TexasCHLforum.com

And yes, I'm glad you asked. It is all the usual suspects.

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/washington- ... posal.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

A pitched fight over handguns takes place in the Senate this week as gun control advocates move to block an amendment to the defense authorization bill that would allow armed citizens with state-approved concealed-carry permits to cross into another state that also allows the carrying of concealed weapons. The reciprocity amendment is being offered by South Dakota Sen. John Thune, who says it would require those crossing into a neighboring state to follow the rules governing concealed weapons in those localities. "My legislation enables citizens to protect themselves while respecting individual state firearms laws," said Thune. He should know: Thune has his South Dakota carry permit. His amendment is backed by the NRA, Gun Owners of America, and six other gun groups.

Opposition, however, is fierce. Already groups opposed to the amendment have begun running ads and penning letters to lawmakers urging a "No" vote. Sen. Frank Lautenberg, the New Jersey Democrat who has long fought gun groups, tomorrow is planning to launch his retaliation at a press conference. "Trumping state laws to allow concealed weapons to be carried by almost anybody in any state is an egregious threat to communities all across the country," he told us today. "This amendment is just another attempt by the gun lobby to put its radical agenda ahead of safety and security in our communities." His office released a letter from the International Association of Chiefs of Police opposing the legislation, claiming that it might override different state laws that limit who can carry a concealed weapon. He also released a letter from the mayors of more than 400 cities and towns that claims the Thune "concealed-carry amendment" would infringe on state laws.

Thune, however, chairman of the Republican Policy Conference, said that his amendment won't do that. Said spokesman Kyle Downey: "Senator Thune doesn't believe your constitutional rights should cease to exist when you cross the state border." Thune also said that he's pushing the amendment because it could cut crime and save lives.

Excellent post Txd. Thanks. It's tied to the defense authorization bill. I don't know anything about it, or how it is being received. I hope well.

Does anyone know how the bill is fairing in Congress?

I don't agree with this. While it sounds good on its face, because I'm in favor of gun rights, this is another example of the federal government mandating behavior to the states on issues that belong to the states. States should have the ability to determine which other states' CHLs they'll recognize within their borders.

Just because it's pro-gun doesn't mean further federal encroachment on states' rights is acceptable.

LEOSA should be amended to include citizens with a concealed handgun license, or repealed in its entirety.

Although I see both sides of this issue, Federal legislation versus States rights I am perplexed as to why we accept permits from States that refuse to acknoledge ours. A case in point, having previously held a permit in Mass and now as a resident of Texas with a CHL when I drive back to visit family I cannot possess a firearm in the state even if locked in my trunk. Previously I could drive to Texas and carry when I arrived. Should we not all be on a level playing field?

but...it gets even better.... isn't there some wonderful new "hate crime" amendment also being attached to the Defense Bill? Now that's some really stupid legislation if there ever was any!

Salty1 wrote:Although I see both sides of this issue, Federal legislation versus States rights I am perplexed as to why we accept permits from States that refuse to acknoledge ours. A case in point, having previously held a permit in Mass and now as a resident of Texas with a CHL when I drive back to visit family I cannot possess a firearm in the state even if locked in my trunk. Previously I could drive to Texas and carry when I arrived. Should we not all be on a level playing field?

I look at it as a "Even though you're not kind enough to honor our permit, we will be the better man (state) and honor yours. So there. PLLLBBBBBTTTTTT!!!!!!!!"

boomerang wrote:LEOSA should be amended to include citizens with a concealed handgun license, or repealed in its entirety.

Why?
Is because you don't want others to have what you can't?

Sounds like sour grapes to me.

another example of the federal government mandating behavior to the states on issues that belong to the states

Not the case when and if the Second Amendment is incorporated to the states. That looks like a slam dunk even by idiot standards, but not a given if Sonia Sotomayor is confirmed to the SCOTUS. I reckon that is the given. We shall see right quick whether Sotomayor will rule based on the law as she told the hearings committee, or her personal take on things.

Behind the scenes, the entire licensed concealed carry system is in danger of unwinding, and the sooner the better. As a fundamental right, declared so in Heller, the Second Amendment cannot be infringed upon unless it is conflicting with a significant right in the public interest. Name one.

Kythas wrote:I don't agree with this. While it sounds good on its face, because I'm in favor of gun rights, this is another example of the federal government mandating behavior to the states on issues that belong to the states. States should have the ability to determine which other states' CHLs they'll recognize within their borders.

Just because it's pro-gun doesn't mean further federal encroachment on states' rights is acceptable.

Anti gun activists say that the 2nd Amendment isn't incorporated, and use that as justification for a state's right to severely control firearms - as in California or Illinois. Just out of curiosity, do you feel that it (the 2nd) should be incorporated, given that incorporation would remove a state's right to regulate the possession, bearing, and ownership of firearms?

Just wondering, is all...

Salty1 wrote:Although I see both sides of this issue, Federal legislation versus States rights I am perplexed as to why we accept permits from States that refuse to acknoledge ours. A case in point, having previously held a permit in Mass and now as a resident of Texas with a CHL when I drive back to visit family I cannot possess a firearm in the state even if locked in my trunk. Previously I could drive to Texas and carry when I arrived. Should we not all be on a level playing field?

Well the idea behind Concealed carry as I understand it is to increase the number of good guys with guns, and decriminalize the possession of an effective means of self defense, it appears that TX is doing the right thing by allowing Mass. CHLs even without reciprocity. While Mass. is playing politics with the lives of CHL holders from other states, while in Mass.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

Kythas wrote:I don't agree with this. While it sounds good on its face, because I'm in favor of gun rights, this is another example of the federal government mandating behavior to the states on issues that belong to the states. States should have the ability to determine which other states' CHLs they'll recognize within their borders.

Just because it's pro-gun doesn't mean further federal encroachment on states' rights is acceptable.

Anti gun activists say that the 2nd Amendment isn't incorporated, and use that as justification for a state's right to severely control firearms - as in California or Illinois. Just out of curiosity, do you feel that it (the 2nd) should be incorporated, given that incorporation would remove a state's right to regulate the possession, bearing, and ownership of firearms?

Just wondering, is all...

I, personally think that the 2nd should not be incorporated, it should be recognized as applicable to all government entities without the need for incorporation, just as the 1st "seems" to be now.

If the 2nd protects a fundamental and pre-existing right, then it doesn't matter if it's the village board (just about our smallest level of government) the right is universal and does not depend on the Constitution for its existence, merely for a codified protection.

If the 2nd does not protect a fundamental and pre-existing right, in other words if the 2nd only exists to protect the "right" from interference by the federal government, then it's not truly a right and lower entities can abrogate that right at will, and it needs to be incorporated.

I don't think the state, district, county, borough, parish, city, town, or village has a right to infringe on my right to keep and bear arms, or yours, or anyone else's.

A friend of mine was involved in a reenactment of a revolutionary battle in 1976, and was arrested for possessing a true period flintlock, not a replica. He never got the gun back. Guess which state it was in and which battle was being reenacted.

I have about the same opinion on "incorporation" and the 14th Amendment as Jim. There should be absolutely NO question about the original Bill of Rights and the applicability of those 10 amendments.


surv

LaUser wrote:

boomerang wrote:LEOSA should be amended to include citizens with a concealed handgun license, or repealed in its entirety.

Why?

Because we live in a (supposedly) free country, not a Police State.

It wouldn't bother me at all if the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution were amended to read as a mirror reflection of the Texas Constitution, Article 1, Sec. 23.