TexasCHLforum.com

I've seen similar negative reactions to this type of bill before and for life of me I can't figure out why. My TX driver's license is valid across state lines. My TX marriage license is valid across state lines. Having my TX CHL treated the same way would be a great benefit. Yet, when this comes up a lot of folks don't seem to think it's a good idea.

From NRA-ILA
https://www.nraila.org/articles/2015021 ... -us-senate" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This legislation wouldn’t override state laws governing the time, place or manner of carriage or establish national standards for concealed carry. Individual state gun laws would still be respected. Concealed carry reciprocity would simply ensure that states honor permits issued by other states, just as they do with driver’s licenses. Importantly, if under federal law a person is prohibited from carrying a firearm, they will continue to be prohibited from doing so under this bill.

TexasCajun wrote:From NRA-ILA
https://www.nraila.org/articles/2015021 ... -us-senate" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This legislation wouldn’t override state laws governing the time, place or manner of carriage or establish national standards for concealed carry. Individual state gun laws would still be respected. Concealed carry reciprocity would simply ensure that states honor permits issued by other states, just as they do with driver’s licenses. Importantly, if under federal law a person is prohibited from carrying a firearm, they will continue to be prohibited from doing so under this bill.

Thank you. The bill does not offend the Tenth Amendment and to argue that it does is to argue that the SCOTUS got the McDonald decision wrong and the Second Amendment does not apply to the states. In other words, it would put one on the side of City of Chicago.

Chas.

CIVIL RIGHTS UPDATE: “The Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act would allow gun owners who have a concealed carry permit in their home state to bring their firearms in any other state with concealed carry laws.” It’s a good start, but Congress has the power to allow interstate carry regardless. I discuss some related issues in my Second Amendment Penumbras piece.

http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/202263/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

TexasCajun wrote:From NRA-ILA
https://www.nraila.org/articles/2015021 ... -us-senate" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This legislation wouldn’t override state laws governing the time, place or manner of carriage or establish national standards for concealed carry. Individual state gun laws would still be respected. Concealed carry reciprocity would simply ensure that states honor permits issued by other states, just as they do with driver’s licenses. Importantly, if under federal law a person is prohibited from carrying a firearm, they will continue to be prohibited from doing so under this bill.

Thank you. The bill does not offend the Tenth Amendment and to argue that it does is to argue that the SCOTUS got the McDonald decision wrong and the Second Amendment does not apply to the states. In other words, it would put one on the side of City of Chicago.

Chas.

Sounds like a good bill actually.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Right2Carry wrote:

F350-6 wrote:Call me pessimistic, but if it came from Cornyn, one has to wonder if he's already checked and he knows the bill is dead before it was introduced. That way he gets to keep pretending he's a conservative.

If Cruz had filed it, which he didn't, you would be singing his praises.

Chas.

I like the Bill, and I like the "new" John Cornyn.

I used to peg him as a nearly empty shirt - part of the "go along to get along" Washington establishment, but I honestly think the Dewhurst defeat resonated with Cornyn and woke him up. He changed his tone, visibility, and approach immediately. He's found a voice and had significantly more presence since that happened.

I don't need him to be bombastic or theatrical to convince me he's sincere. Texans sent a message with the Cruz election and Cornyn received it. Pretty simple the way I read it.

jamminbutter wrote:Why does the federal government need to poke their noses into a state rights issue?

Try traveling with a concealed firearm.... Especially if you do it for any distance, it takes me several hours to prepare and there SHOULD be some minimum reciprocity - basically as set of minimum rules that apply to all permit holders across state lines.

fickman wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Right2Carry wrote:

F350-6 wrote:Call me pessimistic, but if it came from Cornyn, one has to wonder if he's already checked and he knows the bill is dead before it was introduced. That way he gets to keep pretending he's a conservative.

If Cruz had filed it, which he didn't, you would be singing his praises.

Chas.

I like the Bill, and I like the "new" John Cornyn.

I used to peg him as a nearly empty shirt - part of the "go along to get along" Washington establishment, but I honestly think the Dewhurst defeat resonated with Cornyn and woke him up. He changed his tone, visibility, and approach immediately. He's found a voice and had significantly more presence since that happened.

I don't need him to be bombastic or theatrical to convince me he's sincere. Texans sent a message with the Cruz election and Cornyn received it. Pretty simple the way I read it.

I don't mean this in a negative way at all. I think Ted Cruz has emboldened him some.

This is not about violating State's rights at all. It is about preventing states from violating our rights.

10th
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

2nd
"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."

It is pretty clear that the federal government can override any state law that infringes on the right to bear arms.

OK, he's touting this as a way use your TX CHL to drive from TX to, oh, WA (for lack of a better idea). Now, he's making it sound like you get to follow TX law all the way up, "because that's what you do when you drive" (before you ask, no I can't find the article from a few days ago)
......BUT YOU DON'T....
you DON'T get to do that when you drive. You have to follow local law when you drive. If you hit CA and you don't know if you are allowed to take a U turn with or without a sign, you are going to be in trouble and probably get a ticket.

that is my first problem with it.
secondly, I honestly don't think that once the door is cracked open to the Feds it won't be slammed open like my teenaged son slamming through it. Any time the Feds get involved with something rights get lost, taxes get raised, stuff gets more confusing.

Nope, this is not good.

My only concern is that the Feds might use this as a way to create a "minimum standard" for CHL reciprocity that each state must meet to be applicable. And I really don't want a California Democrat creating CHL standards for Texas....

Before all of us starts poo-pooing this potentially very beneficial bill, why don't we educate ourselves on what the bill says?

https://www.nraila.org/articles/2015021 ... -us-senate" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I cannot find much to fault on this bill. Seems to me that all CHL's would benefit from it.

SewTexas wrote:OK, he's touting this as a way use your TX CHL to drive from TX to, oh, WA (for lack of a better idea). Now, he's making it sound like you get to follow TX law all the way up, "because that's what you do when you drive" (before you ask, no I can't find the article from a few days ago)
......BUT YOU DON'T....
you DON'T get to do that when you drive. You have to follow local law when you drive. If you hit CA and you don't know if you are allowed to take a U turn with or without a sign, you are going to be in trouble and probably get a ticket.

that is my first problem with it.
secondly, I honestly don't think that once the door is cracked open to the Feds it won't be slammed open like my teenaged son slamming through it. Any time the Feds get involved with something rights get lost, taxes get raised, stuff gets more confusing.

Nope, this is not good.

On the surface this looks like a great idea but I agree with SewTexas , if the Feds are involved it will come back to bite you in your buttocks . Just mentioning that the Federal government is involved in or instigating in your life should send up flags . They have screwed up everything they touch ...........AND......It's going to end up costing you , that part comes at the end of all the wrangling . Keep em out !

chuck j wrote:

SewTexas wrote:OK, he's touting this as a way use your TX CHL to drive from TX to, oh, WA (for lack of a better idea). Now, he's making it sound like you get to follow TX law all the way up, "because that's what you do when you drive" (before you ask, no I can't find the article from a few days ago)
......BUT YOU DON'T....
you DON'T get to do that when you drive. You have to follow local law when you drive. If you hit CA and you don't know if you are allowed to take a U turn with or without a sign, you are going to be in trouble and probably get a ticket.

that is my first problem with it.
secondly, I honestly don't think that once the door is cracked open to the Feds it won't be slammed open like my teenaged son slamming through it. Any time the Feds get involved with something rights get lost, taxes get raised, stuff gets more confusing.

Nope, this is not good.

On the surface this looks like a great idea but I agree with SewTexas , if the Feds are involved it will come back to bite you in your buttocks . Just mentioning that the Federal government is involved in or instigating in your life should send up flags . They have screwed up everything they touch ...........AND......It's going to end up costing you , that part comes at the end of all the wrangling . Keep em out !

The feds are already involved both in gun issues and other matters under the "full faith and credit" provision in the U.S. Constitution. That's why a contract you sign with the resident of another state is enforceable. It's why marriages are recognized in all states (don't start the same-sex marriage stuff). The feds aren't going to dictate requirements for CHL, not now or in the future.

This bill is more akin to striking down the old poll tax to ensure everyone gets to vote. It's an expansion of protections under the Second Amendment.

Chas.

SewTexas wrote:OK, he's touting this as a way use your TX CHL to drive from TX to, oh, WA (for lack of a better idea). Now, he's making it sound like you get to follow TX law all the way up, "because that's what you do when you drive" (before you ask, no I can't find the article from a few days ago)
......BUT YOU DON'T....
you DON'T get to do that when you drive. You have to follow local law when you drive. If you hit CA and you don't know if you are allowed to take a U turn with or without a sign, you are going to be in trouble and probably get a ticket.

that is my first problem with it.
secondly, I honestly don't think that once the door is cracked open to the Feds it won't be slammed open like my teenaged son slamming through it. Any time the Feds get involved with something rights get lost, taxes get raised, stuff gets more confusing.

Nope, this is not good.

That's not what the proposed bill does at all. You'd have to adhere to local laws (where you can carry and probably what you can carry). But there's no provision for creating some federal minimum standard. Just like a driver's license or marriage license, states would still get to make their own determinations as to who gets licensed and how.

If there is something specific in the proposed law, please quote it here so that we can discuss those specifics.