Shire Guy
NES Member
-
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.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
Reciprocity gets out of committee - not sure if dupe
- Thread starter Ben Cartwright SASS
- Start date
allen-1
NES Member
I already need to be concerned with those retarded magazine restrictions, ammo posessions, AWBs, etc. every time I travel from my home in Georgia to my camper in CT.
It's a felony in NY for me to be in possession of a mag that can hold more than 10 rounds.
It's a felony in NJ for me to be in possession of hollowpoint ammo.
I can only transport the AR's that are already REGISTERED in CT with me because it's a felony in CT to have any others with me.
National reciprocity will have no impact on the enforcement of these laws, (if it's passed). NY and NJ already enforce these laws.
allen-1
NES Member
You can get a non-resident CT permit fairly easily. CT is a shall issue, they will issue you a permit UNLESS they have reason not to. You'll have to take a course, pay some fees and probably wait about 12 weeks, but the process is pretty straight forward and if you're not a felon, known drug abuser or other disqualified individual they'll issue it.
ChevyGuy91
NES Member
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2008
- Messages
- 22,932
- Likes
- 23,554
Yeah, that's my point. Cool, I will be able throw a J frame in my pocket with no ammo in it when I drive to my mothers house in MA. Awesome. Unless this magical law somehow tiptoes around all of the retarded laws in retarded states, it's kind of useless.
If it does pass, how long do you all think it will take for the libtards to file a law suit (cease and desist)? I'm gonna go with less than a day..
If they fail at the law suit the 9th circuit will make sure it is not enacted. But if by some act of god the 9th lets it fly, en banc = no natn'l recip.. Just the way I see it going and again only "if" it initially passes.
Yea ok... I guess you can say I'm a Debbie downer.. but I have seen this too many times before.
The only positive thing I can say is that it looks like the President will get to seat more Federal judges than any president in the past 40 years. So some of those Obama plants hopefully will be outta here!!!. Timing will be key on this though.
If they fail at the law suit the 9th circuit will make sure it is not enacted. But if by some act of god the 9th lets it fly, en banc = no natn'l recip.. Just the way I see it going and again only "if" it initially passes.
Yea ok... I guess you can say I'm a Debbie downer.. but I have seen this too many times before.
The only positive thing I can say is that it looks like the President will get to seat more Federal judges than any president in the past 40 years. So some of those Obama plants hopefully will be outta here!!!. Timing will be key on this though.
Rockrivr1
NES Member
It will be close. There are pro gun Democrats in the senate. Not many but some. If there weren't we'd have had another AWB when Ds controlled the house and senate.
I doubt it'll be that direct- it'll be more insidious than that- EG, they can create a framework of bullshit to punish nat reciprocity carriers with.... eg, they will "honor the license" but do so in such a way that makes it extremely untenable for someone to actually legally carry somewhere. Example, a state like NY or NJ could go "MUST NOTIFY" and make it a felony if you don't. Is anyone here going to willingly do that in a commie state, and get hung up on the side of the road for an hour or more while you get "checked" ? no. Then they'll catch someone off guard that didn't notify, and arrest them, and then win because the fed courts will be too spineless to consider something like that an infringement because the base activity wasn't totally prohibited....
Oh, a couple of years? BWAHAHAHA... try more like a DECADE before a decent plaintiff appears and it gets to the supreme court... who will then likely affirm the stupidity present in the state law, "cuz guns, and guns aren't the same as something like gays marrying or whatever" etc.
Sure, reciprocity is still way better than nothing, but it's best to look at it more like a FOPA expansion than a true recognition of rights in some other state. You're still going to have to keep your head down in commie states, just like you do now. Just like "foreign" pro RKBA police officers do when they carry under the badge with LEOSA in commie states or commie big dump cities right now.
I still think the right way to do this would have been without involving the federal government; and the various shall issue or con carry states would all agree on a compact for license compatibility, an enhanced license per se that coexists with the states existing permits (or lack of) that would earn you carry in all the non commie states... then that program, could be used as a major bludgeon to basically embarrass the ever loving shit out of the like 6? or so states that refused to enter into the compact. I think we would have been waaaaay better off in the long run that way...
-Mike
Last edited:
No need to wish. It is good in exactly 25 states. Which is actually an improvement. It was only good in 19 states before I moved down here.
One thing I haven't seen mentioned here yet is the fact that forced reciprocity won't do anything to change a commie state's SD laws, duty to retreat, castle doctrine, etc... I'm betting that will be the angle states like MA attack from. The first time an out of starer uses a gun to defend them self they will be f***ing crucified! The circumstances won't matter at all and in less than a week the poor SOB will be more infamous than George Zimmerman.
allen-1
NES Member
If it passes, I'll be driving through Maryland, New Jersey and New York with my Glock 43 loaded on my person.
That's NOT useless.
AND I could finally ride up into Rhode Island and Massachusetts from Connecticut with the same firearm on me.
That's NOT useless either.
MachineHead
NES Member
All this could be resolved if by chance you’re carrying and you get pulled over and get checked. When the cop does a check (pretty much does a “soft” NICS) and you’re not federally prohibited, then you’re free to go, regardless of state license. I mean cops only find out someone is carrying/used a gun illegally after a crime has occurred and it should remain that way.
The only problem I see, is if they start creating new federal laws to find more reasons to deny/arrest.
The only problem I see, is if they start creating new federal laws to find more reasons to deny/arrest.
One important part of this bill is the affect it will have on states where you can't get a carry permit, and can't carry without it (this would include MA in places where all you can get is a sporting license). The bill as currently written would allow you to get a non-res carry license in a free state, and your state of residence would have to honor it.
And before you say not that's not what it says, do some research. This was pointed out very early on and the author of the bill confirmed that it does indeed allow this. http://freebeacon.com/issues/national-reciprocity-bill-will-apply-non-resident-gun-carry-permits/
And before you say not that's not what it says, do some research. This was pointed out very early on and the author of the bill confirmed that it does indeed allow this. http://freebeacon.com/issues/national-reciprocity-bill-will-apply-non-resident-gun-carry-permits/
ChevyGuy91
NES Member
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2008
- Messages
- 22,932
- Likes
- 23,554
In MA you need a FID/LTC to possess ammo, in NJ you can't carry with "hollow points", etc. So, you will get jammed up in states with retarded laws regardless of this bill. Useless to me, YMMV.
The only way this would be useful is actual penalties be written into it for states that violate it.
I'm talking , "You have the right to remain silent" type of penalties .
Otherwise place like MA., NJ, NY will just double down on the stupid .
I'm talking , "You have the right to remain silent" type of penalties .
Otherwise place like MA., NJ, NY will just double down on the stupid .
*** Edit: Removing something that was not something i ever remember typing. ***
That's a good point, didn't think of that.
That's a good point, didn't think of that.
Last edited:
Hi fellas
I've posted about this issue in the past and would like to reiterate why this should NOT pass. It's quite simple:
CONGRESS DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DO THIS. They would be granting themselves that authority if this passes into law. This is strictly a states-rights issue for good or bad. Say it does pass. Two years from now you get a deep blue house and senate and president like we've had up until just recently. Ya think they will let this continue unscathed? I doubt it.
The bottom line: Your rights to ownership of firearms is already guaranteed and recognized by the 2nd amendment of this country's constitution. If Congress/Senate were to do anything in this regard, they could issue an edict to all 50 states and possessions ordering them to follow the 2nd amendment to the letter of the law and cease and desist the restrictions they continue to slather onto their regulations. Good luck with that, however. Look at the gay marriage issue. You would think that being married would be a federal issue since you deduct your dependents and married coupled pay taxes differently than two single people. Yet there are states that make that difficult if not impossible. And before someone else says anything like "our driver's licenses allow us to drive everywhere", that calls under the interstate commerce laws that restrict what states can do at their borders like requiring you to get one of their licenses too. Remember that owning firearms is a protected and recognized right. A driver's license is a privilege.
Since the 2nd A is the law of the land, just insist on enforcing it to the letter. No other authority is necessary. That’s what a number of states have done by adopting the “constitutional carry” approach. Thank God for them.
I've posted about this issue in the past and would like to reiterate why this should NOT pass. It's quite simple:
CONGRESS DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DO THIS. They would be granting themselves that authority if this passes into law. This is strictly a states-rights issue for good or bad. Say it does pass. Two years from now you get a deep blue house and senate and president like we've had up until just recently. Ya think they will let this continue unscathed? I doubt it.
The bottom line: Your rights to ownership of firearms is already guaranteed and recognized by the 2nd amendment of this country's constitution. If Congress/Senate were to do anything in this regard, they could issue an edict to all 50 states and possessions ordering them to follow the 2nd amendment to the letter of the law and cease and desist the restrictions they continue to slather onto their regulations. Good luck with that, however. Look at the gay marriage issue. You would think that being married would be a federal issue since you deduct your dependents and married coupled pay taxes differently than two single people. Yet there are states that make that difficult if not impossible. And before someone else says anything like "our driver's licenses allow us to drive everywhere", that calls under the interstate commerce laws that restrict what states can do at their borders like requiring you to get one of their licenses too. Remember that owning firearms is a protected and recognized right. A driver's license is a privilege.
Since the 2nd A is the law of the land, just insist on enforcing it to the letter. No other authority is necessary. That’s what a number of states have done by adopting the “constitutional carry” approach. Thank God for them.
This is the case with everything. Doing nothing because of this would mean doing nothing ever. Maybe not a bad thing but not in the world we live in.
There is nothing in the bill that prevents states from having fewer restrictions, so those with con carry are GTG.
Personally, and I've said this before, I would prefer a specific preemption clause in the fed law, thus preventing any state from setting any condition greater than the fed. But this is better than nothing.
And there will be plenty of state opposition, does this mean we do nothing?
What? Where does it say anything even suggesting gun registration? And it benefits those in free states that travel to shit states in far greater numbers than those in the shit states.
Lol most of that went out the window with the Civil war.
Do you believe that FOPA should be law of the land? If you say "yes" and you say "well that's different" I got news
for you... no, it's not any different.
I'm opposed to it ideologically (because I don't think it ultimately will save the people most likely to get caught carrying in shit states because of what I just mentioned) but legally, don't see problems with it- other than the
fact that it doesn't impose a severe penalty against a state actor for violating someones civil rights. IMHO any LE
agent that confiscates a firearm or arrests someone whose not otherwise "riding dirty" (eg, under suspicion of some other felony, etc) should be subject to a felony for violating someone's civil rights.... but that's right up there with
saying everyone is going to be given a free unicorn and a basket of soft puppies on Jesus Christ's birthday this year.
It's a gun thing that costs them nothing. Shitting on guns in this particular case, and actually being on the record for it for voting it away, etc, would cost a lot of them dearly. They ain't going to change shit- just like they won't renew an AWB.
None of this matters anyways because someone will probably poison pill it or table it and it won't pass.
-Mike
strangenh
NES Member
Mike, I disagree on some of that. The travel part of FOPA is straight up classic pre-expansion Commerce Clause. This bill would be at best post-expansion Commerce Clause stretch turf. At best.
I like the idea, but if we wait a few years with this Court, we'll see the Privileges & Immunities Clause (not the 14th's P OR A clause) used to bludgeon the states that provide neither reciprocity nor reasonable non-res licenses. Similarly, we'll see more "good reason" smackdowns, on failures to actually issue licenses. I suspect the cases will start with NY (upstate), but we'll see. Then the recalcitrant states may start to cave and do some compacts, which obviously won't be ideal for gun owners with requirements, but will be a 100% legal rock-solid start to universal reciprocity. Heck, IL, despite totally botching the edits on their carry license law takes non-res applications from a few states. That also might be one of the initial P&I cases. Impatience leads to crap laws the fed can take away in a moment. This is rights stuff; it's already in the Constitution; we just need to take the cases, in the right order, to the Court. We're off-track parading AWB cases there now (those ought to come after one more 'common weapons' case but we may jump that step, Court willing), where we should be doing "states stepping on rights of non-resident citizens" cases, which will reaffirm Heller/McDonald, and bring in the P&I (aka Comity) Clause's prohibition on a state denying a fundamental right to non-residents that it doesn't restrict the same way to residents.
I like the idea, but if we wait a few years with this Court, we'll see the Privileges & Immunities Clause (not the 14th's P OR A clause) used to bludgeon the states that provide neither reciprocity nor reasonable non-res licenses. Similarly, we'll see more "good reason" smackdowns, on failures to actually issue licenses. I suspect the cases will start with NY (upstate), but we'll see. Then the recalcitrant states may start to cave and do some compacts, which obviously won't be ideal for gun owners with requirements, but will be a 100% legal rock-solid start to universal reciprocity. Heck, IL, despite totally botching the edits on their carry license law takes non-res applications from a few states. That also might be one of the initial P&I cases. Impatience leads to crap laws the fed can take away in a moment. This is rights stuff; it's already in the Constitution; we just need to take the cases, in the right order, to the Court. We're off-track parading AWB cases there now (those ought to come after one more 'common weapons' case but we may jump that step, Court willing), where we should be doing "states stepping on rights of non-resident citizens" cases, which will reaffirm Heller/McDonald, and bring in the P&I (aka Comity) Clause's prohibition on a state denying a fundamental right to non-residents that it doesn't restrict the same way to residents.
MachineHead
NES Member
I’m listening to the markup hearing in pieces. At some point I’ll get through it. So far, it’s a whole lot of what we’d expect in MA with some voices of reason peppered in. Funny how some reps mention the Moms group and the Moms do what they do best: pass out t shirts for their monkeys to wear and collect the shirt back after showing up.
It starts at 47:25
View: https://youtu.be/RmkRZvw7yFw
It starts at 47:25
View: https://youtu.be/RmkRZvw7yFw
U.S. House of Representatives to Vote on H.R. 38, the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act, Next Week
In a huge win for Second Amendment supporters, the U.S. House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday held a mark-up of H.R. 38, the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act, and favorably reported an amended version of the billto the full House. Anti-gun Democrats on the Committee offered a lengthy list of amendments to weaken or gut the bill, all of which were defeated.
The last 30 years have seen a continual expansion of the right to carry concealed handguns for self-defense within the United States, even as the nationwide violent crime rate has plummeted during the same period.
Every U.S. state now has a legal mechanism whereby its residents may carry concealed handguns, and 42 states and the District of Columbia broadly recognize a right of law-abiding citizens to do so.
https://www.nraila.org/articles/201...the-concealed-carry-reciprocity-act-next-week
In a huge win for Second Amendment supporters, the U.S. House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday held a mark-up of H.R. 38, the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act, and favorably reported an amended version of the billto the full House. Anti-gun Democrats on the Committee offered a lengthy list of amendments to weaken or gut the bill, all of which were defeated.
The last 30 years have seen a continual expansion of the right to carry concealed handguns for self-defense within the United States, even as the nationwide violent crime rate has plummeted during the same period.
Every U.S. state now has a legal mechanism whereby its residents may carry concealed handguns, and 42 states and the District of Columbia broadly recognize a right of law-abiding citizens to do so.
https://www.nraila.org/articles/201...the-concealed-carry-reciprocity-act-next-week
