Jump to content
Jfoster99

National Reciprocity with teeth

Recommended Posts

So most of the news referencing national reciprocity are referring to H.R. 923 and S. 498 the bills submitted by Stutzman-IN and Cornyn-TX. They are the basic reciprocity bill we have seen for years.

 

However I love H.R. 986 by Hudson of NC. This version is currently in the lead with over 100 co-sponsors compared to 20 for Stutzman's bill.

 

https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/986/

 

It goes an extra step and says you can't screw with me for carrying concealed and if you do I can sue you... It spell out in no uncertain terms you can not detain a concealed carrier without probably cause and if they present a ccw lic and ID you have to accept it as valid.

 

I worry about places like NYC trying to get around allowing non residents to conceal carry if a version National Reciprocity passes by Intimidating people into not doing it like they did with FOPA.

 

I could Imagine NY passing a law that you have to inform and officer if you are carrying. Then have the toll attendant ask every car if anyone is carrying a firearm and if so pull ahead while we verify you document with the issuing state to ensure they are valid.. Or some other scenario...

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All versions require following the law in each respective state.  That means all NJ or NYC has to do is make it illegal to carry within 1000ft of a school, park, government building, church, or daycare center and all of NJ will still be gun free.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All versions require following the law in each respective state.  That means all NJ or NYC has to do is make it illegal to carry within 1000ft of a school, park, government building, church, or daycare center and all of NJ will still be gun free.

I thought so too, but then HR923 has this language..

 

-----------

Provides that in a state that allows the issuing authority for licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms to impose restrictions on the carrying of firearms by individual license or permit holders, an individual carrying a concealed handgun under this Act shall be permitted to carry it according to the same terms authorized by an unrestricted license or permit issued by such state.

-------------------

 

And I havent seen anything about following the state law in HR986.

 

 

Anyways, we will have to worry about details WHEN one of these are signed into law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone remember back in the early 80's when Congress wanted to institute a nationwide drinking age of 21? Some states did not want to comply but were forced to do so as any state that did not raise the age to 21 would not get federal highway funds.

 

Not that this will pass but I wonder what federal funds could be held back to make all states comply? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone remember back in the early 80's when Congress wanted to institute a nationwide drinking age of 21? Some states did not want to comply but were forced to do so as any state that did not raise the age to 21 would not get federal highway funds.

 

Not that this will pass but I wonder what federal funds could be held back to make all states comply? 

There is TONS of DHS money that can be held back, ONLY IF someone at the Fed level really want this done.  If you think about it, 2A is as much of National Security issue as anything else, if not more important.  And individual security is part of it.  Concealed Carry is part of individual security.

 

If this ship wasnt packed with so many rats, part of first series of funding out of DHS should be towards funding to free CCW, build local ranges and train Citizens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I fear is the compromise bill that the likes of Chuck Sch******ker (D., NY) and his turncoat c**t w***e Kirstin Gilli***t will propose, namely that they'll vote for the bill only if the permit holder has resident documentation. Hahaha wouldn't that be a gas. 

 

I hope that as I advocate 2A rights I have stayed within the narrow restrictions of 1st Amendment rights as defined by the owners of the N** Jer*** ********s website.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone remember back in the early 80's when Congress wanted to institute a nationwide drinking age of 21? Some states did not want to comply but were forced to do so as any state that did not raise the age to 21 would not get federal highway funds.

 

Not that this will pass but I wonder what federal funds could be held back to make all states comply? 

 

Ding! Ding! Ding!  If the national politicians wanted to get this passed all they have to say is the State's Federal Highway dollars will be drastically cut back if they do not comply. Watch how fast NJ changes its mind. They did it with the seat belt law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

National reciprocity may be the best we'll get but I still have a fundamental problem with it.

 

If we accept that the congress can pass a law that dictates who can carry a gun and where, then the right to bear arms is no longer a right but a privilege.  By attempting to expand this right, they are proving that it isn't one at all.  In my opinion, the congress is not allowed to pass any additional conditions on a constitutionally enumerated right.

 

I'd much prefer a SCOTUS that would affirm what we already know, that all of the rights in the bill of rights apply as written.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

National reciprocity may be the best we'll get but I still have a fundamental problem with it.

 

If we accept that the congress can pass a law that dictates who can carry a gun and where, then the right to bear arms is no longer a right but a privilege.  By attempting to expand this right, they are proving that it isn't one at all.  In my opinion, the congress is not allowed to pass any additional conditions on a constitutionally enumerated right.

 

I'd much prefer a SCOTUS that would affirm what we already know, that all of the rights in the bill of rights apply as written.

this is already the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

National reciprocity may be the best we'll get but I still have a fundamental problem with it.

 

If we accept that the congress can pass a law that dictates who can carry a gun and where, then the right to bear arms is no longer a right but a privilege.  By attempting to expand this right, they are proving that it isn't one at all.  In my opinion, the congress is not allowed to pass any additional conditions on a constitutionally enumerated right.

 

I'd much prefer a SCOTUS that would affirm what we already know, that all of the rights in the bill of rights apply as written.

Congress can pass a law "in support" of Constitution. But they may not pass a law "in conflict of" the Constitution.  Problem with 2A so far has been that its seen as something reserved for States to regulate as they see fit.  That concept is slowly but surely being dismantled.   Unless these Bills place additional restrictions, I see no issue having laws in support of 2A.  Should  (BIG IF) SCOTUS rule in favor of Constitutional Carry with no restrictions  and everyone can carry everywhere (thats another BIG IF), these Bills simply become moot at that point.  But until then something has to be done enabling (permitting is bad word) Citizens exercise their right without fear of prosecution (lowering the cost of exercising the right).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Congress can pass a law "in support" of Constitution. But they may not pass a law "in conflict of" the Constitution.  Problem with 2A so far has been that its seen as something reserved for States to regulate as they see fit.  That concept is slowly but surely being dismantled.   Unless these Bills place additional restrictions, I see no issue having laws in support of 2A.  Should  (BIG IF) SCOTUS rule in favor of Constitutional Carry with no restrictions  and everyone can carry everywhere (thats another BIG IF), these Bills simply become moot at that point.  But until then something has to be done enabling (permitting is bad word) Citizens exercise their right without fear of prosecution (lowering the cost of exercising the right).

how then did we get the nfa? the awb?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"may not pass"... doesnt mean they dont. thats when challenges in courts come in to picture :-)

but that again, is part of the problem. they're challenged in court. heard by judges appointed by someone. who then use their opinion or interpretation of what is seemingly very clearly written. then they get upheld by these same judges.........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

but that again, is part of the problem. they're challenged in court. heard by judges appointed by someone. who then use their opinion or interpretation of what is seemingly very clearly written. then they get upheld by these same judges.........

My original comment was in the context of someone implying that National Reciprocity may undermine the 2A.  The issues you highlighted with legal system are there regardless. NP does not make these issues go away. It does provide a more simpler platform to based arguments on if someone gets arrested in a different State.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My original comment was in the context of someone implying that National Reciprocity may undermine the 2A.  The issues you highlighted with legal system are there regardless. NP does not make these issues go away. It does provide a more simpler platform to based arguments on if someone gets arrested in a different State.

i think that where the comment about congress passing this possibly undermining the 2a.....i think it came from the fact that the 2nd itself is our carry permit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read somewhere yesterday that this bill will only apply to individuals who have been given permits in their home state. Has this already been discussed in this thread?

 

Here's the thread: http://goo.gl/5H6XrG

 

Here's the quote that bothers me:

 

U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, has introduced a bill, the Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act, to allow individuals with concealed carry privileges in their home state to exercise those rights in any other state that has concealed carry laws. The law would require individuals to abide by those state’s concealed carry laws.

 

 

In other words if this passes and the President signs it Shaneen Allen can drive to A.C. carrying anything she wants but we go to jail for doing the same thing. Also doesn't NJ require you to list or register the gun(s) you will be carrying? How can that possibly apply to out-of-state carriers?

 

All this is probably just hot air because Obama will not sign this bill and I doubt the Senate has 67 votes to override.

 

In the event you feel like wasting a few minutes, electrons, and ATP molecules here's Cornyn's email page. This is what I will send him:

 

Dear Senator Cornyn,

 

I applaud your sponsorship of the Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act. However from my perspective the proposed law has one serious deficiency: It only applies to individuals who hold carry permits from their home state. 

 

As you know three states (New Jersey, Hawaii, Maryland) are essentially no-issue states, and several others (New York, California) are problematic. Many shooting enthusiasts in those jurisdictions hold non-resident permits from Florida, Utah, etc., which under your proposed law would still not be valid in their home states. 

 

This will result in the peculiar situation where a Pennsylvania resident may carry concealed in New Jersey but a New Jersey resident may not.

 

I urge you to include all valid carry licenses, both resident and non-resident, in your bill.

 

Sincerely,

 

xxxx

 

P.S. I would wait for comments before wasting time emailing Cornyn. It may be the non-resident exclusion was some sort of error on the part of the reporter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I read somewhere yesterday that this bill will only apply to individuals who have been given permits in their home state. Has this already been discussed in this thread?

 

Here's the thread: http://goo.gl/5H6XrG

 

Here's the quote that bothers me:

 

U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, has introduced a bill, the Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act, to allow individuals with concealed carry privileges in their home state to exercise those rights in any other state that has concealed carry laws. The law would require individuals to abide by those state’s concealed carry laws.

 

 

In other words if this passes and the President signs it Shaneen Allen can drive to A.C. carrying anything she wants but we go to jail for doing the same thing.

 

I am amazed that the value of this is lost on you. I think it's time to get your "vision" checked :)

 

 

All this is probably just hot air because Obama will not sign this bill and I doubt the Senate has 67 votes to override.

Obama could absolutely be bribed into signing this. All that is to be determined is the price. Carry is a dead issue and was never part of his anti-gun agenda since taking office. Obama signed legislation allowing carry in national parks already.

 

In the event you feel like wasting a few minutes, electrons, and ATP molecules here's Cornyn's email page. This is what I will send him:

 

Dear Senator Cornyn,

 

I applaud your sponsorship of the Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act. However from my perspective the proposed law has one serious deficiency: It only applies to individuals who hold carry permits from their home state. 

 

As you know three states (New Jersey, Hawaii, Maryland) are essentially no-issue states, and several others (New York, California) are problematic. Many shooting enthusiasts in those jurisdictions hold non-resident permits from Florida, Utah, etc., which under your proposed law would still not be valid in their home states. 

 

This will result in the peculiar situation where a Pennsylvania resident may carry concealed in New Jersey but a New Jersey resident may not.

 

I urge you to include all valid carry licenses, both resident and non-resident, in your bill.

 

Sincerely,

 

xxxx

 

So you actually told him you don't support it. Great.

 

Let me guess. You are not very good at chess, are you ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mipa,

 

Rather than quote:

 

1. I'm absolutely 100% for it even in its current form. This is much bigger than NJ, 1000x more significant than Almeida. 

2. Allowing it in Yellowstone is very different from allowing it in NJ and NY over the objections of four of the biggest assholes ever elected to the U.S. Senate

3. ??? I told him I did like it. Actually I did not tell him anything. I was waiting for comment from you and others regarding this law. Does it really say "home state" or "state of residence"? If so it's disappointing for us but I still support it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am 100% against this bill.  It is a half measure, at best, won't "pressure" NJ or any other anti-gun state into doing anything for their own citizens, and will undoubtedly be circumvented by police harassment of out of state carriers and outright violation of this law.  And since neither state courts nor the 2nd and 3rd circuits have provided any relief re NJ/NY 2A violations, I can't imagine that they will uphold this law to protect out of state carriers.  Plus, it does offend the notion of states rights, no matter how we twist it.  A much better alternative would be a federal carry permit.  One that is completely voluntary, and does not pre-empt or eliminate any current state gun law (or reciprocity agreement) EXCEPT for laws that outright prohibit carry/possession outside the home.  People who have an interest in 50 state carry or who can't get a permit in their own state could apply for the federal permit, with background checks and training requirements, on a shall issue basis.  Someone living in PA, for example, who doesn't feel the need for a federal permit could continue business as usual with their state permit.  But NJ residents could apply for the Federal permit and carry in NJ and everywhere else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I first read this, I had objections too. Then I thought about it little bit more.   Bottom line, we do nothing or we get this Bill (if attached to a candy). I take this Bill, let PA (and other) folks carry in NJ, let NJ Police harass or arrest.. whatever.. the sh*t has to hit fan for the issue to be fixed in NJ and status quo is not working.

 

So I welcome this Bill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am 100% against this bill.  It is a half measure, at best, won't "pressure" NJ or any other anti-gun state into doing anything for their own citizens, and will undoubtedly be circumvented by police harassment of out of state carriers and outright violation of this law.  And since neither state courts nor the 2nd and 3rd circuits have provided any relief re NJ/NY 2A violations, I can't imagine that they will uphold this law to protect out of state carriers.  Plus, it does offend the notion of states rights, no matter how we twist it.  A much better alternative would be a federal carry permit.  One that is completely voluntary, and does not pre-empt or eliminate any current state gun law (or reciprocity agreement) EXCEPT for laws that outright prohibit carry/possession outside the home.  People who have an interest in 50 state carry or who can't get a permit in their own state could apply for the federal permit, with background checks and training requirements, on a shall issue basis.  Someone living in PA, for example, who doesn't feel the need for a federal permit could continue business as usual with their state permit.  But NJ residents could apply for the Federal permit and carry in NJ and everywhere else.

I strongly disagree. This establishes permanent rights for 10-15 million concealed carry permit holders, not just those passing through the Secaucus pig stench but everywhere across the fruited plain. And most importantly not just one guy who empties cash machines in Irvington.

 

It may also pave the way for challenges to our draconian laws. Back to reality. This is New Jersey. 

 

 

A federal permit would be a wonderful thing. Imagine: The Federal gov't collecting fees for a right that is not only natural, God-given, and written explicitly into our law but was put into words by a dead white guy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read somewhere yesterday that this bill will only apply to individuals who have been given permits in their home state. Has this already been discussed in this thread?

 

Here's the thread: http://goo.gl/5H6XrG

 

Here's the quote that bothers me:

 

U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, has introduced a bill, the Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act, to allow individuals with concealed carry privileges in their home state to exercise those rights in any other state that has concealed carry laws. The law would require individuals to abide by those state’s concealed carry laws.

 

 

In other words if this passes and the President signs it Shaneen Allen can drive to A.C. carrying anything she wants but we go to jail for doing the same thing. Also doesn't NJ require you to list or register the gun(s) you will be carrying? How can that possibly apply to out-of-state carriers?

 

All this is probably just hot air because Obama will not sign this bill and I doubt the Senate has 67 votes to override.

 

In the event you feel like wasting a few minutes, electrons, and ATP molecules here's Cornyn's email page. This is what I will send him:

 

Dear Senator Cornyn,

 

I applaud your sponsorship of the Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act. However from my perspective the proposed law has one serious deficiency: It only applies to individuals who hold carry permits from their home state.

 

As you know three states (New Jersey, Hawaii, Maryland) are essentially no-issue states, and several others (New York, California) are problematic. Many shooting enthusiasts in those jurisdictions hold non-resident permits from Florida, Utah, etc., which under your proposed law would still not be valid in their home states.

 

This will result in the peculiar situation where a Pennsylvania resident may carry concealed in New Jersey but a New Jersey resident may not.

 

I urge you to include all valid carry licenses, both resident and non-resident, in your bill.

 

Sincerely,

 

xxxx

 

P.S. I would wait for comments before wasting time emailing Cornyn. It may be the non-resident exclusion was some sort of error on the part of the reporter.

All of the bills say a license from "a" state which could be read as a license from any state.

 

The only mention of residency is where you can't use an out of state permit to carry in your own state.

 

So, yes, you would be able to use your non resident Florida permit to carry in NYC, Philly or Boston for example.

 

Also to get it to pass, attach it to something and hide it good. It will pass if it's done right.

 

However republicans don't want this to pass. They want Obama to veto it so the NRA can go say Obama vetoed it and raise money for 2016.

 

These are professionals not amateurs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me guess. You are not very good at chess, are you ;)

I was officially rated as an expert for four days! Went over the magic 2000 rating mark, barely, at age 55. Mostly downhill ever since although I'm still in the 93rd percentile nationwide. If I was that good at anything else, which I'm not any more, it would be worth something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...