Jump to content
ajpaul59

Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017 Hudson, NC

Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, NJGF said:

 

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.

How are are things that are issued/accepted across states codified?  Drivers licenses, marriage, etc?  Does each state have a unique agreement with every other state or is there a single codifying document at the federal level?

One thing to keep in mind: the Interstate Commerce Clause has been used and abused for a long time for similar situations. This CCW isn’t even the strangest or longest reach. I doubt SCOTUS  would touch a ISC-based case. If they issue against that the entire federal house of cards comes crumbling down. 

The only area where a state might issue a successful challenge would be on the issuance of non-resident CCW. With this bill they grant a resident in a state the power to CCW in that state without their explicit permission.  It could definitely be seen as usurping stste authority over its own citizens. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, voyager9 said:

The only area where a state might issue a successful challenge would be on the issuance of non-resident CCW. With this bill they grant a resident in a state the power to CCW in that state without their explicit permission.  It could definitely be seen as usurping stste authority over its own citizens. 

The bill specifically addresses this issue.

A legal license is a legal license is a legal license!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, GRIZ said:

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.

that would be me. 'cause we all know that once trump signs it.........it'll be gone soonz he's outta office.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Zeke said:

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

The liberals and the Academics will argue this because it favors their agenda. The sheep will follow and believe it, but the Scotus Knows clearly what it means, especially with Gorsuch on board. Another reason we should thank God we have a president Trump and not a President Cliton!

4 minutes ago, 1LtCAP said:

that would be me. 'cause we all know that once trump signs it.........it'll be gone soonz he's outta office.

You are confusing a law with an executive order...

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, voyager9 said:

How are are things that are issued/accepted across states codified?  Drivers licenses, marriage, etc?  Does each state have a unique agreement with every other state or is there a single codifying document at the federal level? 

I believe drivers licenses are state issued and not controlled by the federal government. There is a compact agreement between all of the states where they accept out of state licenses and exchange data between the states. It was started in the 1960's. There are some exceptions such as with learner's permits which some states have different age restrictions for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Downtownv said:

The liberals and the Academics will argue this because it favors their agenda. The sheep will follow and believe it, but the Scotus Knows clearly what it means, especially with Gorsuch on board. Another reason we should thank God we have a president Trump and not a President Cliton!

You are confusing a law with an executive order...

no i'm not. just like the republitards are trying(supposedly) to kill osamacare, the next admin can(probably will) kill whatever happens with this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, siderman said:

fixed that for ya

From your lips to God's ear! The House is a given, The Senate will be a bit more of a challenge! I just hope they don't change the wording of the bill so as to exclude those of us living here behind the Iron Curtain of the anti Constitutionalists.  If the bill passes the Senate as written, thank God Donald Trump is our President because he will sign it and for the first time since 1927, we will have CCW in New Jersey!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, NJGF said:

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.

I understand your point. But you're talking 1789 and 1868 not 2017.

The COTUS and laws passed by Congress are the law of the land.  It says so in the COTUS.  When states violate the rights guaranteed in the COTUS that's when the Federal government steps in.  From my perspective most SCOTUS cases are 1st, 4th, and 5th Amendment issues.

Rather than plead cases in front of SCOTUS Congress has taken the perogative and is passing a law first.  Each states requirements for a carry permit define that state's interpretation of the 2A.

There are what? Maybe 10 antigun states to varying degrees?  40 others are progun to different degrees.  If...and I doubt if, this ever goes to SCOTUS all that in taken into consideration.  This is when the antigun states will argue this law is in violation of the 10A.

Going to SCOTUS over this law is a crapshoot I don't think liberals want to try.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/30/2017 at 5:30 AM, Downtownv said:

I receive this today:

Concealed Carry Reciprocity Passes out of House Committee

Dear DowntownV,

There was great news coming out of the House Judiciary Committee today!

By a 19-11 vote, the Constitutional Carry-friendly reciprocity legislation was voted out of the House committee and is now on its way to passage by the full House.  

This is H.R. 38, which was authored by Rep. Richard Hudson (R-NC).

The legislation would allow anyone with a permit, and anyone from a Constitutional Carry state, to carry in any state in the country -- thereby countering the fascist laws of anti-gun states.  

In particular, it would allow residents of repressive states to get non-resident permits and thereby circumvent local anti-gun officials.  John%20Velleco-Shaneen%20Allen-Louie%20Gohmert.png

The term "handgun" would be defined to include "any magazine for use in a handgun and any ammunition loaded into a handgun or its magazine."  

This would circumvent efforts by states like Massachusetts and California to effectively ban guns by banning and/or registering magazines and ammo. 

Suffice it to say that pushing the GOOD version of reciprocity to the verge of House passage and enactment is a huge accomplishment which should not be underestimated. 

Speaking of the "good version of reciprocity," the House committee fended off an attempt by Democrats to delete the Constitutional Carry protections in the bill. 

By a 17-8 vote, Republicans defeated an anti-gun amendment offered by Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) that would have sought to limit concealed carry reciprocity to permit holders only.  

Gun Owners of America opposed this amendment and was happy to see it go down to an inglorious defeat.

Nevertheless, there was some bad news. 

The House committee passed a "Fix NICS" bill which will result in more innocent people being thrown into the NICS system. 

The six heroes who voted against background check infringements were Reps. Andy Biggs (R-AZ), Ken Buck (R-CO), Louie Gohmert (R-TX), Jim Jordan (R-OH), Steve King (R-IA), and Raul Labrador (R-ID).

Gun Owners of America has strongly opposed this legislation, and you can see our previous analysis herehere and here.

Having said that, we are inclined to believe that the GOOD reciprocity bill is a much, much bigger deal for us than Fix NICS is for the gun grabbers.  

Both bills now advance to the floor of the House.

Please stay tuned for further updates.

In Liberty,

Erich Pratt
Executive Director

Follow me on Twitter: @ErichMPratt

P.S. Thank you for all your activism in favor of H.R. 38.  Stay tuned for more updates.  In the meantime, don't forget to check out the latest Firing Back podcast, which provides needed ammunition to counter the talking points from your liberal anti-gun friends and family during the holiday season.  

I have Utah, FL. and ME. for the past 8 years, NEVER let them expire!

Please see my post and NOTE The red highlights!

You "johnny come latleys", are addressing things previously discussed6 days ago ON THIS THREAD!

7 hours ago, 1LtCAP said:

no i'm not. just like the republitards are trying(supposedly) to kill osamacare, the next admin can(probably will) kill whatever happens with this.

They are Repealing a Law thru Congress, not because a new President took over and erased it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Downtownv said:

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!

 

Todays Asbury Park Press:

NJ Lawmakers to pas Bill prohibiting DRUNK DRONE FLYING!

 

This is what these morons do in Trenton!

 

again, High school government level!

 

We don't need 80% of the laws we have on the books, but Absolute Power, corrupts absolutely!

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wrongo. they all could've cracked it IF they wanted to.
I agree. All those people and organizations that are supposed to help us are in the business of NJ laws. If those laws get lifted, where do they stand?

Sent from my LG-H931 using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Lostboy said:

I agree. All those people and organizations that are supposed to help us are in the business of NJ laws. If those laws get lifted, where do they stand?

Sent from my LG-H931 using Tapatalk
 

Touché Mon Pussycat!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Ray Ray said:

Does anyone actually read all this?  It's the same thing over and over again. 

Agreed.  But I think most of the confusion is law vs rights.  The feds can pass any law they want to but the states don't have to comply.  Examples?:  

Marijuana laws.  While many states continue to legalize it it still against federal law.  

Gay marriage:  many states refuse to honor it law or no law.  It wasn't until the Supreme Court declared it a right was it forced to be recognized everywhere.

Sanctuary cities:  Well we all know that one.  They blatantly defy federal laws daily.

Abortion: Used to be one had to travel to a state that allowed it until a woman's right to chose was declared a constitutional right.

When and only when it becomes a right as defined by the US Supreme Court will the states, unwillingly so, stop the injunctions, law suits and all the other nuisances blocking our way.         

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lostboy said:

Assume it does pass, Murphy wont honor it. So now anyone who wants to carry will have to lawyer up and Sue the state and/or Murphy.

Sent from my LG-H931 using Tapatalk
 

(2) When a person asserts this section as a defense in a criminal proceeding, the prosecution shall bear the burden of proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the conduct of the person did not satisfy the conditions set forth in subsections (a) and (b).

“(3) When a person successfully asserts this section as a defense in a criminal proceeding, the court shall award the prevailing defendant a reasonable attorney’s fee.

d) (1) A person who is deprived of any right, privilege, or immunity secured by this section, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage of any State or any political subdivision thereof, may bring an action in any appropriate court against any other person, including a State or political subdivision thereof, who causes the person to be subject to the deprivation, for damages or other appropriate relief.

“(2) The court shall award a plaintiff prevailing in an action brought under paragraph (1) damages and such other relief as the court deems appropriate, including a reasonable attorney’s fee.

Have at a lawsuit. It's on NJ.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(2) When a person asserts this section as a defense in a criminal proceeding, the prosecution shall bear the burden of proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the conduct of the person did not satisfy the conditions set forth in subsections (a) and (b).
“(3) When a person successfully asserts this section as a defense in a criminal proceeding, the court shall award the prevailing defendant a reasonable attorney’s fee.
d) (1) A person who is deprived of any right, privilege, or immunity secured by this section, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage of any State or any political subdivision thereof, may bring an action in any appropriate court against any other person, including a State or political subdivision thereof, who causes the person to be subject to the deprivation, for damages or other appropriate relief.
“(2) The court shall award a plaintiff prevailing in an action brought under paragraph (1) damages and such other relief as the court deems appropriate, including a reasonable attorney’s fee.
Have at a lawsuit. It's on NJ.
Yeah I get it but again the guy won and campaigned with not following federal law. He's willing to harbor illegals, does anyone actually think he won't put gun owners in jail?

Sent from my LG-H931 using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Lostboy said:

Yeah I get it but again the guy won and campaigned with not following federal law. He's willing to harbor illegals, does anyone actually think he won't put gun owners in jail?

Sent from my LG-H931 using Tapatalk
 

NJ will be begging to have a Chris Christie type back again after this guy impales the taxpayers of NJ to level that exceeds your worst nightmare. He has a lock in the senate and the assembly.

This very rich will leave, vey easily, so who's left to foot the bill?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, WP22 said:

When is the voting supposed to be?

Today.

Yesterday, the House Rules Committee voted to combine the reciprocity and anti-gun "Fix NICS" bills (H.R. 38 and H.R. 4477).

The combined bill now goes to the House floor, with votes scheduled for today.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Downtownv said:

Today.

Yesterday, the House Rules Committee voted to combine the reciprocity and anti-gun "Fix NICS" bills (H.R. 38 and H.R. 4477).

The combined bill now goes to the House floor, with votes scheduled for today.

 

I know it's today. I saw the agenda. I thought somebody had an idea of the time of the day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The President is announcing the US Embassy will relocate to Jerusalem at 1 pm. today.

 

Personally, if Bush, Obama and the rest of the world didn't or advised against it, Then We need to do it!

 

After all, we don't want to make chronically angry terrorists, angry.  Roll Eyes

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Downtownv said:

The President is announcing the US Embassy will relocate to Jerusalem at 1 pm. today.

 

Personally, if Bush, Obama and the rest of the world didn't or advised against it, Then We need to do it!

 

After all, we don't want to make chronically angry terrorists, angry.  Roll Eyes

Not to go off topic too much but what is the point of that move? This is not nationalism. I am assuming most Americans could care less where the capital of Israel should be. It;s not our country so IMO we should stay out of it. Why make it our problem?

  • Like 1

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...