REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

H.R. 822 National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011

POSTED BY: WULFENSTAR
UPDATED: Monday, September 19, 2011 16:08
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 1211
PAGE 1 of 1

Monday, September 19, 2011 2:05 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg


http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h822/show

I'm on the fence about this one.

Pro:

1. Its ridiculous that I have to disarm when I cross state lines.

2. With more visitors from free-states, places like California, N.Y./N.J and Illinois will become safer.


Con:

1. Its too close to licensing. The right to self defense/tools of self defense should never be at the whim of government.

2. Its another bill that overrides states rights. (Caveat, these states ARE infringing on a Constitutionally guaranteed right, so its a way of correcting their stupidity.)


A bill guaranteeing Constitutional carry across the country might be better.

"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, September 19, 2011 3:30 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Could you please provide some evidence that states with loosed gun control laws are more safe then those with stricter ones.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, September 19, 2011 3:58 AM

KIRKULES


There have been many studies on the effect of concealed carry on crime and as you might suspect the results have been determine by what side of the issue the researchers are on. Because of the controversial nature of the subject I doubt any study in this area would be considered valid by all. One thing that is indisputable is that violent crime has significantly fallen in the US in recent years, what you chose to attribute the fall to will probably be based on your personal biases and not on any facts presented. We all base our opinions on "Lies, damned lies, and statistics" that support our thesis, its human nature.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, September 19, 2011 4:07 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Hello,

This is a terrible law. It essentially empowers the states to create Federal-level legislation, and nullifies the desires of the citizenry in each individual state.

Reciprocity currently exists between willing states, and I would not press it into unwilling states.

If the Supreme Court upholds each states' right to decide the issue of carry for themselves, then it is wrong to use a backdoor to circumvent their will.

This is a battle that must be fought either within each state, or if you truly believe it to be a Constitutional right, then through an appeals process.

And if the Supreme Court says it is not a Constitutional right, then through an amendment process.

Circumventing the will of your neighbors isn't right, even when you get the result you're looking for. Next time, it may be your will that is skirted around.

--Anthony




_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, September 19, 2011 4:24 AM

KIRKULES


Quote:

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Circumventing the will of your neighbors isn't right, even when you get the result you're looking for. Next time, it may be your will that is skirted around.

--Anthony


The summary of the legislation I found seems to indicate that you are incorrect.

Official Summary
2/18/2011--Introduced.National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011 - Amends the federal criminal code to authorize a person who is carrying a government-issued photographic identification document and a valid permit to carry a concealed firearm in one state, and who is not prohibited from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm under federal law, to carry a concealed handgun (other than a machinegun or destructive device) in another state in accordance with the restrictions of that state.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, September 19, 2011 4:30 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Hello,

Then this law would seem to do nothing?

It allows a concealed carrier to boldly carry concealed only where the states allow him to carry concealed, and only within their strictures for doing so?

Wulf represented it differently, my apologies.

What is the law for?

--Anthony



_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, September 19, 2011 4:36 AM

KIRKULES


Sounds to me like the purpose is to require states that allow their own citizens to carry concealed weapons to give non-citizens holding permits the same right.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, September 19, 2011 4:44 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Quote:

Originally posted by Kirkules:
Sounds to me like the purpose is to require states that allow their own citizens to carry concealed weapons to give non-citizens holding permits the same right.



Hello,

So it would violate the restrictions of the state, if the state does not already allow such as part of its current regulations.

But it seems a much lesser infringement.

--Anthony



_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, September 19, 2011 4:54 AM

KIRKULES


Quote:

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Quote:

Originally posted by Kirkules:
Sounds to me like the purpose is to require states that allow their own citizens to carry concealed weapons to give non-citizens holding permits the same right.



Hello,

So it would violate the restrictions of the state, if the state does not already allow such as part of its current regulations.

But it seems a much lesser infringement.

--Anthony


I see no infringement just equal protection. Under the current system permit holders from Florida might be able to carry freely in Kansas while a permit holder from Colorado would be arrested just because reciprocity hasn't been negotiated between the states.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, September 19, 2011 4:56 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg


Essentially it says that if I have a valid permit in Texas, it would be valid everywhere.

It would be a huge blow against gun control. My only issue with it is that I don't like the idea of needing a permit in the first place.

I hope it passes, and then someone realizes that the whole thing is silly and gets rid of the permit process.

But its a step, maybe not EXACTLY in the right direction but sort of diagonally.

"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, September 19, 2011 5:08 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


"I see no infringement just equal protection."

Hello,

If it was an equal protection issue, then it could be handled on that basis in the courts without additional legislation. No, this is forcing reciprocity on states that have not chosen it for themselves. It would be incredibly convenient for me, but I’m not sure that makes it right.

--Anthony


_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, September 19, 2011 5:12 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


“Essentially it says that if I have a valid permit in Texas, it would be valid everywhere. “


Hello Wulf,

The excerpt/brief Kirk quotes suggests otherwise. In any event, if your interpretation is true, it would be an 'end run around the Constitution.' Which I frown upon. If something is a Constitutional right, then that's the way to approach it. If it's a state right, then that's the way to approach it.

You can't frown on the Fed Health Care mandate and then cheer a Fed reciprocity mandate.

--Anthony


_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, September 19, 2011 5:34 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg


Thats the problem. Its not a states rights issue, its a Constitutionally, guaranteed right...

Imagine, if in some states, you needed a permit to stand on a soapbox and speak your mind? To write a letter in your home, to talk on the phone, to buy a book, to listen to certain kinds of music..

Indeed, that is what it would be like if you needed a permit to exercise your Constitutionally guaranteed 1st Amendment freedom.

Imagine also, if you were allowed to read a book in one state, but were jailed if caught with it in another?

"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, September 19, 2011 5:37 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...


I read it to say that if you get a permit in one state then with this bill you can carry in any state, you just have to follow your home state's rules. Really, what's the point of states deciding anything? "It's New York rules in every state."

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, September 19, 2011 5:39 AM

KIRKULES


Quote:

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
If something is a Constitutional right, then that's the way to approach it. If it's a state right, then that's the way to approach it.

You can't frown on the Fed Health Care mandate and then cheer a Fed reciprocity mandate.

--Anthony


If we relied solely on the courts to enforce the Constitution we'd be in pretty bad shape. All in office are sworn to uphold the Constitution and hold equal responsibility for doing so. It's exactly because the issue does involve a Constitutional right that makes Federal intervention appropriate. It's no different than the Feds enforcing civil rights laws in the south.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, September 19, 2011 5:42 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Quote:

Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Thats the problem. Its not a states rights issue, its a Constitutionally, guaranteed right...

Imagine, if in some states, you needed a permit to stand on a soapbox and speak your mind? To write a letter in your home, to talk on the phone, to buy a book, to listen to certain kinds of music..

Indeed, that is what it would be like if you needed a permit to exercise your Constitutionally guaranteed 1st Amendment freedom.

Imagine also, if you were allowed to read a book in one state, but were jailed if caught with it in another?

"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"




Hello Wulf,

Again, if this right is Constitutional, then it needs to be approached on that basis. You only feel the need to create additional legislation (of far less authority than the Constitution) because you don't think a Constitutional appeal will work. If a Liberal were trying to create legislation like this, but addressing an issue you abhor, you'd bite their head off. If it's a Constitutional right, then take it up on that battlefield. If it's NOT a right granted by Constitutional authority, then the Feds have no say in the matter anyhow.

--Anthony


_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, September 19, 2011 5:45 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg


Like I said, Im not exactly in favor of this.

Yet even after 2 rulings by the Supreme Court, places like DC, NY, Chicago, and California refuse to honor the 2nd Amendment.





"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, September 19, 2011 7:03 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


This is exactly like gay marriage. States have reciprocity with respect to marriage licenses ... a marriage license in UT is good in all 50 states. But SOME states issue same-sex marriage licenses. Other states have brought up the idea of eliminating reciprocity towards gay marriage, because they disagree with it. What if the Federal government were to step in and REQUIRE that all states recognize all marriage licenses, regardless of partners' gender?

Then, there is the issue of slavery, the big "states rights" issue. I recall that a war was fought over it. The argument of the South at the time was that they should be able to have slavery, as it was a state's right. The Federal argument could have been that slavery was a Constitutional violation (altho arguments could have been made on both sides).

So, what happens? If a license is issued in one state which is required to be recognized in all 50 states, then one of several things will happen. The first is that law enforcement in ALL states will demand a national database, otherwise they will never know who is duly licensed.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, September 19, 2011 7:10 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg


"Again, if this right is Constitutional, then it needs to be approached on that basis. You only feel the need to create additional legislation (of far less authority than the Constitution) because you don't think a Constitutional appeal will work."

The Constitutional "appeal" has already been made AND won. Yet the places I've mentioned refuse to honor it.

I don't want a national ID card for gun rights. Its a RIGHT, you dont need to sign up for it. Or be tracked.

The whole gun-control argument has been dis-proven. Its time for it to end.

Constitutional carry is the only way to go.

But like I said, this is a step, even a shuffling step, in that direction.

"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, September 19, 2011 11:16 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


If I remember those ruling only disallowed blanket bans, not controls.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, September 19, 2011 11:35 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg


"If I remember those ruling only disallowed blanket bans, not controls."

Of course.

Controls.



"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, September 19, 2011 11:57 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Quote:

Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
"If I remember those ruling only disallowed blanket bans, not controls."

Of course.

Controls.



"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"





Your kind of thick, aren't you?

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, September 19, 2011 3:09 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Thats the problem. Its not a states rights issue, its a Constitutionally, guaranteed right...

Imagine, if in some states, you needed a permit to stand on a soapbox and speak your mind? To write a letter in your home, to talk on the phone, to buy a book, to listen to certain kinds of music..

Indeed, that is what it would be like if you needed a permit to exercise your Constitutionally guaranteed 1st Amendment freedom.

Imagine also, if you were allowed to read a book in one state, but were jailed if caught with it in another?

"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"






Would such reciprocity apply to abortion rights as well?

Imagine if you were allowed in one state to have a procedure that the federal government says is 100% legal, but were jailed if caught doing it in another state!

Maybe we should just do away with states' rights altogether, and have nothing but federal laws, eh? After all, if it's good enough for guns, it should be good enough to cover everything else, right?

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, September 19, 2011 4:08 PM

FREMDFIRMA



Wulfenwhiner...

What they're tryin to TELL your dumb ass, is just how slippery that slope can be, kinda like the one on your head!

You give the feddies power, when you think they're gonna hand it back - oh, yeah, that's right, NEVER!

You don't give them a goddamn thing you don't have to, even if it's not pointed at you, AT THAT MOMENT, doesn't mean it wont ever be, just look how "Zero-Tolerance", a policy anyone in their right mind hated, was directed at kids who had no power to vote against it, and then somehow transmogrified into our current DHS/TSA security bullshit at the airport, yes ?

You never give the damn feds an inch, not no way, not no how, it *WILL* bite you on the ass.

So, is THAT clear enough, you warthog faced buffoon ?

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Well... He was no longer useful to the DNC or the Ukraine Money Laundering Scheme... So justice was served
Thu, March 28, 2024 12:44 - 1 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Thu, March 28, 2024 11:50 - 3410 posts
Elections; 2024
Thu, March 28, 2024 11:18 - 2071 posts
BUILD BACK BETTER!
Thu, March 28, 2024 11:16 - 6 posts
Salon: NBC's Ronna blunder: A failed attempt to appeal to MAGA voters — except they hate her too
Thu, March 28, 2024 07:04 - 1 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, March 28, 2024 05:27 - 6154 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Wed, March 27, 2024 23:21 - 987 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Wed, March 27, 2024 15:03 - 824 posts
NBC News: Behind the scenes, Biden has grown angry and anxious about re-election effort
Wed, March 27, 2024 14:58 - 2 posts
RFK Jr. Destroys His Candidacy With VP Pick?
Wed, March 27, 2024 11:59 - 16 posts
Russia says 60 dead, 145 injured in concert hall raid; Islamic State group claims responsibility
Wed, March 27, 2024 10:57 - 49 posts
Ha. Haha! HAHA! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHA!!!!!!
Tue, March 26, 2024 21:26 - 1 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL