Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017 Hudson, NC

[1LtCAP 4,264]

5 minutes ago, NJGF said:

Under what constitutional authority can the federal government force a state to accept the CCW of another state. I want this as much as anyone else but I'm not sure getting it passed is the end. This will be challenged by all of the anti-gun states. This is not an enumerated right in the constitution. That leaves the right to the states.

If this gets overturned then we are left with 1/2 of our so called compromise: more gun control. IMHO (with nothing) the only way we get CCW is when the second amendment right to carry a firearm outside the home is recognized by SCOTUS and makes it the law of the land. After Heller/MdDonald no state now bans firearms in the home any longer which was an amazing victory.

I want this as much as anyone and have contacted my rep and give money to all of the gun rights orgs. Just trying to be realistic.

under what constitutional authority can the federal government force a person to buy insurance?

[Downtownv 1,781]

7 minutes ago, NJGF said:

Under what constitutional authority can the federal government force a state to accept the CCW of another state. I want this as much as anyone else but I'm not sure getting it passed is the end. This will be challenged by all of the anti-gun states. This is not an enumerated right in the constitution. That leaves the right to the states.

If this gets overturned then we are left with 1/2 of our so called compromise: more gun control. IMHO (with nothing) the only way we get CCW is when the second amendment right to carry a firearm outside the home is recognized by SCOTUS and makes it the law of the land. After Heller/MdDonald no state now bans firearms in the home any longer which was an amazing victory.

I want this as much as anyone and have contacted my rep and give money to all of the gun rights orgs. Just trying to be realistic.

It is called the United States Constitution!

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

[NJGF 375]

9 minutes ago, 1LtCAP said:

under what constitutional authority can the federal government force a person to buy insurance?

They can't  The Roberts court said it is just a tax (lol)

[1LtCAP 4,264]

1 minute ago, NJGF said:

They can't  The Roberts court said it is just a tax (lol)

and yet.....we all have to buy insurance or pay a fine.

[Smokin .50 1,907]

1 hour ago, GRIZ said:

This open carry by plain clothes LEOs is a phenomena of the past 20 years or so. When I started working plainclothes I really liked keeping my gun concealed. I really think walking around with a gun and a badge on your hip while working is in poor taste.

LEOs for the most part carry under statutory authority not under any other state laws.  CCW laws do not apply to them.

 

This is correct.  In fact, there are specific "carve-outs" that take NJ's as-of-yet unchallenged & unconstitutional 2C firearms statutes (where ALL GUNS ARE ILLEGAL, and therefore exist in the hands of us mere serfs ONLY through EXCEPTIONS & EXEMPTIONS) and EXEMPT LEO's (and a list of others as well).  These same 2C statutes would need a considerable REWRITE if another Shaneen Allen decided to bring her Bersa .380 (loaded with hollow points) across the Delaware   

[jackandjill 683]

22 minutes ago, NJGF said:

Under what constitutional authority can the federal government force a state to accept the CCW of another state. I want this as much as anyone else but I'm not sure getting it passed is the end. This will be challenged by all of the anti-gun states. This is not an enumerated right in the constitution. That leaves the right to the states.

If this gets overturned then we are left with 1/2 of our so called compromise: more gun control. IMHO (with nothing) the only way we get CCW is when the second amendment right to carry a firearm outside the home is recognized by SCOTUS and makes it the law of the land. After Heller/MdDonald no state now bans firearms in the home any longer which was an amazing victory.

I want this as much as anyone and have contacted my rep and give money to all of the gun rights orgs. Just trying to be realistic.

You may be right in that Nazi States like NJ may challenge this in Supreme Court. But the issue of NJ has to goto Supreme Court anyways (as NJ dictators will never ever allow carry on their own). So if this situation helps expedite getting to SCOTUS faster, then it may not be a bad thing. 

My gut feeling it that NJ will NOT challenge this in SCOTUS, for the scumbags know what they are doing is patently UNCONSTITUTIONAL. What they may do is take advantage of other "not yet incorporated" rights, such as excessive fines (8A).  I could be wrong, but what if NJ says any out-of-state resident caught in school zone (redefine to include a 1000 ft circle no matter what) will get mandatory 20 year sentence ? 

 

Next, The 2A is already incorporated against States. So any law favoring enforcement of that incorporation cannot be illegal (atleast thats common sense). 

-------

Right to keep and bear arms

This right has been incorporated against the states. Described as a fundamental and individual right that will necessarily be subject to strict scrutiny by the courts, see McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010). Self Defense is described as "the central component" of the Second Amendment in McDonald, supra., and upheld District of Columbia v. Heller 554 U.S (2008) concluding the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right, recognized in Heller, to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense. The 14th Amendment makes the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms fully applicable to the States, see, McDonald vs. City of Chicago (2010). "The right to keep and bear arms must be regarded as a substantive guarantee, not a prohibition that could be ignored as long as the States legislated in an evenhanded manner," McDonald, supra..

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

[Zeke 5,504]

I love the “ state’s right’s” arguments here. They consistently omit the citizens rights

[45Doll 5,883]

Here is the link to congressman Massie's Facebook page and the post he put up about this. For me the operative paragraph is:

"A few have speculated that the House is combining the bills to ensure reciprocity will pass in the Senate. I have some news for them: Senators Feinstein and Schumer aren’t going to vote for reciprocity even if it contains the fix-NICS legislation they support for expanding the background check database. If someone is naïve enough to think that’s going to work, and they’re willing to accept fix-NICS to get reciprocity, then they should ask the Senate to go first with the combined bill. (Emphasis mine)

Here’s a dangerous scenario that’s more likely to play out: The House uses the popularity of reciprocity (HR 38) to sneak fix-NICS through, while the Senate passes fix-NICS only. The Senate and the House meet at conference with their respective bills, with the result being fix-NICS emerges from conference without reciprocity. Fix-NICS comes back to the House and passes because all of the Democrats will vote for it (as they just did in Judiciary Committee) and many Republicans will vote for it. Because Republicans already voted for it once as part of the reciprocity deal that never came to pass, they won’t have a solid footing for opposing fix-NICS as a standalone bill. Then we’ll end up with fix-NICS, which is basically an expansion of the Brady Bill, without reciprocity."

I think this is the most likely scenario. Senate Democrats, IMO, will never vote for reciprocity if they think it will really be enacted. I also happen to believe that the House leadership won't mind the above scenario and will simply say "Hey, we tried and those Democrats screwed us again. But we had to do something."

[GRIZ 3,369]

1 hour ago, NJGF said:

Under what constitutional authority can the federal government force a state to accept the CCW of another state. I want this as much as anyone else but I'm not sure getting it passed is the end. This will be challenged by all of the anti-gun states. This is not an enumerated right in the constitution. That leaves the right to the states.

If this gets overturned then we are left with 1/2 of our so called compromise: more gun control. IMHO (with nothing) the only way we get CCW is when the second amendment right to carry a firearm outside the home is recognized by SCOTUS and makes it the law of the land. After Heller/MdDonald no state now bans firearms in the home any longer which was an amazing victory.

I want this as much as anyone and have contacted my rep and give money to all of the gun rights orgs. Just trying to be realistic.

As others have said the Constitutional authority is the 2A.

Antigun states can challenge any law they want but Federal law is the law of all states.  Read the entire COTUS.

[Zeke 5,504]

3 minutes ago, GRIZ said:

As others have said the Constitutional authority is the 2A.

Antigun states can challenge any law they want but Federal law is the law of all states.  Read the entire COTUS.

Boom!

 

[Downtownv 1,781]

Mic drop!

[Zeke 5,504]

Gotta love uncle @GRIZ

till he beats you with a stick.... summabitch!

[GRIZ 3,369]

Keep in mind the Federal government and COTUS are there to prevent the state from violating your rights under COTUS. Yes, gun rights have been taken away over the years but this is a big step in getting them back.

In this thread or the other on this topic someone said they wanted to see something about this law not being repealed by the next administration.  Well you can't do that. Any law can be repealed.

You need both houses of Congress to pass a repeal and a POTUS to sign it.  Very few laws get repealed.

[supranatural 66]

To the naysayers who say NJ will never allow it and it will be challenged in court by Murphy and his cronies.  If they're smart they will take a lesson from Washington DC and not challenge the overturning of their CC May Issue law.  If they do they stand a real chance it will have to go to SCOTUS and if it does, it could very well mean the end of May Issue for ALL states.  It's strategic to not fight it.  If they decide to take the tactic of fighting it, it's poor strategy that could end with them losing the entire war by focusing on the battle.

[Zeke 5,504]

Just now, supranatural said:

To the naysayers who say NJ will never allow it and it will be challenged in court by Murphy and his cronies.  If they're smart they will take a lesson from Washington DC and not challenge the overturning of their CC May Issue law.  If they do they stand a real chance it will have to go to SCOTUS and if it does, it could very well mean the end of May Issue for ALL states.  It's strategic to not fight it.  If they decide to take the tactic of fighting it, it's poor strategy that could end with them losing the entire war by focusing on the battle.

This is true... I’m sure the DNC is broadcasting emphatically 

[GRIZ 3,369]

4 minutes ago, supranatural said:

To the naysayers who say NJ will never allow it and it will be challenged in court by Murphy and his cronies.  If they're smart they will take a lesson from Washington DC and not challenge the overturning of their CC May Issue law.  If they do they stand a real chance it will have to go to SCOTUS and if it does, it could very well mean the end of May Issue for ALL states.  It's strategic to not fight it.  If they decide to take the tactic of fighting it, it's poor strategy that could end with them losing the entire war by focusing on the battle.

Keep in mind the Continental Army lost most battles during the American Revolution but they won the important ones.

[Downtownv 1,781]

8 minutes ago, supranatural said:

To the naysayers who say NJ will never allow it and it will be challenged in court by Murphy and his cronies.  If they're smart they will take a lesson from Washington DC and not challenge the overturning of their CC May Issue law.  If they do they stand a real chance it will have to go to SCOTUS and if it does, it could very well mean the end of May Issue for ALL states.  It's strategic to not fight it.  If they decide to take the tactic of fighting it, it's poor strategy that could end with them losing the entire war by focusing on the battle.

 

7 minutes ago, Zeke said:

This is true... I’m sure the DNC is broadcasting emphatically 

 

2 minutes ago, GRIZ said:

Keep in mind the Continental Army lost most battles during the American Revolution but they won the important ones.

Common sense dictates they would get their asses handed to them..... BUT This IS New Jersey, the little turd that refuses to go down the drain. The arrogance of NJ Politicians, regarding firearms knows no bounds and NO common sense is. They stand by their power and warped perception, all while enjoying the privileges they deny you.

[Darrenf 422]

If you want to lose the will to live, click this link to watch the morons in Congress discussing this bill.

[Zeke 5,504]

1 minute ago, Darrenf said:

If you want to lose the will to live, click this link to watch the morons in Congress discussing this bill.
 

No. Previous link I watched full retard

[NJGF 375]

50 minutes ago, GRIZ said:

Keep in mind the Federal government and COTUS are there to prevent the state from violating your rights under COTUS.

I though the COTUS was there to protect the states and the people from the Federal Government. The rights in the bill of rights are only protected against the Federal Government. States could do as they pleased at least at the signing of the COTUS. It wasn't until the 14th amendment that some of the rights started being incorporated against the states. 

[NJGF 375]

If this ultimately goes to SCOTUS it will not be on 2A grounds (which they very well might lose). This is a usurpation by the Federal Government of states rights.I would be interesting in seeing a constitutional lawyer discuss this issue.

[GRIZ 3,369]

9 minutes ago, NJGF said:

I though the COTUS was there to protect the states and the people from the Federal Government. The rights in the bill of rights are only protected against the Federal Government. States could do as they pleased at least at the signing of the COTUS. It wasn't until the 14th amendment that some of the rights started being incorporated against the states. 

When I speak of the COTUS I'm speaking of what it is now with all amendments.  Needed change is why they put  the provision for amendments in it.

[jackandjill 683]

11 minutes ago, NJGF said:

I though the COTUS was there to protect the states and the people from the Federal Government. The rights in the bill of rights are only protected against the Federal Government. States could do as they pleased at least at the signing of the COTUS. It wasn't until the 14th amendment that some of the rights started being incorporated against the states. 

 

8 minutes ago, NJGF said:

If this ultimately goes to SCOTUS it will not be on 2A grounds (which they very well might lose). This is a usurpation by the Federal Government of states rights.I would be interesting in seeing a constitutional lawyer discuss this issue.

Correct but we have come FAR FAR FAR FAR, FAR AWAY from it. Incorporation against States was used for both good and bad. We are never going to un-incorporating all of it. Given where we are AND the fact that 2A is recently incorporated (atleast by decree of SCOTUS), its only logical to use it to kick Nazis like NJ. 

IT IS about 2A grounds. The core of the issue is, can a person who exercises an incorporated right in his/her state, exercise same incorporated right in another State of the Union, (this is critical) following the LAWS of the host State. 

The bill is carefully crafted, even with words such as "A State that allows Concealed Carry". The bill is NOT forcing anything on a State, other than simply asking out-of-state people have same privileges as in-state.  In fact, NJ (and other Nazis) are free to remove Concealed Carry all together and bypass this Bill. 

This Bill also strategically uses "Interstate Commerce", for the same IC was used as grounds for most of the Feds Gun Control laws that states like NJ come to LOVE. They cannot have the cake and eat it too. 

 

[Zeke 5,504]

2 hours ago, Zeke said:

I love the “ state’s right’s” arguments here. They consistently omit the citizens rights

@NJGF

16 minutes ago, NJGF said:

I though the COTUS was there to protect the states and the people from the Federal Government. The rights in the bill of rights are only protected against the Federal Government. States could do as they pleased at least at the signing of the COTUS. It wasn't until the 14th amendment that some of the rights started being incorporated against the states. 

Fully missing “ the people “

[Zeke 5,504]

Does the citizen have any rights?

 

[NJGF 375]

4 minutes ago, Zeke said:

Does the citizen have any rights?

 

Yes, but apparently not as many as non-citizens these days.

[Zeke 5,504]

Just now, NJGF said:

Yes, but apparently not as many as non-citizens these days.

That’s not an argument 

[Downtownv 1,781]

4 minutes ago, Zeke said:

Does the citizen have any rights?

Less and less on a daily basis.

Look at the bullshit bills awaiting Christies signature.

http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2017/07/christies_summer_frenzy_of_action_on_big_bills_tha.html

https://patch.com/new-jersey/pointpleasant/chris-christie-signs-22-bills-law-vetoes-7-others

 

Most of this crap look like high school student government work.

But every one of these puts more Government control over the citizens!

4 minutes ago, Zeke said:

 

 

[NJGF 375]

6 minutes ago, Zeke said:

That’s not an argument 

Sorry, my attempt at humor.

Sorry the following is long but I am not sure I am getting my point across in previous posts (although I might be and then we can chose to disagree).

When the COTUS was written it was to protect the states and the people against an overreaching federal government. They didn't want to go back to a king. The bill of rights was only to protect us against the federal government. State constitutions protect our rights from each state. If we don't like what a state is doing (like NJ, etc) we can freely move to another state. These states we consider free have sections in their state constitutions that do protect our right to keep and bear arms. Later after the civil war we passed the 14th amendment which allow "some" of the rights that we are protected against from the federal government to also protect us against the state governments. Heller/McDonald did that with our 2A rights at least in our homes at this point. That is why no state (or DC) can take away our right to own firearms in our homes. One day we may get a decision that does the same with our right to carry arms outside our home. But so far SCOTUS has not been willing to take one of these cases (or the ones that do want to take the case feel they will not get the needed 5 votes for it to succeed).

I just don't see why this is a constitutionally protected 2A case. We all have a protected right to free speech but each state or city can require us to get permits to hold rally's. A not so great analogy would be to get a permit to hold a rally in PA and expect NJ to honor it. The fundamental issue that doesn't get solved with H.R. 38 is do we have a constitutionally protected right to carry arms outside our homes? This attempts an end run around the issue. I just don't see how this will pass a constitutional test.

The CCW permits are state issued permits. Each state sets their own requirements. Each state decides which other states permits have reciprocity in their state based upon their own criteria. The federal government has IMHO no business telling the states anything about CCW permits.

The federal government cannot tell each state to accept other states drivers licenses as it is up to each state to decide this. Again a not so good analogy as the right to drive is not a constitutionally projected right. But so far SCOTUS has not said that carrying a firearm outside our home is a constitutionally protected right.

[Zeke 5,504]

@Downtownv. How do we, “ we” educate that the citizen is the state, is the fed?