Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act

Firearms related political discussion forum

Re: Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act

Postby LarryFlew on Fri Feb 13, 2015 4:49 pm

s4oak wrote: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.


And again - then WHY pass any new laws to give the Fed any more power??

BTW Atomic make mine a Blue Moon and deliver to AZ or wait until April when I'm back.
If you're having second thoughts you're two ahead of most Democrats
User avatar
LarryFlew
 
Posts: 5145 [View]
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Hamburg, MN - CZ fan - Class of 66 - USAF 66-70 - NRA life since 1970

Re: Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act

Postby atomic41 on Fri Feb 13, 2015 5:07 pm

LarryFlew wrote:
s4oak wrote:

BTW Atomic make mine a Blue Moon and deliver to AZ or wait until April when I'm back.



It's a deal! Well, when you get back anyway...look me up, first round is on me.
atomic41
 
Posts: 453 [View]
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2015 7:24 pm

Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act

Postby BBeckwith on Fri Feb 13, 2015 5:34 pm

atomic41 wrote:
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.

Cheers


It would be appropriate then to show that whole block of text as a quote and attribute it as such.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The IQ of a mob is the IQ of its dumbest member, divided by the number of people in it.
User avatar
BBeckwith
 
Posts: 1082 [View]
Joined: Sat Sep 19, 2009 10:33 am

Re: Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act

Postby bensdad on Sat Feb 14, 2015 2:03 am

atomic41,
You need to learn how to engage in courteous discourse. You've proven yourself to be rude and condescending. You go on the ignore list. This reciprocity act, on the other hand, has my attention. Hope you got what you came for. ;)
I got nothin'
bensdad
 
Posts: 2113 [View]
Joined: Wed Jul 23, 2008 3:07 pm
Location: Lakeville

Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act

Postby PhilaBOR on Sat Feb 14, 2015 7:39 am

I read the entire bill. I want reciprocity. I'm willing to take the chance on mission creep because this is a huge win for travel and the residents of non-permissive areas. There's no doubt in my mind the bill will require a veto override to become law.
Oh and BTW, I think NFA and GCA should be repealed, as they infringe the RKBA. But I think this bill is a lot more likely to pass than that ever happening.
"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations..."
User avatar
PhilaBOR
 
Posts: 601 [View]
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 8:19 am
Location: SW Suburbs

Re: Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act

Postby spyder357 on Sat Feb 14, 2015 2:54 pm

Sign me up also in support of this bill, I travel a fair amount to WI, Indiana, MI and it drives me nuts to have to case my firearm going through the democratic peoples republic of Illinois.
spyder357
 
Posts: 31 [View]
Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2013 10:23 am

Re: Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act

Postby LarryFlew on Sat Feb 14, 2015 4:43 pm

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.
If you're having second thoughts you're two ahead of most Democrats
User avatar
LarryFlew
 
Posts: 5145 [View]
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Hamburg, MN - CZ fan - Class of 66 - USAF 66-70 - NRA life since 1970

Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act

Postby PhilaBOR on Wed Feb 18, 2015 5:15 am

LarryFlew 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.

Ummmm, actually DC has a conceal carry law, after they lost in SCOTUS. It's a horrible may issue law and SAF is going back for round two but they have a law on the books. And national reciprocity would blow open their may issue.
Unfortunately national reciprocity doesn't fix the bad carry laws in non-permissive states (look up Illinois prohibited areas), but as was discussed above we probably don't want that.
"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations..."
User avatar
PhilaBOR
 
Posts: 601 [View]
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 8:19 am
Location: SW Suburbs

Re: Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act

Postby Rip Van Winkle on Wed Feb 18, 2015 7:03 am

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

Can someone explain to me how the Feds would be "protecting states rights" by forcing states to except others permits against their wishes?
I will never apologize for being an American.
Post 435 Gun Club
North Star Rifle Club
cmpofficer@post435gunclub.org
DR #2673
President's Hundred (#48 2018)
Certified NRA RSO
User avatar
Rip Van Winkle
 
Posts: 4232 [View]
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2007 5:04 pm
Location: Unfashionable end of the western spiral arm, Galaxy Milky Way

Re: Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act

Postby bstrawse on Wed Feb 18, 2015 7:29 am

atomic41 wrote: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.


Said laws have not, and will not, pass constitutional muster in the courts.
Chair, Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus & Minnesota Gun Owners Political Action Committee - Join the Caucus TODAY
MN Permit to Carry Instructor| NRA Instructor | NRA Chief Range Safety Officer | Twitter | Facebook
User avatar
bstrawse
Moderator
 
Posts: 4223 [View]
Joined: Thu Apr 16, 2009 11:45 am
Location: Roseville, MN

Re: Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act

Postby Ghost on Wed Feb 18, 2015 7:30 am

Be better off to just keep growing the number of constitutional carry states.
User avatar
Ghost
 
Posts: 8246 [View]
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 8:49 pm

Re: Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act

Postby bstrawse on Wed Feb 18, 2015 7:33 am

jshuberg wrote: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!!


I agree with you on this, of course, but I think that ship has sailed from a court perspective as the Supreme Court has ruled on a number of firearms related issues related to federal law already.
Chair, Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus & Minnesota Gun Owners Political Action Committee - Join the Caucus TODAY
MN Permit to Carry Instructor| NRA Instructor | NRA Chief Range Safety Officer | Twitter | Facebook
User avatar
bstrawse
Moderator
 
Posts: 4223 [View]
Joined: Thu Apr 16, 2009 11:45 am
Location: Roseville, MN

Re: Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act

Postby atomic41 on Wed Feb 18, 2015 7:48 am

bstrawse wrote:
atomic41 wrote: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.


Said laws have not, and will not, pass constitutional muster in the courts.



Are you talking about federal courts? I would appreciate your perspective on this since you are more politically educated/aware of these issues. Let's use Missouri as an example, what did they gain (if anything) in their state constitutional changes? Are we not considering this in MN? Are these measures viewed as purely symbolic and not worth the time?

Thanks!
atomic41
 
Posts: 453 [View]
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2015 7:24 pm

Re: Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act

Postby bstrawse on Wed Feb 18, 2015 9:33 am

atomic41 wrote:
bstrawse wrote:
atomic41 wrote: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.


Said laws have not, and will not, pass constitutional muster in the courts.



Are you talking about federal courts? I would appreciate your perspective on this since you are more politically educated/aware of these issues. Let's use Missouri as an example, what did they gain (if anything) in their state constitutional changes? Are we not considering this in MN? Are these measures viewed as purely symbolic and not worth the time?

Thanks!


The idea that a state could pass a law or amendment to the state constitution that would prohibit the federal government from involving themselves in an area is purely symbolic. The whole idea of federal nullification died with the civil war -- it's never been upheld by the courts (the federal courts) as valid.

I agree, in theory, that an item created entirely with in a state should not be subject to federal law in terms of the commerce clause - but the courts view this quite differently.

It hasn't been a legislative priority in Minnesota because it's unlikely to pass with the current makeup, has mostly symbolic value, and would require significant resource commitment that could be better spent on other priorities.

Now, a constitutional amendment, like Missouri's, that calls for strict scrutiny - strongly establishes a state level right to keep and bear arms... those are valuable. I am all for it -- and you'll see that as a legislative priority for the MN Gun Owners PAC in 2015 - and GOCRA as well.

Keep in mind that amending the MN constitution is difficult - we have to get the amendment through the legislature, then place on the ballot - and then engage in a year-long plus public fight to get that ballot passed for the amendment. We'll need to raise $1M - $2M to do this effectively. But it's something we need to do.

Sorry for the long-winded answer, hope this helps -
B
Chair, Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus & Minnesota Gun Owners Political Action Committee - Join the Caucus TODAY
MN Permit to Carry Instructor| NRA Instructor | NRA Chief Range Safety Officer | Twitter | Facebook
User avatar
bstrawse
Moderator
 
Posts: 4223 [View]
Joined: Thu Apr 16, 2009 11:45 am
Location: Roseville, MN

Re: Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act

Postby s4oak on Wed Feb 18, 2015 10:23 am

bstrawse wrote:The idea that a state could pass a law or amendment to the state constitution that would prohibit the federal government from involving themselves in an area is purely symbolic. The whole idea of federal nullification died with the civil war -- it's never been upheld by the courts (the federal courts) as valid.


Some of the laws are written in such a way that they just prohibit state authorities from enforcing certain federal laws. They don't attempt to inhibit federal agencies' enforcement of the laws or otherwise nullify them. I don't have a good knowledge of case law surrounding a situation like that, but it seems like such a strategy might survive a court examination.

I'm thinking in particular of a bill currently in AZ: http://toprightnews.com/?p=8298
    
User avatar
s4oak
 
Posts: 84 [View]
Joined: Thu Jul 25, 2013 9:08 am
Location: Minneapolis

PreviousNext

Return to Politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

cron