I'm thinking the states don't want to lose the "Out Of State License" revenues..
-
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.
What's the chances that the bill to make any state license valid in all 50 will pass?
- Thread starter Electric Eric
- Start date
Zero.
Haha! Loved this response. Clever.
But really, as was stated before, they don't want to lose the out of state license revenue. It's all about the money. Everything is all about the $$$
\ thread
Zero.
It's pointless anyways because the half dozen or so states where you NEED forced permit acceptance will probably refuse to honor permits anyways and will still arrest people, at least until a wave of massive lawsuits happen in the wake of the arrests.
-Mike
It's pointless anyways because the half dozen or so states where you NEED forced permit acceptance will probably refuse to honor permits anyways and will still arrest people, at least until a wave of massive lawsuits happen in the wake of the arrests.
-Mike
This, but what's worse than this is the fact that if this was ever passed, many states might dump non resident licensing, and may end up actually raising the bar for permit issuance for non residents. This is just the tip of the iceberg, too. There are a myriad of unintended, ****ed up legal consequences of "universal reciprocity".
-Mike
1) There would be no need for Non resident licensing anymore...and
2) Why would there be problems? My Massachusetts drivers license is good in all 50, why not my LTC??? You can be just as lethal in a car/truck as with a gun.
this.
anyone who thinks reciprocity granted by the federal government would be a good thing is lying to themselves or incredibly naive.
NOTHING good will come of legislation of any kind WRT firearms. PERIOD. the only things that would be GOOD would be a repeal of the brady bullshit, FOPA86, GCA68, and NFA34.
/THREAD!!!
Jsfitzgerald85
NES Member
they are the same ***Holes
Livefreeormass
NES Member
You've got my vote.
Any bill that purports to offer national reciprocity would probably do so in a way that is haphazard and scatterbrained. People still in NJ etc would be SOL if they wanted to vacation in a non commie state if the non commie states start dumping nonresident licensing.
For starters, read what atilla just posted.
Second, I'm not talking about problems in the respect of "anti gun braying problems where people whine about being unsafe" and so forth... I'm talking about problems of, once the feds get control of it, then they can start doing anything they want, including establishing things like MANDATORY MINIMUM criteria sets for issuance of licenses, the same way they do RIGHT NOW for drivers licenses. States which have minimal permit requirements will be forced to raise them to meet these minimums, potentially ****ing thousands of people out of their right to carry because they were caught with a bag of pot 20 years ago or some other stupid shit that previously wasn't a trigger.
There is also a dangerous probability that this "horse trading of rights" in terms of mandatory minimums would get hashed out at the "smoke filled back room" portion of lawmaking- a point at which it becomes hard to stop the bill from passing due to inertia.
The bottom line is that the legal perils for federally driven national reciprocity outweigh any percieved benefits. A better approach for gun owners on this issue is for some advocacy group to create something like a "Voluntary CCW compact" where non anti states can collaborate into creating a special permit that works among the member states without abandoning their own permitting system, and this could be done without involving the federal government at all. You still won't get the half dozen or so anti states but you could make it so that at least you don't have to have like 12 permits to cover all the shall issue or "lightweight may issue" states.
-Mike
Last edited:
ochmude
Marine Veteran
the complete end of all private firearms transfers or purchases FOREVER
I'm surprised no Senator has yet proposed a co-licensing scheme where (1) still need a license in your own state (if required and subject to the state laws) and (2) need a separate license from the feds.
Way more untapped revenue for the feds that way. Call it the CARE amendment - Continued Acquiring of Revenue from Everybody.
Way more untapped revenue for the feds that way. Call it the CARE amendment - Continued Acquiring of Revenue from Everybody.
Also, some food for thought......
Let's pretend this ever passed. What do you think the anti states are going to do? They're going to poison pill the **** out of lawful carry so that nobody actually does it. States like NY and NJ would have binding signage, must notify, prohibited locations, etc, up the wazoo, and any other bullshit they can think of inventing that would pass muster from a "reasonable restrictions" argument. The proposals on the table would not stop the anti states from committing massive harassment against lawful gun carriers. In other words, the anti states will just make it so annoying and untenable to carry in those shitholes that you won't do it anyways- and you'll have the side effect of ruining concealed carry for the handful of people who have the normal state issued licenses.
-Mike
Let's pretend this ever passed. What do you think the anti states are going to do? They're going to poison pill the **** out of lawful carry so that nobody actually does it. States like NY and NJ would have binding signage, must notify, prohibited locations, etc, up the wazoo, and any other bullshit they can think of inventing that would pass muster from a "reasonable restrictions" argument. The proposals on the table would not stop the anti states from committing massive harassment against lawful gun carriers. In other words, the anti states will just make it so annoying and untenable to carry in those shitholes that you won't do it anyways- and you'll have the side effect of ruining concealed carry for the handful of people who have the normal state issued licenses.
-Mike
Precisely correct. Look at MA gov reaction to Heller and MacDonald! Official response was "business as usual", that neither case has any effect on MA laws! And the SJC stating that they don't always abide by the USSC rulings publicly!
Yup, even in MA the LEGAL restrictions on where you can carry are very, very few. Try some of these prohibited places primarily from FL and AZ (considered "gun friendly" states): No carry in shopping malls, no carry in public buildings, places that serve alcohol, police stations, sports venues, places where people congregate, places of worship, banks, ad nauseum, etc.
If the Feds get to craft "prohibited places" you'll get a list longer than your arm.
Similar threads
