Jump to content


Photo

Good News About National Reciprocity!


  • Please log in to reply
411 replies to this topic

#391 chislinger

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 5,472 posts
  • Joined: 21-November 13

Posted 08 December 2017 - 11:20 PM

Holy Christ.  Do you understand how carry laws work now??????
 
Who regulates state's carry laws right now?  
 
Ding ding ding, the state's themselves.  The federal government can't do jack to regulate carry laws across the country today.

You haven't provided any legal reasons whatsoever that they can't do so now, or would suddenly be able to do so if reciprocity were passed.
"I'm not worried about following the U.S. Constitution." - Washington County, Alabama Judge Nick Williams

#392 kevinmcc

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,023 posts
  • Joined: 16-December 12

Posted 08 December 2017 - 11:51 PM

So the "hat tip" to the Commerce Clause in H.R. 38 is phrased as such:
 
     "...a person... may possess or carry a concealed handgun (other than a machinegun or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, in any State that—"
 
Unless I'm mistaken, Congress doesn't technically need to cite a rationale in a bill to justify its legitimacy.
 
What if this phrase was rewritten to read:
 
     "...a person... may possess or carry a concealed handgun (other than a machinegun or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, in any State that—"
 
Would this change anything? Or would you still object on State's rights grounds?


They are trying to go the interstate commerce route, since that is something the feds have as a power in the constitution, although they abuse the original intent which was to prevent tariffs between states. The courts have given them absolute power since the 1930s and the drug war.

If you remove the commerce part, does this violate State's rights? Absolutely if regulation of possessing or carrying of firearms were a power the states have, but they don't. I don't get where DD123 thinks there is this magical police power that allows states to do so. That garbage maybe written in the Illinois constitution, but that does not exist in the US constitution where it matters.

Now my opinion H.R.38 is just as unconstitutional as the FOID and the concealed carry laws. Neither the federal government nor the stats have this power as the 2A does not grant them and explicitly denies them that power.
Life Member, Gun Owners of America
Life Member, NRA
Life Member, Oath Keepers
Life Member, Second Amendment Foundation

#393 TomKoz

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,007 posts
  • Joined: 04-February 10

Posted 09 December 2017 - 12:36 AM

Why doesn’t Congress put forth a Bill that just basically says the 2A protects the rights of citizens to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes. States for too long have been infringing on the People’s Rights. Constitutional Carry for All adult non-felon citizens! Any State or local government official found to violate this Right are subject to Civil Rights criminal and civil prosecution!

Done. Simple. 3 Lines.

The heads of the Left would literally explode!
Stay Alert ... Stay Alive !!

#394 hgmeyer

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 966 posts
  • Joined: 11-July 13

Posted 09 December 2017 - 01:11 AM

Why doesnt Congress put forth a Bill that just basically says the 2A protects the rights of citizens to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes. States for too long have been infringing on the Peoples Rights. Constitutional Carry for All adult non-felon citizens! Any State or local government official found to violate this Right are subject to Civil Rights criminal and civil prosecution!
Done. Simple. 3 Lines.
The heads of the Left would literally explode!


The re am implication of this reasoning scares the daylights out of Congress and courts. I would order up my own fully armed A10....
I've matured enough to where I am like a rodeo bull... If you can hang in there for eight seconds you just might win... But, those eight seconds are gonna be the toughest of your life

#395 kevinmcc

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,023 posts
  • Joined: 16-December 12

Posted 09 December 2017 - 03:18 AM

Why doesn’t Congress put forth a Bill that just basically says the 2A protects the rights of citizens to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes. States for too long have been infringing on the People’s Rights. Constitutional Carry for All adult non-felon citizens! Any State or local government official found to violate this Right are subject to Civil Rights criminal and civil prosecution!

Done. Simple. 3 Lines.

The heads of the Left would literally explode!


Fixed it. The idea that felons loses rights after being freed is bogus. They should only lose their rights when they are incarcerated. If they are too dangerous to be let loose in society with the right to a firearm, then they should remain incarcerated. Radical idea in this state where thugs in Chicago get minimal sentences or probation for what we feel are serious crimes.
Life Member, Gun Owners of America
Life Member, NRA
Life Member, Oath Keepers
Life Member, Second Amendment Foundation

#396 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,379 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 09 December 2017 - 08:11 AM

Why doesnât Congress put forth a Bill that just basically says the 2A protects the rights of citizens to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes. States for too long have been infringing on the Peopleâs Rights. Constitutional Carry for All adult non-felon citizens! Any State or local government official found to violate this Right are subject to Civil Rights criminal and civil prosecution!Done. Simple. 3 Lines.The heads of the Left would literally explode!Fixed it. The idea that felons loses rights after being freed is bogus. They should only lose their rights when they are incarcerated. If they are too dangerous to be let loose in society with the right to a firearm, then they should remain incarcerated. Radical idea in this state where thugs in Chicago get minimal sentences or probation for what we feel are serious crimes.

Congress could not legislate a Second Amendment interpretation. It would need to be an Amendment. Or a Supreme Court decision. We can only dodge the Commerce Clause on this issue if there is a "clarification" as to the right to carry. Either by constitutional amendment or nationwide decree by SCOTUS.

Agreed. If someone is too dangerous to be "allowed" to touch a firearm, that person is not fit for society. The stories I hear about convicted felons who turn their lives around, keep their noses clean for decades, go to try to get their gun rights restored and the government says "Too bad, you shouldn't have done that when you were 15." It's funny how the government says "Minors don't know what they're doing so we can't imprison them for life or execute them" but they do know why they're doing for purposes of gun ownership. Can't have it both ways.

We teach that once someone's punishment is complete (either released from prison, parole completed, probation/court supervision completed, or citation paid), that person has paid his or her debt to society. But that isn't the case. The felon pays a lifetime debt in the form of lifetime suspension of a protected right to keep and bear arms (for purposes of self-defense). The DUI offender in Massachusetts pays for life, lifetime bar on gun ownership because the punishment exceeds 2 years incarceration. I believe the blanket felon ban is unconstitutional on its face. It is constitutional on a case-by-case basis, as applied. Someone who burglarized a home when a homeowner wasn't home and took $50 is not the same as the felon who rapes multiple women, shoots people, robs at gunpoint, or conducts home invasion, but federal law treats them exactly the same for purposes of gun ownership. Sigh.

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

Edited by skinnyb82, 09 December 2017 - 08:12 AM.

NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#397 OldMarineVet

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 2,083 posts
  • Joined: 17-August 14

Posted 09 December 2017 - 08:31 AM

I find it interesting that in spite of working for years to secure our own civil right to the RKBA,
we work with people that seem like they might be interested in removal or denial of the rights of others, some of whom may be our allies in the fight for the RKBA.
 
If you look at the GOP and the Dems as a whole, you will find that each group has a significant percentage that would like to take away the civil rights of a perceived significant percentage of the other party.  This is what sustains the "us vs them" strife.
 
US Constitution:  Over its history,  there can be seen numerous amendments ratified (adopted) to guarantee or increase the rights of people, and just one to decrease the rights of the people. That one was for the prohibition of alcohol, and was itself amended away.  There are 6 unratified amendments, including the Equal Rights (on the basis of sex) Amendment (ERA).

You said "If you look at the GOP and the Dems as a whole, you will find that each group has a significant percentage that would like to take away the civil rights of a perceived significant percentage of the other party. This is what sustains the "us vs them" strife."

Agreed. I call them Nannies... want to control how we live...time in memorial. And yes, they are Republicans and Democrats. Anti-Constitution no matter how they dress it.

Edited by OldMarineVet, 09 December 2017 - 08:32 AM.


#398 chicagoresident

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 217 posts
  • Joined: 19-January 16

Posted 09 December 2017 - 10:09 AM

I find it interesting that in spite of working for years to secure our own civil right to the RKBA,we work with people that seem like they might be interested in removal or denial of the rights of others, some of whom may be our allies in the fight for the RKBA. If you look at the GOP and the Dems as a whole, you will find that each group has a significant percentage that would like to take away the civil rights of a perceived significant percentage of the other party.  This is what sustains the "us vs them" strife. US Constitution:  Over its history,  there can be seen numerous amendments ratified (adopted) to guarantee or increase the rights of people, and just one to decrease the rights of the people. That one was for the prohibition of alcohol, and was itself amended away.  There are 6 unratified amendments, including the Equal Rights (on the basis of sex) Amendment (ERA).

You said "If you look at the GOP and the Dems as a whole, you will find that each group has a significant percentage that would like to take away the civil rights of a perceived significant percentage of the other party. This is what sustains the "us vs them" strife."Agreed. I call them Nannies... want to control how we live...time in memorial. And yes, they are Republicans and Democrats. Anti-Constitution no matter how they dress it.
Exactly, Muslim trucker refuses to deliver beer because of his religion he gets a payout and the Obama administration lined up to sing their own praises while certain people on the right howled.

Hardcore Christian reuses to make a custom cake for a gay couple? OMG, if you support the baker's stance or agree with Mike Pence's Religious Freedom act your obviously a biggot.

In the case of the baker and the Muslim truck driver they both have a right to have their religious beliefs honored under the 1st amendment.

It's that same stupid thing I believe in the xx ammendment but...

The bill of rights applies to everyone, not just a select few. That's what these activist Supreme Court judges want to do, provide carveouts for the bill of rights. It's sickening.

Edited by chicagoresident, 09 December 2017 - 10:22 AM.


#399 OldMarineVet

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 2,083 posts
  • Joined: 17-August 14

Posted 09 December 2017 - 10:29 AM

Why is it a States right? Seems to me that the 2nd Amendment preempts the States (“Shall not be infringed”). Arguably, *all* States Laws on the matter are unconstitutional. It’s a power the Federal Government has, and that power is limited to preserving the right, not infringing it. States have been infringing for generations.

RoadyRunner, yes. As I remember it was a Federal Court challenge (based on 2A, McDonald, etc) which forced Illinois to either develop a concealed carry program by a certain date or essentially constitutional concealed carry would be in effect. Legislators crafted the program and Governor vetoed it! Legislators overrode the veto. But if it wasn't for that Federal challenge, we might still be the only State without any kind of concealed carry.

DD said "And with regard to everyone talking about the NRA, weren't you all saying F the NRA a month and a half ago?"

Not I, sir. And I question your prediction of the NRA's motives here. In either case, I learned lot from your posts. But once all opinions have been aired, I do believe "United we stand, divided we fall."

Edited by OldMarineVet, 09 December 2017 - 10:34 AM.


#400 OldMarineVet

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 2,083 posts
  • Joined: 17-August 14

Posted 09 December 2017 - 10:42 AM

I find it interesting that in spite of working for years to secure our own civil right to the RKBA,we work with people that seem like they might be interested in removal or denial of the rights of others, some of whom may be our allies in the fight for the RKBA. If you look at the GOP and the Dems as a whole, you will find that each group has a significant percentage that would like to take away the civil rights of a perceived significant percentage of the other party.  This is what sustains the "us vs them" strife. US Constitution:  Over its history,  there can be seen numerous amendments ratified (adopted) to guarantee or increase the rights of people, and just one to decrease the rights of the people. That one was for the prohibition of alcohol, and was itself amended away.  There are 6 unratified amendments, including the Equal Rights (on the basis of sex) Amendment (ERA).

You said "If you look at the GOP and the Dems as a whole, you will find that each group has a significant percentage that would like to take away the civil rights of a perceived significant percentage of the other party. This is what sustains the "us vs them" strife."Agreed. I call them Nannies... want to control how we live...time in memorial. And yes, they are Republicans and Democrats. Anti-Constitution no matter how they dress it.

Exactly, Muslim trucker refuses to deliver beer because of his religion he gets a payout and the Obama administration lined up to sing their own praises while certain people on the right howled.

Hardcore Christian reuses to make a custom cake for a gay couple? OMG, if you support the baker's stance or agree with Mike Pence's Religious Freedom act your obviously a biggot.

In the case of the baker and the Muslim truck driver they both have a right to have their religious beliefs honored under the 1st amendment.

It's that same stupid thing I believe in the xx ammendment but...

The bill of rights applies to everyone, not just a select few. That's what these activist Supreme Court judges want to do, provide carveouts for the bill of rights. It's sickening.

You misunderstand my point and I disagree with most of what you said.

Edited by OldMarineVet, 09 December 2017 - 10:43 AM.


#401 chicagoresident

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 217 posts
  • Joined: 19-January 16

Posted 09 December 2017 - 10:53 AM

So you think that the bill of rights should be selectively applied? Doesn't that contradict exactly what you said? Or are you just disagreeing to disagree?

I'll assume you probably didn't comprehend what I wrote again.

Edited by chicagoresident, 09 December 2017 - 11:04 AM.


#402 OldMarineVet

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 2,083 posts
  • Joined: 17-August 14

Posted 09 December 2017 - 12:53 PM

So you think that the bill of rights should be selectively applied? Doesn't that contradict exactly what you said? Or are you just disagreeing to disagree?

I'll assume you probably didn't comprehend what I wrote again.

If it's like news stories I read, I'm guessing the two situations are different:

 

1) the trucker is an employee of a private business (i.e. reports to management) 

2) the baker is the owner of a private business (i.e. is management)


Edited by OldMarineVet, 09 December 2017 - 12:54 PM.


#403 chicagoresident

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 217 posts
  • Joined: 19-January 16

Posted 09 December 2017 - 01:26 PM

So you think that the bill of rights should be selectively applied? Doesn't that contradict exactly what you said? Or are you just disagreeing to disagree?
I'll assume you probably didn't comprehend what I wrote again.

If it's like news stories I read, I'm guessing the two situations are different:
 
1) the trucker is an employee of a private business (i.e. reports to management) 
2) the baker is the owner of a private business (i.e. is management)
Let's break this down
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion-preferential treatment to one religion over another-a Muslim employee got preferential treatment over a Christian owner

or prohibiting the free exercise thereof-congress cannot pass laws that force people to conform to someone else's beliefs

or abridging the freedom of speech-the liberal line "I believe in the 1st ammendment but"

or of the press (or anyone else for that matter) -libel and slander lawsuits are out of control on the right and left, used as a tool to oppress freedom of speech


or the right of the people peaceably to assemble-yes, even if Nazis want to peacefully protest they have a right. If "antifa" wants to violently protest or Nazis want to run people over then "Antifa" and the Nazis lose that right. Which is exactly what Trump meant by both sides were responsible.

petition the government for a redress of grievances-go ahead and say how much you hate the government, the government shouldn't use the patriot act, the IRS, the NSA, etc. to take that right away.

I won't debate you on employee VS. owner, but I'll agree to disagree, under the civil rights act of 1964 (it's complicated). That wasn't my point. My point is certain factions on the right and mostly left try to get carve outs on the constitution.

Edited by chicagoresident, 09 December 2017 - 01:38 PM.


#404 Grayhawk

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 203 posts
  • Joined: 07-August 12

Posted 09 December 2017 - 02:57 PM

     "...a person... may possess or carry a concealed handgun (other than a machinegun or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, in any State that—"

 

Gee, I guess if this is enacted I won't be able to conceal carry my homemade pistol - you know, the one with no serial number or registration........... 


Grayhawk

IL, FL, AZ, UT CCL

GOES Trusted Traveler, Commercial Pilot

Member: ISRA, GOA, NRA, GSL, USCCA, Legal Defense Network, IL Carry

Graduate Citizens Police Academy - Oak Brook PD and DuPage County Sheriff;  DuPage CERT

Member: American Motorcycle Assn, AARP, AMAC

 


#405 mikew

    Member

  • Members
  • 4,014 posts
  • Joined: 17-December 04

Posted 09 December 2017 - 03:48 PM

Holy Smokes with the muslim truckers, I had not seen that one.
It's not like they had to drink it...

And there was a Muslim waitress or stewardess case tossed out before, but she converted  religion after she landed the job..

 

 

The Christian Cake Baker,  on the other hand is going to prove to be an interesting case.



#406 Gamma

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,231 posts
  • Joined: 29-December 13

Posted 09 December 2017 - 03:50 PM

Homemade things are included in the interstate commerce clause, SCOTUS said so.
Illinois' FCCA is a prime example of the maxim that sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.

#407 RANDY

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 561 posts
  • Joined: 07-July 07

Posted 09 December 2017 - 06:29 PM

 

I find it interesting that in spite of working for years to secure our own civil right to the RKBA,
we work with people that seem like they might be interested in removal or denial of the rights of others, some of whom may be our allies in the fight for the RKBA.
 
If you look at the GOP and the Dems as a whole, you will find that each group has a significant percentage that would like to take away the civil rights of a perceived significant percentage of the other party.  This is what sustains the "us vs them" strife.
 
US Constitution:  Over its history,  there can be seen numerous amendments ratified (adopted) to guarantee or increase the rights of people, and just one to decrease the rights of the people. That one was for the prohibition of alcohol, and was itself amended away.  There are 6 unratified amendments, including the Equal Rights (on the basis of sex) Amendment (ERA).

You said "If you look at the GOP and the Dems as a whole, you will find that each group has a significant percentage that would like to take away the civil rights of a perceived significant percentage of the other party. This is what sustains the "us vs them" strife."

Agreed. I call them Nannies... want to control how we live...time in memorial. And yes, they are Republicans and Democrats. Anti-Constitution no matter how they dress it.

 

I refer to them as elected terrorist.


One persons paranoia is another persons situational awareness.

Fastest way to end violence is to ban Democrats. 


#408 chicagoresident

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 217 posts
  • Joined: 19-January 16

Posted 09 December 2017 - 11:01 PM

Holy Smokes with the muslim truckers, I had not seen that one.
It's not like they had to drink it...
And there was a Muslim waitress or stewardess case tossed out before, but she converted  religion after she landed the job..
 
 
The Christian Cake Baker,  on the other hand is going to prove to be an interesting case.

It's the same protection a handful of states are giving pharmacists for plan B and birth control.

It's complicated, but I don't think it's a bad thing as long as it's applied equally. And just like the ADA wouldn't cover a quadrapalegic applying for a job as a fireman you could probably apply the same standard to an anti abortion doctor applying at a planned parenthood clinic or a conservative Muslim applying at a pork and beer BBQ joint. Everything in between is a legal battleground.

For a hypothetical case of a Muslim truck driver refusing to deliver sacramental wine I think the courts should rule on the side of the refuser, not the person in need of the service. Because forcing someone to do something against their beliefs is a lot worse then being refused a service. Since in a free market in this day and age there are plenty of people willing to perform the same service. But we'll see what the Supreme Court has to say on that.

It's all just another example of states applying differently and ruling differently on the same bill of rights post 14th ammendment.

Edited by chicagoresident, 09 December 2017 - 11:02 PM.


#409 MrTriple

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,800 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 13

Posted 12 December 2017 - 05:09 PM

I have to take issue with a lot of the comments here.

First, I doubt there'll be a lawsuit. The gun control movement knows that if this winds up before the Supreme Court, it'll likely be after Kennedy retires and the court has a pro-gun majority. They won't file a lawsuit because they know they'll lose that lawsuit, and therefore set a nationwide precedent that'll permanently enshrine may-issue as unconstitutional.

Second, if this passes, it won't later be repealed. Like with the federal assault weapons ban, that ship has long since sailed. The Democrats know this, the gun control movement knows this, and their hope for a renewed ban is naive. The ones in the know will privately acknowledge this fact, but never openly state this in front of their clueless supporters. Gotta keep those donations flowing in. That's why they're so panicked about this bill: it'll simultaneously disembowel every may-issue law in the nation, while also rendering moot all local or state magazine restrictions and ammo restrictions (New Jersey hollow point ban). They know there's no coming back from this, hence the mad panic. This will be a permanent setback.

Remember: every time you make it easier to buy, own, or carry guns, more people will do so. And the more people who do so, the greater the level of resistance to gun control. It's all exponential. This is why the gun control movement has been absolutely crushed at the state level here in the United States, and why their movement will continue to fade.

Third, I strongly, AGGRESSIVELY disagree with those who say the courts will never protect the 2nd amendment.

This is a lie. The courts are rapidly being filled with Trump appointees, the most of any modern president, and Kennedy's likely to retire by the end of the session, if not sooner. The courts will be flipped, and they will turn in out favor. Why else did the gun control movement BEG Washington DC to not appeal their concealed carry case to the Supreme Court? That was a classic "take one for the team!" move. They cannot afford having the courts rule in favor of shall-issue.

The gun control movement will go extinct, and they will ABSOLUTELY become the next Prohibition movement.

Reciprocity will help guarantee that.
"The point of [so-called "assault weapon" bans]...is not to ban firearms that are dangerous, it's to ban firearms that gun owners want to own because the people making the laws don't like gun owners. If we want to buy non-semiauto AR-style rifles, they'll ban those too, and for the same reason."

-Hapless

#410 MrTriple

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,800 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 13

Posted 12 December 2017 - 05:22 PM

What people are missing here is that unless the courts strike it down, the only thing that derails it is Congress. Can anyone see the Dems trying to make that play after the law has been in place for several years?

yes, I can see Biden, Warren, Pelosi, Schumer, Harris, Durbin, Clinton, or Feinstein running for office with it on their platform as a major talking point.

As a TALKING POINT, yes, but as I mentioned in my longer post, they know that once that ship has sailed, it's gone. Harry Reid forbade Diane Feinstein or Barbara Boxer (forget which) from introducing a new federal assault weapons ban in the wake of Sandy Hook precisely because he knew it was political suicide.

If reciprocity passes, that's it, it's done. They know this, and so should we.
"The point of [so-called "assault weapon" bans]...is not to ban firearms that are dangerous, it's to ban firearms that gun owners want to own because the people making the laws don't like gun owners. If we want to buy non-semiauto AR-style rifles, they'll ban those too, and for the same reason."

-Hapless

#411 gearsmithy

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 765 posts
  • Joined: 23-May 13

Posted 12 December 2017 - 07:08 PM

Do we have an idea if/when this will work it's way through the Senate?



#412 RoadyRunner

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,774 posts
  • Joined: 03-October 12

Posted 12 December 2017 - 10:03 PM

Do we have an idea if/when this will work it's way through the Senate?


Hopefully before the end of the year, since the Rs just lost a seat....

IC Supporting member
NRA life member
NRA certified Basic Pistol Instructor

Illinois Certified Concealed Carry Instructor

 





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users