-
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.
National Reciprocity
- Thread starter M&P
- Start date
greencobra
NES Member
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2011
- Messages
- 27,214
- Likes
- 26,703
another try, cool. will it be a go, no.
Well, maybe not. We want reciprocity and he wants want immigration amnesty.
So the repubs get him to sign the bill and in exchange they offer offer immigration amnesty for all undocumented 21 to 30 years old females. Now that's politics.
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2013
- Messages
- 1,938
- Likes
- 1,669
It scares the hell out of me to have the federal government get anywhere near the licensing process.
Jsfitzgerald85
NES Member
something has to be done.
- Joined
- May 12, 2013
- Messages
- 4,045
- Likes
- 6,543
I might trade a weight limit for a mag limit. Wait... no I wouldn't.... I seem to remember something about a 'cusion' and something else about 'pushing'.
This is a case where "doing something" can cause more problems than it solves, if someone isn't careful. The anti states will still be anti, and they will still treat people like shit, I can guarantee that... and that's what this is really about anyways. With the others unlawful carry first offense is often a misdemeanor, or not even charged, etc. So this is really about NYC and other moonbat shitholes. Those places are not going to stop abusing people's rights anytime soon, even with a new law. They will find out some other way to do it.
-Mike
^^^^^ This.
Plus if there was ever a national law on reciprocity, the laundry list of where you couldn't carry would be longer than my arm.
Not going to happen.
Look at what they did the the PA woman in NJ, Allen. A single mother made a mistake, didn't know the PA license was only good in PA and they wanted 3 years in jail for her. NJ and NYC will always harass gun owners, it's how they operate.
Yes, the 2nd amendment has to be obeyed by our govt. because it is the law they are supposed to follow but unfortunatly they won't.
Giving govt. more control over our rights will just allow them to abuse it more.
Giving govt. more control over our rights will just allow them to abuse it more.
Even if there this was a good idea (I don't believe it is), there are many red states that would not get on board. Think of the states right now that do not require any type of permit. How many of those people do you think would be on board with the idea?
not new guy
NES Member
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2009
- Messages
- 36,075
- Likes
- 54,259
Can you give any examples of Obama giving something away in exchange for something he wants in the 6 years that he's been president?
![[smile]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/001.gif "Smile [smile]")
Yeah look at NJ. A classic example. Let's suppose the woman in question had her handgun unloaded, locked in a case in the trunk of her car was traveling from PA where she could legally carry to a destination state where she could legally carry going thru NJ. Under the Firearms Owner Protection Act (FOPA) she should be good to go...right? That's what FOPA was all about...except in NJ and in a few other places she could still be arrested cuz ya see FOPA there can be used as an affirmative defense, not as a lawful means of transporting a firearm thru a state with restrictive gun laws. If there was national reciprocity, you can damn well betcha that there would be so many restrictions, exceptions and interpretations that it would be worse than it is now. Look at LEOSA and retired police officers and how their supposedly unrestricted right to CCW in all fifty states has been restricted because they are required to be currently qualified on their weapons, well some chiefs won't qualify them. Be very careful what you wish for. I understand too that LEOSA has been used as an affirmative defense in those cases where an officer has been arrested for having a firearm simply because he/she was not on official business in the particular state he/she was carrying in. On the surface it seems like a good idea, but we really don't need another set of gun laws with plenty of unintended consequences.
Garys
NES Member
This. I don't want a national standard for licensing. I want the states to work out their own laws and decide what states they do and don't want to have reciprocity. My major worry is that the "national standard" would resemble something like the laws in MA, NY, NJ, IL, and worst of all DC.
Nope, I'll stick with anarchy, thank you.
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2013
- Messages
- 1,938
- Likes
- 1,669
We don't need MORE laws and regulations .... we NEED Constitutional Carry enforced in all 50 states!
This. But the current patchwork quilt kinda sucks. The choice seems to be a) let each state do what it wants (states' rights), b) federal over-reach (enforce something upon the states) or c) a broad, grass-roots awaking/recognition of the human right of self-defense, which ain't gonna happen. There are just too many people who think "we have to have some sort of laws regulating (fill in the blank to do with guns)."
States vs Federal. It's balancing act or what is better. With the states you get a patch work of crazy laws and you may not be able to carry outside your state (nobody recognizes Ma LTC). With federal it would be easier to strip the rights away. One Vote one day and gone. Plus as other have said it wouldn't be all clear skys. There would be a huge list of rules, exemptions, and restrictions that would be just as bad as Ma laws.
they do it for cars so I have no idea why it is not the same argument for guns. only thing is there is the 2A for guns and not that i am a student of the constitution and the bill of rights but I don't recall ever reading about or hearing about an amendment related to driving.
Driving a car is not a right. (at least not explicitly) The terms at which you drive are relatively negotiable and so on. States and feds kind of agree to a compromise of garbage to make it work. A lot of people here would be pissed if the same horse trading was applied to gun rights, and rightly so.
-Mike
Chevy 2 65
NES Member
Last edited by a moderator:
Actually your MA LTC is recognized by several states. MA recognizes no other states. Do your homework.
FrugalFannie
NES Member
how about a constitutional amendment garaunteeing the right to bear arms? oh, wait, we already have that
- - - Updated - - -
Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont
- - - Updated - - -
Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,517
- Likes
- 33,530
Untrue. There are states that recognize other LTCs, but these do not include states that require recognition of their LTCs by MA for reciprocity.
StevieP
NES Member
How about we start local, and question who decided that MA does not recognize ANY other state's concealed carry license? What was the impetus for that? Was it through legislation or some other means? Can it be reversed? If enough people in enough states ask each state for more reciprocity, maybe we can do this via a grass-roots effort NOT involving the feds.
