Re: National concealed carry reciprocity issues

152
They could make that argument, and the courts might even accept it. The RKBA has always been treated differently from other rights. But that doesn't mean the states can override the 2nd Amendment just any way they want. They are still bound to uphold it.
But yet after the Civil War not only the 2nd Amendment but all the other rights enumerated in the constitution were denied to former slaves by the ex-confederate states and they got away with it for over 100 years. What's with that?

Now we have Donald Duck for president who thinks he can have a Muslim registry of citizens who practice Islam. What's with that? The NRA and their ilk don't realize how easily they could lose all their constitutional rights on the whim of an orange duck.

Re: National concealed carry reciprocity issues

153
harriss wrote:
They could make that argument, and the courts might even accept it. The RKBA has always been treated differently from other rights. But that doesn't mean the states can override the 2nd Amendment just any way they want. They are still bound to uphold it.
But yet after the Civil War not only the 2nd Amendment but all the other rights enumerated in the constitution were denied to former slaves by the ex-confederate states and they got away with it for over 100 years. What's with that?
Racism was very strong in the 19th century and early 20th century and governments just took it for granted. Most of the court cases incorporating the Bill of Rights against the states came in the mid 20th century. and later. The 2nd Amendment incorporation wasn't officially addressed until 2010.

harriss wrote:Now we have Donald Duck for president who thinks he can have a Muslim registry of citizens who practice Islam. What's with that? The NRA and their ilk don't realize how easily they could lose all their constitutional rights on the whim of an orange duck.
Yes, but that isn't really what we've been talking about in here.
106+ recreational uses of firearms
1 defensive use
0 people injured
0 people killed

Re: National concealed carry reciprocity issues

154
Eris wrote:Yes, but that isn't really what we've been talking about in here.
Isn't it? Trump was elected in part by promising to "protect" 2A. Yet he has attacked virtually all the others, in the Constitution, the BOR, the other 17 Amendments, the Court precedents reinforcing them, and the enabling Federal legislation.

We are in a cold civil war where one side wants to completely destroy our 240 year old rule of law and the ONLY sop they offer to their supporters, labeled as "Liberty" is the RKBA.

I do not believe that 2A will protect us from dictatorship the way that Trump is following the Putin Path to one-man rule.
"Even if the bee could explain to the fly why pollen is better than shit, the fly could never understand."

Re: National concealed carry reciprocity issues

155
YankeeTarheel wrote:
Eris wrote:Yes, but that isn't really what we've been talking about in here.
Isn't it? Trump was elected in part by promising to "protect" 2A. Yet he has attacked virtually all the others, in the Constitution, the BOR, the other 17 Amendments, the Court precedents reinforcing them, and the enabling Federal legislation.

We are in a cold civil war where one side wants to completely destroy our 240 year old rule of law and the ONLY sop they offer to their supporters, labeled as "Liberty" is the RKBA.

I do not believe that 2A will protect us from dictatorship the way that Trump is following the Putin Path to one-man rule.
Well I, at least, have only been talking about what it says in the thread title: "National concealed carry reciprocity issues". As for Trump, he and the Republicans generally are a direct threat to democracy and freedom in America. They must be stopped, by any means necessary. That's all I have to say on that topic.
Last edited by Eris on Mon Feb 12, 2018 4:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
106+ recreational uses of firearms
1 defensive use
0 people injured
0 people killed

Re: National concealed carry reciprocity issues

156
Racism was very strong in the 19th century and early 20th century and governments just took it for granted. Most of the court cases incorporating the Bill of Rights against the states came in the mid 20th century. and later. The 2nd Amendment incorporation wasn't officially addressed until 2010.
Yes, but that isn't really what we've been talking about in here.
What? Obviously you don't understand much about rights, laws, and how easily they can all go bye, bye because someone wants to accumulate more wealth than you have. Don't think for a minute that what happened in Germany and Russia in the 1930's can't happen here because you get to own and carry a little popgun.

Are you a 2nd Amendment absolutist who thinks private citizens should be able to store nuclear weapons in their back yard? I hope you don't live near me. Your profile says you live in Houston. I live in northwest Arizona. That's close to 1000 miles. Good.

The way you prevent tyranny is by understanding how laws and courts work and understanding the shortcomings of our system and then going to vote on economic principles instead of allowing yourself to be conned by the culture wars pushed by Fok Snooz.

Wayne and the NRA and its members don't care about your rights. Not when there are hundreds of millions of dollars at stake. Nobody cares about your rights. The only thing they care about is padding their own bank accounts. And that's what it comes down to for all of us. It isn't about rights in today's modern world. It's about how much wealth you can accumulate in a lifetime. And that's always what enslaving someone or denying their rights has always meant. White supremacy is just another way of saying, "I got mine so, screw you, now I'll prevent you from getting yours." So now all of a sudden come 2018 you're telling me it isn't about the almighty mammon anymore, it's about rights. Well hallelujah and praise the lord. And if you can't or don't want to understand what I'm saying here then I just wasted an hour or so of my time trying to have a civil conversation with you. Have a nice day.

Re: National concealed carry reciprocity issues

157
harriss wrote:
Racism was very strong in the 19th century and early 20th century and governments just took it for granted. Most of the court cases incorporating the Bill of Rights against the states came in the mid 20th century. and later. The 2nd Amendment incorporation wasn't officially addressed until 2010.
Yes, but that isn't really what we've been talking about in here.
What? Obviously you don't understand much about rights, laws, and how easily they can all go bye, bye because someone wants to accumulate more wealth than you have. Don't think for a minute that what happened in Germany and Russia in the 1930's can't happen here because you get to own and carry a little popgun.

Are you a 2nd Amendment absolutist who thinks private citizens should be able to store nuclear weapons in their back yard? I hope you don't live near me. Your profile says you live in Houston. I live in northwest Arizona. That's close to 1000 miles. Good.

The way you prevent tyranny is by understanding how laws and courts work and understanding the shortcomings of our system and then going to vote on economic principles instead of allowing yourself to be conned by the culture wars pushed by Fok Snooz.

Wayne and the NRA and its members don't care about your rights. Not when there are hundreds of millions of dollars at stake. Nobody cares about your rights. The only thing they care about is padding their own bank accounts. And that's what it comes down to for all of us. It isn't about rights in today's modern world. It's about how much wealth you can accumulate in a lifetime. And that's always what enslaving someone or denying their rights has always meant. White supremacy is just another way of saying, "I got mine so, screw you, now I'll prevent you from getting yours." So now all of a sudden come 2018 you're telling me it isn't about the almighty mammon anymore, it's about rights. Well hallelujah and praise the lord. And if you can't or don't want to understand what I'm saying here then I just wasted an hour or so of my time trying to have a civil conversation with you. Have a nice day.
Wow! You really woke up on the wrong side of the bed today, didn't you? I never said I was an absolutist. In fact all I was saying is that the states don't have unlimited authority to restrict the 2nd amendment. Do you think otherwise? Do you honestly believe, for example, that a state could bar all of it's citizens from owning any guns at all, because if you don't think the states are bound by the 2nd amendment then that's the scenario you are arguing for.

I never said a thing about Trump and his ilk because they were not the topic of the conversation. National concealed carry reciprocity was the topic, and that's all I was talking about.

And why on Earth did you bring up Wayne LaPierre and the NRA? No one ever mentioned them except you! As far as I am concerned they can rot in Hell, they aren't friends of mine, but again, they were not the topic of the conversation. You don't get to just throw around insults at me and put words in my mouth just because you don't like the way the courts have ruled on the 14th amendment.
Your profile says you live in Houston. I live in northwest Arizona. That's close to 1000 miles. Good.
I don't have the slightest idea why you decided that perfectly normal conversation about the way the courts have interpreted the Constitution needed to be turned into a shouting match about Trump, complete with ad hominem attacks against me, but I will congratulate you on one thing: you just became the first person i've put on my ignore list here. If you can't maintain a civil tone of discussion, then I don't feel any need to talk to you.
Last edited by Eris on Mon Feb 12, 2018 4:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
106+ recreational uses of firearms
1 defensive use
0 people injured
0 people killed

Re: National concealed carry reciprocity issues

158
Eris wrote:
YankeeTarheel wrote:
Eris wrote:Yes, but that isn't really what we've been talking about in here.
Isn't it? Trump was elected in part by promising to "protect" 2A. Yet he has attacked virtually all the others, in the Constitution, the BOR, the other 17 Amendments, the Court precedents reinforcing them, and the enabling Federal legislation.

We are in a cold civil war where one side wants to completely destroy our 240 year old rule of law and the ONLY sop they offer to their supporters, labeled as "Liberty" is the RKBA.

I do not believe that 2A will protect us from dictatorship the way that Trump is following the Putin Path to one-man rule.
Well I, at least, have only been talking about what it says in the thread title: "National concealed carry reciprocity issues". As for Trump, he and the Republicans generally are a direct threat to democracy and freedom in America. They must be stopped, by any means necessary. That's all I have to say on that topic.
It's all connected and related. None of it exists in a vacuum and in politics single-issue voters are the dupes of powers seeking MORE power, less accountability, and, of course, more of YOUR wealth.

If you look beyond the rage and frustration in Harriss's last post, especially in the 3rd and 4th paragraphs, you'll see very serious points that are hard to dispute.
"Even if the bee could explain to the fly why pollen is better than shit, the fly could never understand."

Re: National concealed carry reciprocity issues

159
harriss wrote:
Um, the Supreme Court has ruled that the 14th incorporates the Bill of Rights against the states in multiple cases.
Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

A state or municipality could make the argument that modern firearms if not used correctly by trained people are more prone to accidental and unintended discharges and that in the "interests of public safety it has a right and a duty to protect its citizens."

Just a short edit. I live in Arizona. To carry in public whether open or concealed doesn't require 1 second of training. When I see some of the clowns carrying here in Kingman I have to roll my eyes and shake my head and wonder what would happen if one of those clowns were in NYC or LA and how they would react if someone bumped them from behind accidentally on 8th Avenue or Downtown. :roll: :no:
Are the clowns who carry in AZ different than the clowns who carry in CA? LA County is a hard place to get a CCW, but Ventura and Riverside Counties are close to "Shall Issue". Both of those counties share a border with LA County. People who live there do drive into downtown LA so I am certain they get bumped at the same percentage as other drivers. Then there are those who carry illegally, including a number who aren't supposed to possess a firearm at all. So I'd say there is a good number of people carrying while driving and yet road rage incidences with a firearm are few. So I don't see a true problem.

Re: National concealed carry reciprocity issues

160
It's all connected and related. None of it exists in a vacuum and in politics single-issue voters are the dupes of powers seeking MORE power, less accountability, and, of course, more of YOUR wealth.
My sentiments exactly. People who believe that rights and wealth are single issues and in no way connected, missed the boat, and they're a day late and a dollar short.

Re: National concealed carry reciprocity issues

161
BKinzey wrote:
Are the clowns who carry in AZ different than the clowns who carry in CA? LA County is a hard place to get a CCW, but Ventura and Riverside Counties are close to "Shall Issue". Both of those counties share a border with LA County. People who live there do drive into downtown LA so I am certain they get bumped at the same percentage as other drivers. Then there are those who carry illegally, including a number who aren't supposed to possess a firearm at all. So I'd say there is a good number of people carrying while driving and yet road rage incidences with a firearm are few. So I don't see a true problem.
I carry in my car. 99% of the time I leave it in my car and make sure I've locked my car. If my car or gun is stolen I have a record of the serial number. Occasionally, I might carry a small can of pepper spray in my pocket while outside of my vehicle. I live only 50 miles from Needles, CA, however since I'm a poor disabled veteran I don't go to CA much but not because I can't carry there but because I don't have any business to do in CA. I can carry in Nevada and I do however I don't go there much either. Sometimes to Laughlin, NV.

I would have to say anecdotally there are probably a lot more road rage incidents in Arizona and Nevada than in CA. Although it would be an interesting thing to research.

Re: National concealed carry reciprocity issues

162
YankeeTarheel wrote: It's all connected and related. None of it exists in a vacuum and in politics single-issue voters are the dupes of powers seeking MORE power, less accountability, and, of course, more of YOUR wealth.

If you look beyond the rage and frustration in Harriss's last post, especially in the 3rd and 4th paragraphs, you'll see very serious points that are hard to dispute.
How can I look beyond the rage and frustration, when all of it was being directed at me? You mention the 3rd and 4th paragraphs of his last post. Well, what of them? Let me be clear: I agree with the points he was making there, almost 100%. The only thing I disagree with is his unreasonable assertions that I disagree with him. I never said a single thing in support of Trump, the NRA, the rule of of the wealthy, or 2nd amendment absolutism, but he decided to accuse me of supporting all of those things simply because I pointed out that the courts have ruled that the states have to abide by the 2nd amendment.

Well I'm sorry, but not sorry. Pointing out actual facts doesn't make me a monster, OK?

I didn't address any of those other things for two reasons: first, they weren't the topic of thread! That in itself should be enough to explain everything. The thread is (or at least, was) about the legal issues surrounding the proposed national carry reciprocity law. I personally oppose it, but at the same time I understand that their are legitimate arguments in favor of it, and more important than that is the fact that it is the court that would eventually decide the issue if the law were passed, so understanding rulings on similar issues in important. It's not a black and white issue: there are strongly grey areas here that I think are worth discussing.

Second, I generally avoid talking about political issues around here and in my daily life. That's because I have very strong emotions when I talk about these things. I'm a lesbian, a trans-woman, and an atheist, so quite frankly I'm public enemy number one to the right wingers, and I have a lot of reason to fear them and to fight them. The fact that they so dominate the government right now scares the Hell out of me! Because these issues are so emotionally resonant with me, I can get carried away when talking about them and say things that I might regret later, so to avoid that I just try not to talk politics.
106+ recreational uses of firearms
1 defensive use
0 people injured
0 people killed

Re: National concealed carry reciprocity issues

163
I'm in a funny role, trying to be the moderate peacemaker instead of the grenade thrower.

When I parse through it all, I get down to this being the source of conflict: Can the issue of the thread and CCW reciprocity addressed in isolation or in relation to all things it bangs against.

Both of you are dealing with issues I don't have to, Eris being a trans-woman and lesbian, as well as Atheist, and harriss being a disabled vet (I don't know if "poor" is a financial admission or not), and both have good reason to be a little paranoid (doesn't mean it ain't justified). Being neither, my only thing is being a Progressive, (newly) pro-gun owner--which is, of course, unacceptable to the usual list of Liberal issues. (Both my brothers are at least as Progressive as I am, yet both have no problem with my gun-owning--one has had a shotgun for years).

Hey! When we get pissed we are ALL likely to make the WORST assumptions about other people and it's tough to walk them back. Maybe BOTH of you should take a step back.

I must say, that politics isn't just "politics"--it's basically a relation that tries to figure out which asshole is trying to shaft you this week, and which asshole sees it in his /her advantage to protect or side with you...and what you and others can do about it. I've followed politics since RFK took on George Wallace in 1963 when I turned 8. (during the Cuban Missile Crisis all I knew was we were likely to all be incinerated if Pres. John couldn't sort it out!). At 62, it's been part of my life pretty much all my life.
"Even if the bee could explain to the fly why pollen is better than shit, the fly could never understand."

Re: National concealed carry reciprocity issues

164
harriss wrote:
When talking about states' rights, be sure to keep in mind that the 14th Amendment incorporated the Bill of Rights against the states: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States". The states can't restrict your Constitutional rights in any way that the Federal government can't.
That's taken out of context. The entire Section 1 of the 14th Amendment says: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

If you want to be an archaist or strict constructionist the section would have to specifically mention the 2nd Amendment.
That would be a legitimate argument if we didn't now have a century of SCOTUS jurisprudence on incorporation of rights under the 14th Amendment that says otherwise. No Amendment needs to be specifically named. In fact, a right doesn't need to be one of those enumerated in the Bill of Rights to be incorporated. Abortion, for example, is found nowhere in the Constitution, and yet is incorporated under the 14th Amendment. If Amendments had to be specifically named, no enumerated right would be incorporated against the states, since none are specifically listed in the 14th Amendment. And yet they almost all are.

But you're partially right in that the excerpt of the Rights and Privileges clause is inappropriate. It's not just out of context; according to SCOTUS, its irrelevant. All the rights incorporated against the states through the 14th Amendment have been incorporated by way of the Due Process clause. Once a right has been identified by SCOTUS as one of those liberties of which no person can be deprived without due process, the states are all prohibited from regulating it to any extent more than the federal government is under the Constitution.

Since both the right to own and the right to carry firearms were identified as such liberties in the Heller decision, no state may enforce laws or regulations against either that go beyond the limits on the federal government under the Second Amendment. The problem is that SCOTUS hasn't yet decided a case that establishes the limits on the federal government, so we don't really know what the limits on the states are either. But states' rights are irrelevant to the Second Amendment. The rights are already incorporated against them, and so that argument has already been definitively rejected. States have no authority at all to violate incorporated rights.

However, this bill has nothing to do with the Second Amendment, nor with incorporation of rights against the states. This is about the federal government overriding state laws through federal legislation. States' rights do relate to that. But, since this would be a law regulating interstate activities, it seems to fall well within the authority of the federal government to do this. States would still be able to set standards for prohibited places, manner of carry, etc. People from other states would still have to follow the carry laws of the state they're in. States would just have to honor licenses from other states to the same extent as they honor their own. One thing states don't have a right to do is to treat citizens of other states differently under the law than they treat their own.

Re: National concealed carry reciprocity issues

165
The nation’s police chiefs are rising up against another conservative crime-fighting initiative, sending a letter to leaders of Congress on Thursday opposing a bill that would allow gun owners with concealed-carry permits in one state to carry their concealed weapons in all 50 states. The letter from the International Association of Chiefs of Police, representing 18,000 police departments across the United States and Boston Police Commissioner William Evans, targets the “Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act,” which passed the House in December and is now assigned to the Senate Judiciary Committee. The letter is endorsed by 473 police officials from 39 states, from large departments such as Los Angeles and Atlanta to small departments such as Spanish Fork, Utah, and Falls Church, Va. “This legislation,” the letter states, “is a dangerous encroachment on individual state efforts to protect public safety, and it would effectively nullify duly enacted state laws and hamper law enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence.”

The letter sets up a second conflict between American law enforcement on one hand and Republicans in Congress and the White House on the other. Last fall, a group of current and former big city chiefs of police and prosecutors urged the Trump administration not to return to the era of “lock ’em all up” policing by seeking maximum sentences and reducing oversight of police departments. The call came in response to initiatives announced by Attorney General Jeff Sessions. The group Law Enforcement Leaders to Reduce Crime and Incarceration said that modern policing techniques had reduced crime significantly and did not need to be rolled back. On concealed weapons, states issue permits to individual gun owners to carry concealed weapons, and different states have different criteria for issuing the permits. Some states require training and proof of proficiency, while some states require no qualifications. Some states recognize the permits of certain other states, but many do not. And a dozen states now have “constitutional carry,” meaning weapons can be concealed without a permit.

The bill in Congress, described by the National Rifle Association as its “highest legislative priority,” would require all states simply to recognize the permits of all other states, regardless of the conditions imposed by individual states for obtaining the permits. The bill also allows visitors to national parks and other federal lands to carry concealed weapons, and it would let certain permit holders — off-duty or retired law enforcement officers — to carry concealed weapons in school zones. When the bill passed the House by 231 to 198 in December, NRA lobbyist Chris W. Cox called it “a watershed moment for Second Amendment rights” and the “culmination of a 30-year movement recognizing the right of all law-abiding Americans to defend themselves, and their loved ones, including when they cross state lines.” House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.), the most seriously wounded victim of the Alexandria baseball field shooting last year, said that “concealed carry reciprocity will increase gun safety.” Many police chiefs do not see it that way.

The main objection is that some states have devised strict requirements for concealed-carry permits and do not want to defer to states that do not have similar rules. “Texas is a state that takes gun ownership seriously,” said Houston Police Chief Art Acevedo. Texas requires an applicant to receive training and demonstrate proficiency with a weapon before receiving a permit. “Until we have that kind of standard nationwide,” Acevedo said, “we should not be forced to accept reciprocity with places where any buffoon who has a pulse gets to carry a gun. We want a national standard. … It should not be a one-size-fits-all.” Acevedo noted that Texas recognizes concealed-carry permits from California, even though the two states may seem to have differing political outlooks, because each state’s criteria for issuing such permits satisfied the other. Louis M. Dekmar, the chief of the LaGrange, Ga., police and president of the IACP, noted that police do not have access to the national instant background check system, used by gun dealers before selling guns, so they cannot verify permits brought from out of state. He also said the chances of counterfeiting state permits would be great, given that “with today’s technology you can create some very sophisticated-looking documents.”

“It’s clear,” Dekmar said, “that the policing community recognized this for the problems it would create.” Missouri is one of the 12 states with “constitutional carry,” but it also has concealed-carry permits, for use in the roughly 36 other states with which Missouri has reciprocity, Springfield, Mo., Police Chief Paul Williams said. “Which one of those is going to be honored if this bill is going to pass?” Williams asked. “There are 50 states, and everybody has their own take on this,” Williams said. “To try to take that patchwork of laws that are already in place and say we’re going to do a one-size-fits-all, I don’t know how you do it. I fear there will be misunderstandings and confrontations between the public and law enforcement officers tasked with upholding this law, and it’s just a terrible idea.” In Massachusetts, simply owning a gun requires a permit approved by the local police chief. “That’s why Massachusetts has the lowest gun deaths of any state,” Boston Police Commissioner William Evans said. “Because we watch guns and who possesses them very closely. I think we have great gun laws, but it does us no good if we have reciprocity and everybody can come to the Boston Marathon carrying. I can’t believe with all the tragedies we have in this country, we want to open up the floodgates to more guns.”

The bill’s chief sponsor is Rep. Richard Hudson (R-N.C.), who said when the bill passed in December, “for the overwhelming majority of Americans who support concealed-carry reciprocity, Christmas came early.” In response to the police chiefs’ letter, Hudson’s spokeswoman, Tatum Gibson, said: “With all due respect, they are failing to recognize that concealed-carry reciprocity is already a well-established concept between many of these states. A North Carolina [concealed carry] permit holder, for example, can legally carry a concealed weapon in 38 states, and the average state honors concealed carry permits from 32 other states.” Gibson also noted that another group of law enforcement officers, the attorneys general of 24 states, also sent a letter to Congress supporting the bill. The signatories, all Republicans, noted that 10 states do not recognize any other states’ concealed-carry permits and that many more refuse to recognize them unless certain conditions are met.“The exercise of Congress’s power is particularly warranted” for concealed-carry reciprocity, the Republican attorneys general wrote, “because the states that refuse to allow law-abiding, nonresident visitors to carry concealed weapons place their occupants in greater danger — not less — from gun violence. These states leave citizens without any real option for self-defense, and so it is not surprising that they have been unable to show that their regulations reduce crime.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/tru ... 26b5e46155
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: National concealed carry reciprocity issues

166
Leaders belonging to the special class already unencumbered by restrictions on concealed carry across state lines weigh in.
Pittsburgh chief joins opposition to concealed carry gun law expansion
PITTSBURGH — Pittsburgh Police Chief Scott Schubert joined 472 police officials from around the country in urging Congress not to pass legislation the group says would undermine states' concealed-carry laws.
“This legislation is a dangerous encroachment on individual state efforts to protect public safety, and it would effectively nullify duly enacted state laws and hamper law enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence,” the International Association of Chiefs of Police wrote in a Thursday letter to congressional leaders.
The law enforcement officers said that with the change, they “could not confirm whether an individual is carrying a weapon legally or creating a risk to public safety.”

Re: National concealed carry reciprocity issues

167
No movement on the Senate version of concealed carry reciprocity, S. 446. It's different from HR 38's concealed carry reciprocity bill which passed the House 12/06/2017. The House and Senate bills will have to be reconciled, the House bill is more permissive. If there are no more major shootings this year there could be a push to pass this in time for the midterm elections and with NRA pressure.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: National concealed carry reciprocity issues

168
highdesert wrote: Tue Apr 24, 2018 5:49 pm No movement on the Senate version of concealed carry reciprocity, S. 446. It's different from HR 38's concealed carry reciprocity bill which passed the House 12/06/2017. The House and Senate bills will have to be reconciled, the House bill is more permissive. If there are no more major shootings this year there could be a push to pass this in time for the midterm elections and with NRA pressure.
McConnell's holding it back as an "Autumn Surprise" to put Democrats in Red states in a box. Vote against and lose, vote for it and lose the support of the DNC and many, many donors, plus lose boots-on-the-ground support. All he gives a shit about is retaining control of the Senate.
"Even if the bee could explain to the fly why pollen is better than shit, the fly could never understand."

Re: National concealed carry reciprocity issues

169
I try not to view policy through a selfish lens, but I make an exception in this case.

Since I can't carry here, because I live in a jurisdiction that pretty much never issues carry licenses, I don't want visiting yahoos to carry here either.
"To initiate a war of aggression...is the supreme international crime" - Nuremberg prosecutor Robert Jackson, 1946

Re: National concealed carry reciprocity issues

170
Elmo wrote: Tue Apr 24, 2018 8:24 pm I try not to view policy through a selfish lens, but I make an exception in this case.

Since I can't carry here, because I live in a jurisdiction that pretty much never issues carry licenses, I don't want visiting yahoos to carry here either.
Reciprocity would allow you to carry with those yahoos, provided you get a permit from elsewhere. :)

Where I live, people from approximately half of the neighboring counties can carry statewide. But not my country. Hasn't seemed to be a problem so far for those carriers.

Re: National concealed carry reciprocity issues

171
featureless wrote: Tue Apr 24, 2018 9:03 pm
Elmo wrote: Tue Apr 24, 2018 8:24 pm I try not to view policy through a selfish lens, but I make an exception in this case.

Since I can't carry here, because I live in a jurisdiction that pretty much never issues carry licenses, I don't want visiting yahoos to carry here either.
Reciprocity would allow you to carry with those yahoos, provided you get a permit from elsewhere. :)
I"ve heard differing opinions on that point, but nothing authoritative. I imagine it would be hashed out in court, eventually.
"To initiate a war of aggression...is the supreme international crime" - Nuremberg prosecutor Robert Jackson, 1946

Re: National concealed carry reciprocity issues

172
Elmo wrote: Tue Apr 24, 2018 11:58 pm
featureless wrote: Tue Apr 24, 2018 9:03 pm
Elmo wrote: Tue Apr 24, 2018 8:24 pm I try not to view policy through a selfish lens, but I make an exception in this case.

Since I can't carry here, because I live in a jurisdiction that pretty much never issues carry licenses, I don't want visiting yahoos to carry here either.
Reciprocity would allow you to carry with those yahoos, provided you get a permit from elsewhere. :)
I"ve heard differing opinions on that point, but nothing authoritative. I imagine it would be hashed out in court, eventually.
It actually differs between the house and Senate version, but I don't recall which is which.

Re: National concealed carry reciprocity issues

174
Thanks for the video DM, it IS the last opportunity for a very long time. It pushes any federal action back to the states to develop more recognition/reciprocity, perhaps establishing common training and common elements in background checks. Those of us in states where it's almost impossible to get a concealed carry license hope that non-resident licenses don't go away.
https://www.concealedcarry.com/reciproc ... y-permits/
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests