Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act

View · by **atomic41** on Thu Feb 12, 2015 6:28 pm

Let's get behind this "common sense gun law"!

http://thehill.com/regulation/legislati ... ights-bill

View · by **bensdad** on Thu Feb 12, 2015 8:31 pm

God........... In............. Heaven. How many times do we have to go over this. Let's take it again boys, from the top.

We do not want the fed involved in carry permits. Period. No discussion. If you think a fed override of state permit laws is a good thing, you know nothing about the fed. Go back to high school and pay attention in U.S. government this time.

This had been discussed ad infinitum. The short-form is this: If they mandate that one state accept the permit of another, they will - in short order - get involved in the permitting process. Imagine a world in which the worst components of permit processes from around the country are all adopted on a national level. Fingerprinting. Twenty hours of class time. $300 permit fees. Personal references. Carry gun(s) listed on the permit. Come on people, the camel smells your dinner.

View · by **atomic41** on Thu Feb 12, 2015 9:19 pm

Don't agree...not with our current political landscape. Taking up gun control legislation has become a political suicide issue in the past couple of years. We have won way more than we have lost (nationally) and we are gaining serious momentum. Sure, maybe some of those measures in your scenario would be proposed by some Dems but it would not go anywhere.

If this passes House and Senate and survives the veto stamp, it's a big win. It will be like car licensing is now. You get licensed to drive in MN and can drive anywhere. I would rather move forward and fight to restore our rights that are supposed to be constitutionally protected than sit back and do nothing because we are paranoid of what MIGHT happen if we shake off restrictions to our freedoms that should have never been there in the first place. Choose not to support it if you wish and choose to live in fear of fighting for your rights but that's not how I or millions of my fellow Americans roll. We have a lot of momentum and I think that deciding to stop just because we think that it may lead to certain inconveniences is foolish. Instead, let's restore our freedoms that the founders intended to protect and accept nothing less.

Cheers and Good luck.

View · by **bensdad** on Fri Feb 13, 2015 12:19 am

I would rather move forward... than sit back and do nothing because we are paranoid

That is a false choice. Your idea of moving forward is to give the fed control over more states' rights. You've also implied that being against this is to, "sit back and do nothing." That's a load of crap. You've also insinuated that those of us who recognize the eventual over-reach of the fed are "paranoid." Seriously, read a history book.

View · by **Snakeman721** on Fri Feb 13, 2015 4:24 am

Need an example over FED overreach? Just look at the EPA...the Envionmental Protection Agency. Formed in the Nixon administration to help control and cleanup pollution made by "big" corporations, they now oversee and rule on every dang little thing...like lead for one. Got to have non-lead shot for waterfowl. There are strict rules for indoor range cleaning and disposal of the "sweepings". EVERYTHING is freakin labeled with a MSDS label stating, among other things if it's a hazard to yourself or the envionment. Heck, you're probably violating rules if you wash your car in the driveway and let the suds (mixed with oil,grime, and who knows what) drain down your driveway and into the storm drain.

So yeah, letting the FEDS control conceal/carry reciproprocity between states is a very bad idea! Although the political climate may (slightly) favor us shooters now, who's to say it will be that way in 10 or 20 years?

View · by **photogpat** on Fri Feb 13, 2015 7:08 am

I'm also hesitant to have the Feds jump in on any gun bill simply because it provides a mechanism in the future for infringement.

That being said - simply respecting the full faith and credit of a State carry permit across all 50 states would be simplest and least chance for "error" in the future.

View · by **xd ED** on Fri Feb 13, 2015 7:30 am

The proposal seems pretty benign.
One the surface it doesn't appear as egregious as a federal carry law.
Yet when one looks @ fed overreach - the Commerce Clause as another example - where no part of any financial transaction is completely safe from the feds, we can find sufficient skepticism to reject this effort.

View · by **LarryFlew** on Fri Feb 13, 2015 12:05 pm

Enough Feds in our life already!! I was majorly surprised the NRA signed on to this.

View · by **atomic41** on Fri Feb 13, 2015 12:47 pm

I understand the concerns spoken here but I respectfully disagree. There should not be carry permit laws in the first place as that is "infringement" of our rights. In my opinion, doing nothing is submitting to further erosion of our rights and I will never take that route. We are in a serious mess in this country because we have slowly let the establishment erode our rights. Those of you that think the Feds will impose stricter licensing nationally, I have a question. What is to stop them from doing that very thing now? If you are correct, then they are coming after that anyway so it seems silly to sit back and wait for that to happen.

Over the past couple of years, we have gained a lot of momentum in defending 2A from those who wish to tear it down. I believe that it is a terrible mistake to stop and decide that everything is ok the way it is when we have much more work to do. Several states recently have changed their state constitutions to reject all federal gun control laws and more are working on it. This is absolutely the way to go and we should be working on that in MN. Frankly, I'm disappointed to hear fellow MNers willing to roll over and not want to fight for fear of "what if". Important to note about this bill:

Does not establish national standards for concealed carry.
Does not provide for a national concealed carry permit.
Respects state laws concerning specific types of locations in which firearms may not be carried and types of firearms which may not be carried by the visiting individual.
Protects states’ rights by not mandating the right to concealed carry in places that do not allow the practice, like Washington, D.C.
Does not allow a resident to circumvent their home state’s concealed carry permit laws.
If under current law an individual is prohibited by federal law from carrying a firearm, they will continue to be prohibited from doing so under our bill.

Choose to support it or not, while we are still free people that is your decision to make. I will choose to support it and push for a lot more while we have momentum. Remember, gun laws are unconstitutional...we are fighting to get back the rights that the framers intended to protect.

Happy Friday and Cheers!

View · by **bensdad** on Fri Feb 13, 2015 1:38 pm

Does not establish national standards for concealed carry.

yet

Does not provide for a national concealed carry permit.

yet

Respects state laws concerning specific types of locations in which firearms may not be carried and types of firearms which may not be carried by the visiting individual.

yet

Protects states’ rights by not mandating the right to concealed carry in places that do not allow the practice, like Washington, D.C.

yet

Does not allow a resident to circumvent their home state’s concealed carry permit laws.

yet

If under current law an individual is prohibited by federal law from carrying a firearm, they will continue to be prohibited from doing so under our bill.

By saying, "OUR bill" you've identified yourself as something more than just another poster. Who are you, and why are you here?

You've also described us as, "willing to roll over." If you knew anything about the participants of this forum, you'd realize the mistake and stand down now.
You say you disagree (that the fed will grow its involvement). This statement implies it's an issue that can tolerate opinion. It's not. I'm right. You're wrong. The fed grows. That's all it does. Let me see you get your fingernails to stop growing by force of will, or solemn oath. That's exactly how successful the fed is at NOT growing anything it has its grubby hands in.

View · by **s4oak** on Fri Feb 13, 2015 2:39 pm

bensdad wrote:
Does not establish national standards for concealed carry.
yet
Does not provide for a national concealed carry permit.
yet
Respects state laws concerning specific types of locations in which firearms may not be carried and types of firearms which may not be carried by the visiting individual.
yet
Protects states’ rights by not mandating the right to concealed carry in places that do not allow the practice, like Washington, D.C.
yet
Does not allow a resident to circumvent their home state’s concealed carry permit laws.
yet
If under current law an individual is prohibited by federal law from carrying a firearm, they will continue to be prohibited from doing so under our bill.

Do you have any actual reason for disliking the bill other than the "slippery slope" argument?

Considering the substantial concerns (some of which you touched on) surrounding federal involvement in CCW laws, I'd say this is a pretty damn good bill: https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-con ... /1908/text

I look forward to further analysis, but based on my current understanding, I certainly hope it passes.

View · by **LarryFlew** on Fri Feb 13, 2015 2:53 pm

atomic41 wrote:Does not establish national standards for concealed carry.
Does not provide for a national concealed carry permit.
Respects state laws concerning specific types of locations in which firearms may not be carried and types of firearms which may not be carried by the visiting individual.
Protects states’ rights by not mandating the right to concealed carry in places that do not allow the practice, like Washington, D.C.
Does not allow a resident to circumvent their home state’s concealed carry permit laws.
If under current law an individual is prohibited by federal law from carrying a firearm, they will continue to be prohibited from doing so under our bill.

Then why pass a bill at all if all it does is place a new Federal law on the books that says the states still have control - SO FAR!

BTW anyone at all think POTUS would sign any bill even marginally close to this into law?

View · by **jshuberg** on Fri Feb 13, 2015 3:10 pm

To argue that the FedGov should do anything regarding firearms, is to surrender to the belief that the FedGov has any legitimate role to play at all regarding firearms.

Both the 2nd and 10th amendments *should* prohibit the FedGov from regulating firearms in any significant way. This is the *real* argument we should be making. By petitioning the FedGov to solve what is currently a state-level problem, you are granting it additional power. It's a very bad idea, even if it happens to be helpful in the immediate future. Don't take the bait. It's a trap!!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

View · by **s4oak** on Fri Feb 13, 2015 4:34 pm

Article IV, Section 1:
Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

The Constitution already grants the feds the power to solve inter-state issues of this ilk.

View · by **atomic41** on Fri Feb 13, 2015 4:49 pm

bensdad wrote:
By saying, "OUR bill" you've identified yourself as something more than just another poster. Who are you, and why are you here?

.

LOL, easy there Alex Jones...we're on the same team. It says this because I copied and pasted it from Bearing Arms:

http://bearingarms.com/cornyn-introduce ... ct-senate/

The author pasted that in his blog and I thought it was a good summary. Happy to sit down and have a beer or even go to the range with you if you really want to know who I am and why I'm here. Not meaning any hostility, just engaging in internet discussion on a firearm chat board. I kinda thought that's what these things were for? I also accept that not everyone thinks the same way and I enjoy hearing different opinions because sometimes it makes me see something in a different way.

Cheers