National Reciprocity...Does it have a chance?

[Climbnsink]

Serious. People of Massachusetts there is a whole country out there past the Berkshires and somewhat South of Cape Cod. If gun rights are truly important to you, tell your high school buddies goodbye and move. It is far better solution than dragging the rest of the country down. A national carry law will be dragged down to the lowest common denominator causing a net loss in gun rights and F'ing up other states with freedom loving people. We don't love freedom in MA(a majority of the electorate) and we(all of us, libertarians gun nuts included) get the rules we deserve for living here.

are you joking or serious... please explain

 

[Terminator03]

Serious. People of Massachusetts there is a whole country out there past the Berkshires and somewhat South of Cape Cod. If gun rights are truly important to you, tell your high school buddies goodbye and move. It is far better solution than dragging the rest of the country down. A national carry law will be dragged down to the lowest common denominator causing a net loss in gun rights and F'ing up other states with freedom loving people. We don't love freedom in MA(a majority of the electorate) and we(all of us, libertarians gun nuts included) get the rules we deserve for living here.

Well, some of us did not just choose to move here, or live here. I was born here, and developed my family, business, etc. here, so unless you are just a kid graduating high school, moving is not always a viable option just so you can have a few guns. To say that in a blanket statement like some of you post is just plain full retard!

 

[ChargingCharlie]

Serious. People of Massachusetts there is a whole country out there past the Berkshires and somewhat South of Cape Cod. If gun rights are truly important to you, tell your high school buddies goodbye and move. It is far better solution than dragging the rest of the country down. A national carry law will be dragged down to the lowest common denominator causing a net loss in gun rights and F'ing up other states with freedom loving people. We don't love freedom in MA(a majority of the electorate) and we(all of us, libertarians gun nuts included) get the rules we deserve for living here.

I owned a home in MT and still decided to move back to MA. Montana may be beautiful, and it may be more of a free state, but making a living out there is a bitch. Anyone who moves to another state based on their gun laws alone needs to have their head checked. The gun laws here may suck, but we can still own and carry them. MA is not Chicago.

 

[Climbnsink]

I agree 100% We went broke trying to live in VT. If you choose to live in MA, and if you are over 18 it is a choice perhaps an easy choice but a choice, then accept the gun laws you get. Several states have trended to better gun laws MA will not be one. The country is sorting and MA will only get worse. Accept it or leave it, but don't go messing with the other 49 states rights.

I owned a home in MT and still decided to move back to MA. Montana may be beautiful, and it may be more of a free state, but making a living out there is a bitch. Anyone who moves to another state based on their gun laws alone needs to have their head checked. The gun laws here may suck, but we can still own and carry them. MA is not Chicago.

 

[Jose]

The south is where it's at.

 

[drgrant]

I owned a home in MT and still decided to move back to MA. Montana may be beautiful, and it may be more of a free state, but making a living out there is a bitch. Anyone who moves to another state based on their gun laws alone needs to have their head checked.

Typically there is more to it than that, obviously, but most of the time states with bad gun laws are also commie s**tholes. So in reality there are probably 1000 reasons not to live in MA, NY, NJ, IL, and other states with dumb gun laws.

The gun laws here may suck, but we can still own and carry them. MA is not Chicago.

It might be considerably worse if you live in the wrong town in MA. I dare you to say that to someone who has been B-rammed.

There was a dude who just posted here yesterday (may have been monday) about getting screwed over by a red town on a non statutory denial.

He would have more rights in Chicago, right now. At least there he could own something. Here, because of the corrupt CLEO, he can't own a f'ing thing.

Stop putting frosting on MA... it's still a turd.

-Mike

 

[GSG]

It does suck to be us...and it sucks less to be him...and even less to be be a VT or AZ gun owner.

One downside to constitutional carry is the GFSZA. Every resident of Vermont has to deal with that.

Before 2004 there was no CCW in Ohio. Then the law that was passed sucked big time. In seven years most of the ridiculous restrictions have been eliminated and by the end of this legislative session carrying in ANY establishment that serves liquor (not just restaurants) will be legal as well as getting rid of a bunch of bullshit rules about how to transport a loaded handgun in a car.

We also have enacted castle doctrine, civil immunity from justified shootings, and state-level pre-emption of gun control laws or ordinances.

How right you are. Like Ohio, Florida residents had to take some lumps to get shall issue LTC's passed, but now bills are regularly being proposed in a "one piece at a time" fashion to remove some of the restrictions. The most recent one will allow carry in many schools. The enforcement attitude of LE regarding guns, from street cops to prosecutors, is also totally different.

How exactly do you think it's going to spoil your personal utopia of gun laws?

Florida residents can carry in 35 states. Interestingly, the only reason Florida doesn't have coverage in every state is because 15 have turned them down. Yes, they contacted MA/NY/NJ in an attempt to establish reciprocity agreements.

I bet people in AZ and WI felt the same as you at one point too and look at them now.

WI allows open carry without a license, but it brings with it much hassle and unwanted attention from LE. AZ is on a totally different page than that state.

 

[Bill Nance]

STOP looking to the feds to deal with your craphole state's problems please.

I'm truly sorry that Mass sucks so much WRT gun laws. But it's Mass and that's what you get for living in a place filled with moonbats.

The feds have no business in this. Everyone who is saying the feds should get involved needs to STFU about healthcare. It's the same damn thing. Until the supreme court rules that CCW is a right (right after Hell freezes over) this is a state issue.

You guys don't get to have it both ways. You can't scream states rights and talk about a fing revolution and in the next sentence ask for Uncle Sugar to mandate what standards states have to adopt WRT CC laws.

Heller didn't cover CCW and the court will NEVER EVER agree that CC is a right. Deal with your own craphole state or MOVE. Stop trying to foist your problems on the other 45 states.

 

[ChargingCharlie]

WI allows open carry without a license, but it brings with it much hassle and unwanted attention from LE. AZ is on a totally different page than that state.

I mentioned WI because Constitutional Carry and it's expected to pass there this year.

STOP looking to the feds to deal with your craphole state's problems please.

I'm so tired of seeing this posted in this thread and this will be the last time I address it...I've stated numerous times that I do NOT support the Feds passing NR if it reduces what everyone currently has. All I said is that it would be nice if all the states would just accept other states permits. The fact that they don't has nothing to do with states rights. It's about $$$ and political bullshit. If you feel it's about individual state rights you're delusional.

 

[lupis42]

STOP looking to the feds to deal with your craphole state's problems please.

I'm truly sorry that Mass sucks so much WRT gun laws. But it's Mass and that's what you get for living in a place filled with moonbats.

The feds have no business in this. Everyone who is saying the feds should get involved needs to STFU about healthcare. It's the same damn thing. Until the supreme court rules that CCW is a right (right after Hell freezes over) this is a state issue.

You guys don't get to have it both ways. You can't scream states rights and talk about a fing revolution and in the next sentence ask for Uncle Sugar to mandate what standards states have to adopt WRT CC laws.

Heller didn't cover CCW and the court will NEVER EVER agree that CC is a right. Deal with your own craphole state or MOVE. Stop trying to foist your problems on the other 45 states.

If it lives in a state full of moonbats, and quacks about getting the federal government to do something like a moonbat, what is it?

 

[lupis42]

I'm so tired of seeing this posted in this thread and this will be the last time I address it...I've stated numerous times that I do NOT support the Feds passing NR if it reduces what everyone currently has. All I said is that it would be nice if all the states would just accept other states permits. The fact that they don't has nothing to do with states rights. It's about $$$ and political bullshit. If you feel it's about individual state rights you're delusional.

It's the qualifier that's the problem.

We all agree it would be nice if the MA legislature could rectify it's cranio-rectal inversion. But that doesn't make it something that the fed should be involved in. Even if a fed law passed tomorrow mandating constitutional carry, it would still be an illegal overreach on the part of congress.

 

[cekim]

It's the qualifier that's the problem.

We all agree it would be nice if the MA legislature could rectify it's cranio-rectal inversion. But that doesn't make it something that the fed should be involved in. Even if a fed law passed tomorrow mandating constitutional carry, it would still be an illegal overreach on the part of congress.

...and MA would be sure to write a law violating it...

 

[drgrant]

All I said is that it would be nice if all the states would just accept other states permits. The fact that they don't has nothing to do with states rights. It's about $$$ and political bullshit. If you feel it's about individual state rights you're delusional.

The problem is this statement is confusing. If you are forcing other states (by law, or force of law) to accept other states permits, you ARE VIOLATING that state's rights, because you are forcing them to recognize permits issued under conditions that state did not agree to.

Yes, in practical terms, it is political BS, because a lot of states will simply not play nice with one another regarding reciprocity... especially the anti gun states that want an iron fist level control over licensing.

-Mike

 

[GSG]

Heller didn't cover CCW and the court will NEVER EVER agree that CC is a right.

I'm not so sure about that.

I mentioned WI because Constitutional Carry and it's expected to pass there this year.

Gotcha.

Even if a fed law passed tomorrow mandating constitutional carry, it would still be an illegal overreach on the part of congress.

If Congress passed a law that held all of the states to the "shall not be infringed" standard (or at least a heck of a lot closer to it) that would be illegal?

 

[lupis42]

If Congress passed a law that held all of the states to the "shall not be infringed" standard (or at least a heck of a lot closer to it) that would be illegal?

Yes.

Anything of that nature passed by congress would either be redundant under the 2nd amendment, illegal under the 9th, or both.

Not that this has any history of stopping them.

 

[Alchemist17]

Yes.

Anything of that nature passed by congress would either be redundant under the 2nd amendment, illegal under the 9th, or both.

Not that this has any history of stopping them.

Let's be realistic about the matter. Yes, by the intent of the Constitution what you've wrote is likely 100% correct. That is not, however, binding in any practical way on Congress in the modern era - I'm not saying that this is right, just that it's what happens. If Congress decided that "Concealed Carry allows citizens to protect themselves, and this protection is an important factor in interstate commerce", you'd be very hard pressed to find a court willing to overturn such a legal finding under the broadly expanded commerce clause. So while I would prefer a government that respects States' Rights, with the government we have I can't say that a national reciprocity is really a significant additional imposition.