TexasCHLforum.com

Never ones to let an opportunity to lose more support go to waste the democrats are promising to filibuster national reciprocity in the US Senate. The states that are still no issue or may issue hve no one to blame for this other than themselves. They could have established permitted carry on their own terms and established what tbey felt were reasonable and just restrictions. We the law abiding would have moaned and goaned but we would have gotten the necessary paperwork and complied.

Since that didnt happen we will now force upon them our version of national reciprocity. Hopefully...


DEMOCRATS PROMISE TO FILIBUSTER AND KILL NATIONAL RECIPROCITY FOR CONCEALED CARRY IN THE US SENATE

http://crimeresearch.org/2016/11/democr ... filibuster

And the next head of the DNC might be a Muslim that praises Louis Farakhan.

Ha!

Slippery slope, whats next national standard for training, how,when an where it is legal. Nope dont want Fed's involved at all, everything they touch turns to liberal restrictions.

suthdj wrote:Slippery slope, whats next national standard for training, how,when an where it is legal. Nope dont want Fed's involved at all, everything they touch turns to liberal restrictions.

suthdj wrote:Slippery slope, whats next national standard for training, how,when an where it is legal. Nope dont want Fed's involved at all, everything they touch turns to liberal restrictions.

This is a very slippery slope. If one has the view that States rights are sovereign then this flies in the face of that. While I like the idea of being able to carry in all 50 states ( "technically" I currently have that ability via the LEOSA ) I do not want to give the Feds any more control over my life than they already have. There are so many loopholes in the LEOSA that it is basically useless as it currently stands and I have a hunch a national reciprocity law would be the same. In may states, local governments are allowed to enact stricter gun control measures than set at the state level and thus creates a jurisdictional spiderweb in which one can be entangled. I simply do my homework when traveling and then make the decision if I want to forfeit my 2A rights to visit a particular state/city. I rarely fly except to a cruise ship port and since I will be leaving the country anyway, I understand my 2A rights are left at the US border and plan accordingly.

I am a huge proponent for State's rights, however the States have been circumventing Constitutional law for way too long in my opinion. The Constitution, allows States sovereignty over issues not listed in the Constitution, but the right to keep and bear arms, is "in" the Constitution, and makes no exception for States to limit, or restrict it. If States were allowed full immunity from the constricts of the Constitution, they could pass laws, banning newspapers from other States, they could set up their own rules for search and seizure, their own laws for self incrimination, etc...

For some reason the American people have allowed their individual States, to have authority for only one of the Bill Of Rights, and that is the Second.

I agree, the Federal Government has way overstepped it's bounds at times for State's rights, i.e. abortion, same sex marriage, etc. But then it has turned a blind eye towards one of the most sacred rights on which this country was founded.

I know that this national reciprocity bill, will not change very much, because even if the States are forced to recognize a license, they will still be able to restrict guns, ammo, magazine capacity, and a myriad of other things. Additionally, even if it passes, it will end up going to SCOTUS, before a definitive decision is made. But maybe this can be a first step, towards restoring to the Federal Government the power is should have for Constitutional issues, and at the same time restore to the States their rights.JMHO

Smokey613 wrote:

suthdj wrote:Slippery slope, whats next national standard for training, how,when an where it is legal. Nope dont want Fed's involved at all, everything they touch turns to liberal restrictions.

This is a very slippery slope. If one has the view that States rights are sovereign then this flies in the face of that. While I like the idea of being able to carry in all 50 states ( "technically" I currently have that ability via the LEOSA ) I do not want to give the Feds any more control over my life than they already have. There are so many loopholes in the LEOSA that it is basically useless as it currently stands and I have a hunch a national reciprocity law would be the same. In may states, local governments are allowed to enact stricter gun control measures than set at the state level and thus creates a jurisdictional spiderweb in which one can be entangled. I simply do my homework when traveling and then make the decision if I want to forfeit my 2A rights to visit a particular state/city. I rarely fly except to a cruise ship port and since I will be leaving the country anyway, I understand my 2A rights are left at the US border and plan accordingly.

I'm with you all on this. National Reciprocity is not a role for the Federal government. LEOSA is arguably an unconstitutional imposition on state sovereignty...BTW it was sponsored by Nancy Pelosi... The Feds can get involved when states are abridging citizen's 2nd amendment rights (i.e. MacDonald). In fact, in Illinois and DC the Feds forced state to come up with a permit system or allow "unlicensed carry". This was due to states abridging the 2nd amendment as incorporated by the 14th.

Originally, NFA 1934 was structured as a tax, not dependent on the "commerce clause" like GCA' 68 and GFSZA. It (NFA) was actually found unconstitutional in 1968, but then the the Feds held an amnesty, and reimposed it along with the GCA '68 (more unconstitutional laws)...

I find it impossible to believe anyone would want the Feds in on anything concerning license to carry . Only anti gun folks want that . Hope that door stays closed .

Okay guys, I'm not trying to argue here, just trying to understand. I genuinely feel like I'm missing something, and I want to make sure I have all the information before I'm asked my opinion on this issue. I'm kinda the "gun guy" in some of my circles of friends, so I'm sure I'll be asked.

I'm hearing a lot of opposition to national reciprocity, and I'm just not understanding the reasoning. This is the feds forcing the states which are trampling on the second amendment to allow at least some form of carry for those from others states with carry licenses, right? That sounds like a good thing to me. I understand not wanting the feds involved in gun rights, but they are already heavily involved in gun rights, mostly by way of restrictions. Why resist them stepping in to address some of the most flagrant cases of states denying citizens their 2A rights? Don't get me wrong, I'm the first guy to argue for stronger states' rights and less government in general. I just feel like on the occasions the feds try to do something to restore and protect our rights instead of restrict or remove them, we should be on board with that. I also think that the states should not be allowed to take away constitutional rights from their citizens, and wouldn't it be the feds who would prevent them doing so?

Also, since I haven't said it in a while, I really appreciate having a respectful community in which to ask these questions of my peers. It really is a rarity on the internet these days.

If the Republican Senate majority had any testicular fortitude they'd nuke the filibuster like the Dems threatened to do.

When Democrats squeal respond with a quote from FORMER President Obama: "elections have consequences" and "I won."

bblhd672 wrote:If the Republican Senate majority had any testicular fortitude they'd nuke the filibuster like the Dems threatened to do.

When Democrats squeal respond with a quote from FORMER President Obama: "elections have consequences" and "I won."

Add to that Dems have nuked the filibuster for judicial nomination.

Beiruty wrote:

bblhd672 wrote:If the Republican Senate majority had any testicular fortitude they'd nuke the filibuster like the Dems threatened to do.

When Democrats squeal respond with a quote from FORMER President Obama: "elections have consequences" and "I won."

Add to that Dems have nuked the filibuster for judicial nomination.

Republicans may be surprised to find that if they LEAD and get things done, they probably will end up with an even greater majority.

The Federal government has no Constitutional authority to regulate the wearing, carrying, bearing, trading, selling, of arms in the States. Just like they don't set the speed limit on your neighborhood streets and state highways. They can influence it through the use of Federal funding, but otherwise regulation of traffic flow is up to the States. Same with guns. States can make laws regulating firearms as long as they don't completely invalidate your 2nd amendment rights. SCOTUS said this in Heller and McDonald decisions. They also said the right is not unlimited, and States can decide how to regulate it. Wyoming will approach it differently than New Jersey. That's what Federalism is about. National reciprocity is not necessary to be imposed by the Federal government, however perhaps the States should be required to offer non-resident licenses of the same category and requirements (other than residency), that they offer to residents.

Driver's license reciprocity (other than for interstate CDL's) is not mandated by the Federal government, it's just that all 50 states recognize each others' subject to the same (driving) regulations that they place on residents. I can't drive 85 on the interstate in Maryland, just because I can in Texas.

ScottDLS wrote: Driver's license reciprocity (other than for interstate CDL's) is not mandated by the Federal government, it's just that all 50 states recognize each others' subject to the same (driving) regulations that they place on residents. I can't drive 85 on the interstate in Maryland, just because I can in Texas.

Very true. I had an Illinois drivers license at age 16 but could not drive in NYC until I was 18. It would be nice to be able to go to California and carry like I do in Texas but it is probably never going to happen.

ScottDLS wrote:The Federal government has no Constitutional authority to regulate the wearing, carrying, bearing, trading, selling, of arms in the States. Just like they don't set the speed limit on your neighborhood streets and state highways. They can influence it through the use of Federal funding, but otherwise regulation of traffic flow is up to the States. Same with guns. States can make laws regulating firearms as long as they don't completely invalidate your 2nd amendment rights. SCOTUS said this in Heller and McDonald decisions. They also said the right is not unlimited, and States can decide how to regulate it. Wyoming will approach it differently than New Jersey. That's what Federalism is about. National reciprocity is not necessary to be imposed by the Federal government, however perhaps the States should be required to offer non-resident licenses of the same category and requirements (other than residency), that they offer to residents.

Driver's license reciprocity (other than for interstate CDL's) is not mandated by the Federal government, it's just that all 50 states recognize each others' subject to the same (driving) regulations that they place on residents. I can't drive 85 on the interstate in Maryland, just because I can in Texas.

Thanks Scott. I think I understand what you're saying, but the federal government already regulates the "wearing, carrying, bearing, trading, selling, of arms in the States" with things like the NFA, GFSZA, NICS checks, etc, correct? I guess I understand a reluctance to allow the feds any say in the licensing aspect specifically, as that could be used as precedent by future administrations, but I really don't think the libs would need that excuse.

So is that really the main reason to oppose this? That it should be done at the state level? Like I said, I'm all for things being handled at the state level whenever possible, but this seems to be a win for us, so it feels weird to be against it. Especially since we know for a fact certain states will never institute reciprocity without being forced.