and have the unmitigated gall to tell us how you are going to help us.

GMAFB

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

 

[Terminator03]

Do you even read before you post or does this urge to write something completely overtake? I give a rats behind what you can or cannot do, and have the least intention to help you so...

The point here was to extend anyone's right beyond their home state. I continue to think it had merit independent of your home states view on 2A. Clearly you are going to repeat the drivel here so I will stop.

BTW I do believe this is a forum dominated by the interest of the North East States, so if you want us to leave you alone, you do have a choice. It's a free country after all...





Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

That was my point as well, so I guess this thread has pretty much run it's course as did the last one, with some of us having the common sense to see this for what it really is, and then those that are so closed minded, and set in their ways (especially when those particular ways may very well be improved too), that they just attack those with differing opinions as being antis. Oh well...

 

[Climbnsink]

Classic libtard tactic~ 'you don't have a voice wah wah wah.' Silly too as you are pining for a Federal law and saying he shouldn't weigh in because he isn't living in the Northeast.

BTW I do believe this is a forum dominated by the interest of the North East States, so if you want us to leave you alone, you do have a choice. It's a free country after all...





Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

 

[NFD9]

Several states refuse to recognize 2A. The federal .gov forcing the state to recognize your right to do whatever with firearms should not be lumped into "less laws is better".

Clearly, places like MA are going to always do things against 2A, and to me, its very nice to see the federal gov bully the state into doing something constitutional.

Isn't this what the SCOTUS Heller & Mcdonald decisions achieved?

None here thinks the Feds should have kept thier noses out of that....... do they?

 

[cekim]

Isn't this what the SCOTUS Heller & Mcdonald decisions achieved?

None here thinks the Feds should have kept thier noses out of that....... do they?

Actually, I did and do question the as yet unknown unintended consequences of expansion of Federal power on this issue, but accept that since 14A that ship had sailed. From that point on, the BoR was incorporated in its entirety for better or for worse...

So, as I said at the time, it is the correct decision, but we need to be very careful in seeking Federal protection from the states (beyond enforcing 2A incorporation) as it WILL come back to bite us at some point.

 

[NFD9]

but we need to be very careful in seeking Federal protection from the states (beyond enforcing 2A incorporation) as it WILL come back to bite us at some point.

I hear you but I disagree when it comes to constitutionally recognized rights, otherwise we would still have slavery in parts of the US.

 

[cekim]

Actually, I did and do question the as yet unknown unintended consequences of expansion of Federal power on this issue, but accept that since 14A that ship had sailed. From that point on, the BoR was incorporated in its entirety for better or for worse...

So, as I said at the time, it is the correct decision, but we need to be very careful in seeking Federal protection from the states (beyond enforcing 2A incorporation) as it WILL come back to bite us at some point.[/QUOTE]

I hear you but I disagree when it comes to constitutionally recognized rights, otherwise we would still here slavery in parts of the US.

Whatever I may think about more correct ways to have solved that problem, the fact is that 14A exists. So, at this point, without amending the Constitution, I agree 100% that the BoR is Federally protected...

That said, I do not see in there or in the enumerated powers anything about the ability to allow reasonable restrictions or oversee licensing schemes to accomplish the same.

 

[Terminator03]

Classic libtard tactic~ 'you don't have a voice wah wah wah.' Silly too as you are pining for a Federal law and saying he shouldn't weigh in because he isn't living in the Northeast.

No his point was the same as my reply to Jose. He does not live here, yet continually bashes us for our way of thinking, when these types of legislation are very relevant to us as a majority of this forum. That is not to discount his opinion, but if he really thinks our way of thought is so f'd up up then why bother coming to a site that is not only dedicated to those of use who live in the NE, but is also populated in the majority by those from the NE? To me that is what on other forums is referred to as a "troll", plain and simple! They just frequent the board to start fights, and create problems for the most part. In the case of this particular legislation, no one has actually proven that it would have ANY detriment at all to the so-called "free states", so other than some name calling, and such by the aforementioned member, I have seen nothing to say this wouldn't be good for all of us. Sure, sometimes federal intervention can be a slippery slope, I see nothing in this proposal that would give the feds any additional power over the states than they already have.

 

[FITH]

Clearly you are missing the whole point here. Just because you live in a so-called "free state" does not mean you are free to roam about the country with your gun, anymore than someone from a more restricted state like MA. They are not proposing a national license, nor was that even suggested. You are just postulating about what could happen down the road, but the reality is that many other things would come way before national gun licensing would ever be an issue.

so are you saying my personal safety is better in the others states.... I'm more safe in _______ ! Or that I shouldn't be able to protect myself because i'm in Miami..?

 

[cekim]

so are you saying my personal safety is better in the others states.... I'm more safe in _______ ! Or that I shouldn't be able to protect myself because i'm in Miami..?

I thought I was quite specifically "free to move about the country."

"The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States."

"right of free ingress into other States, and egress from them." -Paul vs Virginia

You are safer in most free states as well...

 

[Terminator03]

so are you saying my personal safety is better in the others states.... I'm more safe in _______ ! Or that I shouldn't be able to protect myself because i'm in Miami..?

Did you bump your head, or something? The whole point of this thread, and the legislation it is about is discussing the fact that just because you have a LTC, CCW permit, or whatever in YOUR particular state, does not mean that you can travel WITH YOUR CONCEALED weapon in every other other states. Sure, some have reciprocal agreements, but I think it's total bullshit that you would need several different permits just to be able to drive across country for example...

 

[buketduder]

This just seems a like a nightmare waiting to happen...I can already carry in 40 plus states either openly or concealed (or both)...the other states I just avoid..when and if the people there take back their rights then things will change..

 

[Terminator03]

This just seems a like a nightmare waiting to happen...I can already carry in 40 plus states either openly or concealed (or both)...the other states I just avoid..when and if the people there take back their rights then things will change..

I'm assuming that you have at least a couple of other non-res permits, in addition to your CT to get that coverage. If you read the proposal, just what kind of "nightmare waiting to happen" do you see stemming from it? Not being a wise-ass, just honestly curious if it's just your opinion, or if you have some facts to base this line of thought on?

 

[Climbnsink]

I live here and continually bash you for your way of thinking. Federal legislation is relevant to folks outside of the NE. Not trolling to point out that you are advocating screwing other people because you can't fix your own problems. The whole thing is stupid, likely unconstitutional, even if it isn't NE'ers have admitted that our states would ignore the law anyway. We have what 50 years as adults? Under the best of circumstances it would take how long to pass this, have it work its way up to being ruled constitutional then work its way back down to being applied to the nanny states? 20 years? Maybe never. If the right to carry within all reasonable travel time is important to you in this lifetime move. Go live where you can carry in any state in a days drive. Simple. Or if you think it is possible stay and fix MA. Don't go crying to the other 49 states to fix our mess.

No his point was the same as my reply to Jose. He does not live here, yet continually bashes us for our way of thinking, when these types of legislation are very relevant to us as a majority of this forum. That is not to discount his opinion, but if he really thinks our way of thought is so f'd up up then why bother coming to a site that is not only dedicated to those of use who live in the NE, but is also populated in the majority by those from the NE? To me that is what on other forums is referred to as a "troll", plain and simple! They just frequent the board to start fights, and create problems for the most part. In the case of this particular legislation, no one has actually proven that it would have ANY detriment at all to the so-called "free states", so other than some name calling, and such by the aforementioned member, I have seen nothing to say this wouldn't be good for all of us. Sure, sometimes federal intervention can be a slippery slope, I see nothing in this proposal that would give the feds any additional power over the states than they already have.

 

[Bill Nance]

Not s single person supporting this law has answered the salient objection to it.

Specifically, it is not a right under the U.S. Constitution to carry concealed. PERIOD. Heller was extremely narrow in it's definitions.

When the feds enforced desegregation it was AFTER the supreme court ruled segregation a violation of the constitution. If congress wanted to pass a federal law that mandated all states incorporate Heller, I would be fine with that. But this law goes FAR beyond what the courts have ruled. It not only infringes on state's rights to be wrong (It's called the 10th amendment) it interferes with internal policies of states AND their choice of what to recognize and not recognize.

We DO NOT LIVE IN A DEMOCRACY. We live in a federal republic. I really don't' want some douchebag from Minnesota or VT. making internal policies for my state, nor do you want Washington State politicians to make rules for Mass.

This is the basis of the founding principles of this country. Absent a court ruling that XYZ is a fundamental right, (in this case CCW) congress has ZERO authority to mandate states recognize another's licensing procedures. If the people of Mass. have decided that no one gets to carry, as bad a decision as that is, it's their right to do so absent a supreme court ruling that CCW is a right. It's a big country. Change your states' politics or move to someplace that agrees with you. Asking the congress to overrule states rights like this is a bad idea. And by the way, this law would be declared unconstitutional in about 10 seconds, just as the brady bill was, for the exact same reason.

There isn't just precedent, there's recent precedent.

 

[TWtommers]

Not s single person supporting this law has answered the salient objection to it.

Specifically, it is not a right under the U.S. Constitution to carry concealed. PERIOD. Heller was extremely narrow in it's definitions.

When the feds enforced desegregation it was AFTER the supreme court ruled segregation a violation of the constitution. If congress wanted to pass a federal law that mandated all states incorporate Heller, I would be fine with that. But this law goes FAR beyond what the courts have ruled. It not only infringes on state's rights to be wrong (It's called the 10th amendment) it interferes with internal policies of states AND their choice of what to recognize and not recognize.

We DO NOT LIVE IN A DEMOCRACY. We live in a federal republic. I really don't' want some douchebag from Minnesota or VT. making internal policies for my state, nor do you want Washington State politicians to make rules for Mass.

This is the basis of the founding principles of this country. Absent a court ruling that XYZ is a fundamental right, (in this case CCW) congress has ZERO authority to mandate states recognize another's licensing procedures. If the people of Mass. have decided that no one gets to carry, as bad a decision as that is, it's their right to do so absent a supreme court ruling that CCW is a right. It's a big country. Change your states' politics or move to someplace that agrees with you. Asking the congress to overrule states rights like this is a bad idea. And by the way, this law would be declared unconstitutional in about 10 seconds, just as the brady bill was, for the exact same reason.

There isn't just precedent, there's recent precedent.

Well said. I started reading this thread in favor of the law but now see the reason in objecting to it. This law won't create or protect a "right". Its just another (potential) federal law that undermines states rights. Even if the end result, on paper, would be good for us its not constitutionally sound as it violates the 10th amendment.

 

[piman]

Not s single person supporting this law has answered the salient objection to it.

Specifically, it is not a right under the U.S. Constitution to carry concealed. PERIOD. Heller was extremely narrow in it's definitions.

When the feds enforced desegregation it was AFTER the supreme court ruled segregation a violation of the constitution. If congress wanted to pass a federal law that mandated all states incorporate Heller, I would be fine with that. But this law goes FAR beyond what the courts have ruled. It not only infringes on state's rights to be wrong (It's called the 10th amendment) it interferes with internal policies of states AND their choice of what to recognize and not recognize.
...

Now this is the sort of argument I can make sense of...

I will still say that assuming someone smarter had an argument here the law would be beneficial to all. Would not solve a MA problem and would not hurt any free stater. Its plain silly to just mouth a statement to the contrary and resort to name calling as the clincher!

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

 

[Terminator03]

I agree, finally some reasons that actually make sense without looking like they are being spouted by some paranoid person just afraid of any changes.

Bill, you bring up some good points, especially using the segregation example. While I do see your point that the right to CCW is not guaranteed (specifically) under the Constitution, the right to keep and bear arms is, so this is just an extension of that in much the same way as your segregation example. As times changed, people no longer found it socially acceptable to have others walking around with a "6 shooter" on their hip, as you could do in the early days. This was why CCW came about as an alternative. This is something that obviously was never even conceived as being an issue when the BOR was drafted, but since this is effectively an extension of that right, why wouldn't it be protected?

 

[piman]

Classic libtard tactic~ 'you don't have a voice wah wah wah.' Silly too as you are pining for a Federal law and saying he shouldn't weigh in because he isn't living in the Northeast.

Since we are inventing terms and definitions, here is mine - classic illiterate fanboy. My comment was not saying he had no voice, rather he shouldn't expect to not hear about issues pertaining to MA in a forum titled North East Shooters...

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

 

[FITH]

Did you bump your head, or something? The whole point of this thread, and the legislation it is about is discussing the fact that just because you have a LTC, CCW permit, or whatever in YOUR particular state, does not mean that you can travel WITH YOUR CONCEALED weapon in every other other states. Sure, some have reciprocal agreements, but I think it's total bullshit that you would need several different permits just to be able to drive across country for example...

I agree with you that it is Bull to need multiply Lic.... But why Shouldn't I be able to travel to other States w/ my Concealed Firearm???? It is not illegal in it's self to possess a Firearm..It is illegal tho..because some Political A@@ decided it was...

 

[Terminator03]

I agree with you that it is Bull to need multiply Lic.... But why Shouldn't I be able to travel to other States w/ my Concealed Firearm???? It is not illegal in it's self to possess a Firearm..It is illegal tho..because some Political A@@ decided it was...

Oh, I get it now. Must have been your wording that threw me off sorry!