Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017 Hudson, NC

[Fred2 367]

Doesn't really make me feel all warm and fuzzy for us folks here in NJ.

You need to get a NH permit, or something similar.

[capt14k 2,052]

Chris Smith has not signed on and has not responded to my emails. He has become a disappointment.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[kirk2022 43]

Wow! 512 replies with 3/4 of them being basically I want this I want that. 

Lets take A different look at this.   NJ has A CCW law on the books (yea they don't issue) But heres A thought I'll share just for the hell of it.

We can be pretty sure that if this Bill has or can get the traction we hope for. That the State of NJ will pretty much know how this will happen before we do.  That said, if it is strong enough of A bill to allow us to carry on the Non Resident permits that some of us already have and have had for A while. I'm pretty sure that if it does not leave A legal opening for our Anti politicians in NJ to be able to fight. That will lead to NJ giving us A CCW permit..

Face it they don't have to make A law, We have one. all they have to do is push the limit to the max of requirements and fees. Which there is A limit that has been ruled on in the case of Washington DC and Illinois.

 

Heres A scenario.  CCW Permit fee $500.00, 1 year permit, like in Hawaii, For the limited amount they have issued. Strong qualification and requalification rules. That will cost dollars each time.

 

Then NJ has A small cash cow, I say small because the requirements NJ can impose would send A lot of people running away from A carry permit. And that guys would then make our Non Resident permits about useless because we would be bound by having  to have A home State permit.

 

Just some thoughts on the conversation.

 

Then to top that off. All the 2A groups in NJ, can all beat their chests and proclaim the long fought Victory that they promised for years.

[Fred2 367]

So in other words, there would be a "poll tax" to exercise a right.

[kirk2022 43]

So in other words, there would be a "poll tax" to exercise a right.

 

Sure. Do you really think that if its A slam dunk that Trenton cant defeat. That they aren't going to do something to make money on it. Or more important to the Dems, Make it out of reach for some to get A permit.

[Mr.Stu 1,916]

If NJ start issuing carry permits but at an exorbitant cost, why wouldn't I just keep carrying using my NH or UT permit and not give NJ any money at all.

 

They've been screwing us all for so long there's no incentive to start paying them if/when this bill passes.

[kirk2022 43]

If NJ start issuing carry permits but at an exorbitant cost, why wouldn't I just keep carrying using my NH or UT permit and not give NJ any money at all.

 

They've been screwing us all for so long there's no incentive to start paying them if/when this bill passes.

 

Because it then would most likely be that non res permits wouldn't be renewed without A valid NJ permit..    Not poo pooing the Hudson bill at all, Just throwing out some thoughts.

[Mr.Stu 1,916]

What makes you think that would be "most likely" considering the NH judges ruled last year that it is illegal to require a home state permit?

[Hairless_Ape 76]

Because it then would most likely be that non res permits wouldn't be renewed without A valid NJ permit..    Not poo pooing the Hudson bill at all, Just throwing out some thoughts.

 

 

No. Why would states like AZ, FL, NH, etc, shut off that revenue stream? That would be just as dumb as NJ trying to charge an exorbitant fee.

[kirk2022 43]

Just giving A point to ponder.   This is NJ after all. Plus there would be limits that have already been litigated in other states. 

[Zeke 5,504]

Just giving A point to ponder. This is NJ after all. Plus there would be limits that have already been litigated in other states.

Your omitting the 12( I think that's correct) constitutional carry states. Reciprocity is reciprocity. Nj may issue, but if the law passes and stands the scrutiny of the court( you know it will be a fight) you'll see a W Virginia as the permiter Maximus

[brucin 923]

"This ruling is a victory for the Constitution and for all of us"

 

The above is a quote from Chuck "the cry baby" Shumer regarding the blocking of Trumps immigration executive order. 

 

I expect he'll say the same thing about the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017.

 

Yea sure he will.

[jackandjill 683]

Nevermind. 

[Zeke 5,504]

Up to a buck fiddy

[M1Thumb 30]

If passed, expect this bill to go the way of the immigration ban.  An injunction will be issued by a federal judge, and this will be litigated in court for months or years.

[Sam1 18]

If passed, expect this bill to go the way of the immigration ban.  An injunction will be issued by a federal judge, and this will be litigated in court for months or years.

 

[TR20 47]

If passed, expect this bill to go the way of the immigration ban.  An injunction will be issued by a federal judge, and this will be litigated in court for months or years.

 

I doubt all states will object. NY, NJ, CA, MA, CT and HI will object and probably seek a Federal injunction. That will not take long at all and I fully expect it to go to the 3rd circuit on appeal shortly after (provided the verdict is negative). If so, we have the House, Senate and Trump behind this bill. It should get fast tracked for SCOTUS to resolve.  The current appeal in front of the 9th circuit right now for Trump's Immigration EO will give us a good idea regarding the way Trump and his administration navigate through the courts.  I expect HR 38 to play out in a similar fashion.  

[Zeke 5,504]

I doubt all states will object. NY, NJ, CA, MA, CT and HI will object and probably seek a Federal injunction. That will not take long at all and I fully expect it to go to the 3rd circuit on appeal shortly after (provided the verdict is negative). If so, we have the House, Senate and Trump behind this bill. It should get fast tracked for SCOTUS to resolve. The current appeal in front of the 9th circuit right now for Trump's Immigration EO will give us a good idea regarding the way Trump and his administration navigate through the courts. I expect HR 38 to play out in a similar fashion.

he doesn't even have 1/2 his administration yet.

[capt14k 2,052]

I doubt all states will object. NY, NJ, CA, MA, CT and HI will object and probably seek a Federal injunction. That will not take long at all and I fully expect it to go to the 3rd circuit on appeal shortly after (provided the verdict is negative). If so, we have the House, Senate and Trump behind this bill. It should get fast tracked for SCOTUS to resolve. The current appeal in front of the 9th circuit right now for Trump's Immigration EO will give us a good idea regarding the way Trump and his administration navigate through the courts. I expect HR 38 to play out in a similar fashion.

Will be fast tracked and 5 Justices that understand 2A will uphold it. It will also be a law not an EO.

 

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

[68chris 20]

If passed, expect this bill to go the way of the immigration ban.  An injunction will be issued by a federal judge, and this will be litigated in court for months or years.

 

 

There is no such thing as an injunction here and there will be no litigation.

[68chris 20]

I doubt all states will object. NY, NJ, CA, MA, CT and HI will object and probably seek a Federal injunction. That will not take long at all and I fully expect it to go to the 3rd circuit on appeal shortly after (provided the verdict is negative). If so, we have the House, Senate and Trump behind this bill. It should get fast tracked for SCOTUS to resolve.  The current appeal in front of the 9th circuit right now for Trump's Immigration EO will give us a good idea regarding the way Trump and his administration navigate through the courts.  I expect HR 38 to play out in a similar fashion.  

 

Nothing to object to here, other than some whining op-eds to the NY times. There will be no 3rd circuits or any circuits for that matter. There will be no scoutus here either.

A law is a law.

 

 

"from wiki"

Nullification, in United States constitutional history, is a legal theory that a state has the right to nullify, or invalidate, any federal law which that state has deemed unconstitutional. The theory of nullification has never been legally upheld by federal courts.^[1]

 

Courts at the state and federal level, including the U.S. Supreme Court, repeatedly have rejected the theory of nullification.^[2] The courts have decided that under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, federal law is superior to state law, and that under Article III of the Constitution, the federal judiciary has the final power to interpret the Constitution. Therefore, the power to make final decisions about the constitutionality of federal laws lies with the federal courts, not the states, and the states do not have the power to nullify federal laws.

Between 1798 and the beginning of the Civil War in 1861, several states threatened or attempted nullification of various federal laws. None of these efforts were legally upheld. The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions were rejected by the other states. The Supreme Court rejected nullification attempts in a series of decisions in the 19th century, including Ableman v. Booth, which rejected Wisconsin's attempt to nullify the Fugitive Slave Act. The Civil War ended most nullification efforts.

In the 1950s, southern states attempted to use nullification and interposition to prevent integration of their schools. These attempts failed when the Supreme Court again rejected nullification in Cooper v. Aaron, explicitly holding that the states may not nullify federal law.

[Indianajonze 379]

well you can certainly challenge a law. it's done all the time

[Rescue30 14]

Does the fact that Jeff Sessions was confirmed as Attorney General help our cause or does he not influence this Act at all ???

 

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[supranatural 66]

well you can certainly challenge a law. it's done all the time

Isn't a challenge different from a an injunction? I believe you're correct but a few posts ago Sam1 was talking injunction which means literally a suspension of the law, whereas with a challenge I would think that means the law is still in effect until the challenge is resolved one way or the other.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Zeke 5,504]

Does the fact that Jeff Sessions was confirmed as Attorney General help our cause or does he not influence this Act at all ???

 

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

I don't see an influence. Sessions is going to be up to his eyeballs in sanctuaries

[Indianajonze 379]

I don't see an influence. Sessions is going to be up to his eyeballs in sanctuaries

 

heh i thought the same thing. when he was nominated i was all wow this is great let's sue ca, nj, ny and the others for 2a violations. now i realize he's going to be spending his tenure defending travel bans and 2 for 1 regulations and prosecuting sanctuary city mayors. good times

[Twospot 38]

 

He deserves our thanks if he went down there, whether he was able to meet with Hudson or not. I'll accept that the photo had something to do with NJ gun rights. On the matter of actually meeting Hudson and taking credit for the changes: again, if true he deserves our thanks and admiration. There's a bit of history to contend with here, unfortunately, which is why all the doubters.

 

Which reminds me of a little story, adapted from John 20:24-31

 

Roubian Shows the Toll Stubs

 

24 Now Deerslayer (also known as Epididymus), one of the Gun Forums, was not with Roubian when he visited D.C. 25 So Roubian told him, "I have been to DC!”

 

But Deerslayer said to him, “Unless I see the toll stubs and the south Jersey dirt in your tire treads I will not believe.”

 

26 A week later Roubian appeared on the forums and said, “Peace be with you!” 27 Then he said to Deerslayer, “Reach out and touch the stubs, peruse them. Stop doubting and believe.”

 

28 Deerslayer said to him, “Defender of my 2nd Amendment rights!”

 

29 Then Roubian told him, “Because you have seen the toll stubs you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen the stubs and yet have believed.”

 

I think I just pissed myself! One of the most creative posts ever!

[Newtonian 453]

Wow! 512 replies with 3/4 of them being basically I want this I want that. 

Lets take A different look at this.   NJ has A CCW law on the books (yea they don't issue) But heres A thought I'll share just for the hell of it.

We can be pretty sure that if this Bill has or can get the traction we hope for. That the State of NJ will pretty much know how this will happen before we do.  That said, if it is strong enough of A bill to allow us to carry on the Non Resident permits that some of us already have and have had for A while. I'm pretty sure that if it does not leave A legal opening for our Anti politicians in NJ to be able to fight. That will lead to NJ giving us A CCW permit..

Face it they don't have to make A law, We have one. all they have to do is push the limit to the max of requirements and fees. Which there is A limit that has been ruled on in the case of Washington DC and Illinois.

 

Heres A scenario.  CCW Permit fee $500.00, 1 year permit, like in Hawaii, For the limited amount they have issued. Strong qualification and requalification rules. That will cost dollars each time.

 

Then NJ has A small cash cow, I say small because the requirements NJ can impose would send A lot of people running away from A carry permit. And that guys would then make our Non Resident permits about useless because we would be bound by having  to have A home State permit.

 

Just some thoughts on the conversation.

 

Then to top that off. All the 2A groups in NJ, can all beat their chests and proclaim the long fought Victory that they promised for years.

You guys keep bringing up the revenue aspects of these licenses. Just do the math. It's bubkes. No state is going to change their stupid laws for an extra $30 million in revenue. 

[Zeke 5,504]

West Virginia

Jus sayen

[TR20 47]

West Virginia

Jus sayen

I don't understand.  What about West Virginia?  and what are you saying about it?

Thanks