National Concealed Carry Reciprocity Bill

[ryan_j 0]

For those of you who think that this will result in the loosening of NJ carry laws, think again. That was the thinking behind supporting LEOSA - make law enforcement a trial balloon and then the rest of the nation will follow. That's fine and dandy except that it's been 10 years and we're still where we were. 

 

Just say no, unless they include non-resident permits. 

 

Besides, there are plenty of good reasons to want Steve Stockman instead of Conryn. 

[n4p226r 105]

 

 

Besides, there are plenty of good reasons to want Steve Stockman instead of Conryn. 

 

 

like this??

 

http://njgunforums.com/forum/index.php/topic/65250-rinos-attack-second-amendment/#entry829008

[ryan_j 0]

like this??

 

http://njgunforums.com/forum/index.php/topic/65250-rinos-attack-second-amendment/#entry829008

 

What super secret forum is that? I'm not a paid member. 

[ryan_j 0]

Steve Stockman is awesome.

 

http://aattp.org/disgusting-teapublican-steve-stockman-says-liberal-tears-are-the-best-gun-lubricant/

[n4p226r 105]

What super secret forum is that? I'm not a paid member. 

super secret forum for paid members

 

essentially an article linked discusses this:

 

Republican Congressman Steve Stockman announced Wednesday, January 8, 2014 that he is organizing opposition to gun control legislation which is expected to be soon filed by U.S. Senators John Cornyn and Lindsay Graham, which appears to closely follow an Executive Order issued last Friday by President Barack Obama.

[CMJeepster 2,780]

Why bother with executive orders or laws when prosecution of those that try and fail to legally purchase firearms are not really being prosecuted?  That figure is around somewhere.  The Feds haven't been going after these criminals for close to 20 years.  Hell, show me a figure of legal firearm ownership versus illegal ownership (possession by certain persons or illegally acquired) in crimes committed.

 

As it's been posted before:

 

[n4p226r 105]

 

 

 

 

idiot.  doesnt he know he's supposed to put his finger INSIDE the barrel for that to work

[JohnnyB 4,326]

idiot.  doesnt he know he's supposed to put his finger INSIDE the barrel for that to work

:rofl: :rofl: Funny!!!!

[mustang69 505]

I haven't seen this asked, so apologies if it's a dupe...

 

If reciprocity passes, why would any state need to offer non-resident ccw permits?  Might not work out so well for us...

[checko 180]

I haven't seen this asked, so apologies if it's a dupe...

 

If reciprocity passes, why would any state need to offer non-resident ccw permits? Might not work out so well for us...

Its been brought up. We'd probably be screwed

[ryan_j 0]

I haven't seen this asked, so apologies if it's a dupe...

 

If reciprocity passes, why would any state need to offer non-resident ccw permits?  Might not work out so well for us...

 

They may not but the reciprocity agreements may still stay in force as a relic. 

 

Remember that some states specifically do not just offer "non-resident" permits. They offer their permits both to residents and non-residents. So those would likely remain untouched. But they may not. Who really knows.

I predict massive screwage for us, which is why I don't support this bill. Saying FU to the NJ Government is fine, but this seems like it's saying FU to all NJ citizens including NJ gun owners. Just say no. 

[mipafox 438]

I can't believe this crap. You guys don't want more carry, including in NJ, unless it applies to you?

 

Now I know why people tell me I wouldn't want to have the machinegun ban lifted, because the value of my guns would plummet by 90%. I tell them that's not true. I never understood that, I'd rather buy more and let everybody have them than worry about the value of mine. Everybody I know feels the same way.

 

Now I know where they got such a ridiculous idea - they are thinking of New Jersey people! You guys don't want RKBA to improve for anybody else even if it doesn't harm you at all!

 

BTW, if this pipe dream ever got off the ground, you know darn well it wouldn't be a permanent state of everybody else being able to carry in jersey and you guys can't. Something would change beyond that, and whatever it would be it wouldn't make things worse than the "No!" you have now.

[njpilot 671]

Well, maybe this judge just opened the door a little for a reasonable argument.

 

http://bulletsfirst.net/2014/01/16/oklahoma-judge-makes-strong-argument-repeal-safe-act-gun-bans/

 

Oklahoma Judge Makes Strong Argument to Repeal SAFE Act and Gun Bans

Posted by bulletsfirst on Jan 16, 2014 in 14th Amendment, Email Featured, Featured, Hypocrisy, Judicial, Legislation, Reciprocity, Tyranny | 2 comments

 

They say politics make the strangest bedfellows.

Ironically, a liberal activist judge in Oklahoma has once again furthered the judicial basis to strengthen 2nd Amendment rights of Americans…completely unintentionally.

While ruling to gut not only the Constitution of Oklahoma but also to force the Okie state to recognize marriage licenses from other states, U.S. District Judge Terrence Kern forwarded the 2nd Amendment.

 

You see, the voters of Oklahoma voted to amend their state constitution to specify that marriage is between a man and a women.  Apparently, states rights don’t really matter to Judge Kern when he can just imagine that the issue of marriage is somehow in the US Constitution.  It’s not.

But let’s pretend that Kern’s ruling that the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment is somehow relevant to gay marriage. I say it like that because marriage can be viewed like tax breaks.  A state may dictate who qualifies for tax breaks and who doesn’t.  I mean, there are tax breaks for married people that are not available to non married straight people living together…how exactly is that fair?  Tax breaks if you buy an electric car, yet nothing for regular car owners.  There is a ton of inequality that the 14th Amendment does nothing to rectify.  But I digress.

Fine, let’s say Kern’s use of the 14th Amendment is correct.

How can liberal activist judges like Kern defend against legislation such as NY’s SAFE Act which clearly allows SPECIAL citizens like retired police officers and members of Gov. Cuomo’s staff to have rights that are denied regular citizens.

Kern actually makes a pretty persuasive argument against the special exceptions in the SAFE Act by stating thus:

“Equal protection is at the very heart of our legal system and central to our consent to be governed. 

It is not a scarce commodity to be meted out begrudgingly or in short portions.

 Therefore, the majority view in Oklahoma must give way to individual constitutional rights.”

I couldn’t agree more…when it comes to actual guaranteed rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights.  You know, like that pesky little 2nd Amendment that clearly states that it shall not be infringed.

Gun control measures found in New York, Maryland, New Jersey, Connecticut and California, by Kern’s own logic, must be tossed out because to allow SOME (ie retired cops, active police, government officials, the wealthy) the right to keep and bear arms while denying others is the very definition of a violation of equal protection.

And according to Kern, even if 7,999,999 people in NYC are against guns, that 1 person who believes in the 2nd Amendment must be allowed to keep and bear arms because the majority view must give way to individual constitutional rights.  His words, not mine.

Furthermore, the scraps of said right, that are tossed to the citizens of these states in order to hoodwink the justice system into believing that a ban on firearms doesn’t really exist, is the very notion of that Kern’s speaks of when he says; “It is not a scarce commodity to be meted out begrudgingly or in short portions.”

Hear hear.  I will take a double dose of Second Amendment freedom please.  Let my plate runneth over with my right to keep and bear arms.

Also, if the courts rule that one state MUST recognize the marriage certificate issued by another state, regardless of whether that state believes in gay marriage, then they MUST also follow that precedent concerning concealed carry permits.  If issued in one state they must be valid in all states whether the other states like it or not.  I’m looking at you Hawaii and New York.

Regardless of my feelings toward the government’s involvement with marriage in general, if the court has decided to use this logic to overturn a states sovereignty on imagined rights, it must hold true for actual enumerated rights and as such, liberal activist judges are doing an unintentional favor for the 2nd Amendment and that just amuses me to no end.

[illy 1]

The argument against that approach would be that (after Illinois) concealed carry *is* available to everyone. So that's not really an issue. What needs to get reviewed by SCOTUS is the justifiable need b.s.

 

Using Kern's argument won't work, since states can still set "reasonable" restrictions on marriages in their own states, like the various age requirements, parental consent, etc. The only thing that's changed is that gender is no longer considered a valid rationale for restricting marriage.

[ryan_j 0]

I can't believe this crap. You guys don't want more carry, including in NJ, unless it applies to you?

 

 

It's not hard to amend this to include people with non-resident permits. Not hard at all. Why is it not being done?

 

That's why I'm not supporting it. They want us to support it? Great. Throw us a bone and don't screw us over.

[Hooligan 0]

It's not hard to amend this to include people with non-resident permits. Not hard at all. Why is it not being done?

 

That's why I'm not supporting it. They want us to support it? Great. Throw us a bone and don't screw us over.

 

It would make perfect sense.  A Florida permit would be good enough for a Florida resident, but not for a NJ resident.  Seems like a simple court case.

[ryan_j 0]

It would make perfect sense. A Florida permit would be good enough for a Florida resident, but not for a NJ resident. Seems like a simple court case.

Treat it like a marriage license.

[mustang69 505]

What about states that don't require a permit?  Does residency in those states allow national carry?  Or is that a reason for non-resident permits to still be available?

[deerpark 83]

If it helps to solidify or extend 2A rights, Obama isnt going to sing it...

 

I would be suspicious about anything passed by this Congress. 

[gunguy1960 2]

NJ is a may issue state, as in may issue when hell freezes over.

[jtd771 18]

If it helps to solidify or extend 2A rights, Obama isnt going to sing it...

 

I would be suspicious about anything passed by this Congress. 

This was my first thought.  There is no way Obama will sign it and I don't see enough support in both chambers to get the 2/3 necessary to over ride him.  Could be used as a platform piece by a candidate to say they would sign it if it makes it to their desk.  That being said, there's as much chance of Hillary signing it as Obama and if by some chance Christie gets the nomination and wins he's not going to sign it either.  I'm sorry but unless we win with SCOTUS or can elect enough representatives at the state / national level on our side this is not going to happen in the next 6 to 10 years at minimum.