Could it happen? The vid mentions Constitutional Carry as well. 2017 is going to be an exciting year.
Posted 23 December 2016 - 06:46 PM
Could it happen? The vid mentions Constitutional Carry as well. 2017 is going to be an exciting year.
Aspire to be the kind of person your dog thinks you are.
Posted 23 December 2016 - 07:23 PM
Posted 23 December 2016 - 07:40 PM
I'm undecided about this. On its' face it seems great. But....... I don't have to get a license to exercise any other constitutional right across state lines. Why is this one different. We would still be subject to a patch work of restrictions. I'm thinking just get a federal bill passed that has one set of rules and be done with it.
Fast is fine, accurate is final.
Posted 23 December 2016 - 08:29 PM
Posted 23 December 2016 - 10:50 PM
Constitutional carry is what we need. A federal law can be repealed or found unconstitutional, versus a constitutionally recognized right which has a much stronger basis. Also, with the federal government nationalizing CC laws, some states might have to enact stricter laws (I'm looking at you, AZ), while others like IL, will have to lessen theirs. Obviously, the Dems will suddenly find a new-found interest in "states' rights" to oppose such legislation.
Still, national reciprocity would be a big step up from what we have now.
"This life's hard, but it's harder if you're stupid" George Higgins
Posted 24 December 2016 - 12:27 AM
No one is proposing that the federal government "nationalize" concealed carry laws.Also, with the federal government nationalizing CC laws
Posted 24 December 2016 - 12:59 AM
By passing legislation requiring every state to recognize a national standard for CC the federal government will be "nationalizing" CC reciprocity laws, individual states will have no say on the matter. That's the definition of "nationalization" for a law.
"This life's hard, but it's harder if you're stupid" George Higgins
Posted 24 December 2016 - 02:49 AM
There is no "national standard" proposed or included in the bill.By passing legislation requiring every state to recognize a national standard for CC the federal government will be "nationalizing" CC reciprocity laws, individual states will have no say on the matter. That's the definition of "nationalization" for a law.
Posted 24 December 2016 - 02:56 AM
Posted 24 December 2016 - 04:17 AM
For all the paranoid types who think that doing something good means that it will be ok for the government to do something bad in the future, here's a newsflash for you: if there was the political will to do whatever bad thing, they'd do it, they don't need this kind of bill or anything else as a setup.
There is absolutely no harm to come from this, none. It's pure win for gun rights.
You mean like when Obama and both houses were all democrat majorities and Obamacare got rammed through without a single republican vote? Political will is pretty much the same thing as a single leader with a political majority. You'd think living in Illinois would have taught us this by now.
Posted 24 December 2016 - 06:50 AM
I gotta go with Gamma.
I see no evil here as long as it's just universal recognition. We fought for this here in Illinois. remember the Cook County carve out?
Posted 24 December 2016 - 07:21 AM
I would just love to see Illinois get their nose rubbed in it and be forced to allow non-residents to carry. I would rather see us get Con carry and take away their little honey pot of cash that they get from selling us our Rights back.
Aspire to be the kind of person your dog thinks you are.
Posted 24 December 2016 - 07:35 AM
I would just love to see Illinois get their nose rubbed in it and be forced to allow non-residents to carry. I would rather see us get Con carry and take away their little honey pot of cash that they get from selling us our Rights back.
Me, too!
Posted 24 December 2016 - 12:02 PM
No one is proposing that the federal government "nationalize" concealed carry laws.Also, with the federal government nationalizing CC laws
Come on people. Why is simple recognition of licenses of non-residents such a difficult concept to understand?
have to agree with Gamma....... this is simple recognition of licenses across state boundaries... if passed all
licensed carriers will have to obey the individual laws of any state they are in..... also, it is NOT a National license so the
nonsense of the Federal government being able to later take your license to carry away(at least in your individual state)
is a fallacy.
Posted 24 December 2016 - 12:29 PM
Any law can be changed; or in some cases have a limited time period, as in the case of the old assault weapons ban.
I am for the concept of national carry. Laws are usually several paragraphs, even pages, long. What looks like a great bill by title and in paragraph 3 can become severely restrictive in paragraph 12. Then there is the possibility of amendments and riders. I think national carry bills should be approached with cautious optimism, and watched closely.
Posted 24 December 2016 - 12:36 PM
and Hawaii, California, New York, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Oregon, etc. Icing on the cake would be DC.I would just love to see Illinois get their nose rubbed in it and be forced to allow non-residents to carry.
Posted 24 December 2016 - 12:56 PM
Any law can be changed; or in some cases have a limited time period, as in the case of the old assault weapons ban.
I am for the concept of national carry. Laws are usually several paragraphs, even pages, long. What looks like a great bill by title and in paragraph 3 can become severely restrictive in paragraph 12. Then there is the possibility of amendments and riders. I think national carry bills should be approached with cautious optimism, and watched closely.
the bill proposed is NOT a national carry bill........ it is a bill that proposes that states recognize a license to carry issued
by other states..... just like drivers licenses....... no one is proposing a national carry bill where the Federal government would
have the ability to give or take away any rights...... it is simply, a reciprocal agreement.
Also, no one is proposing that states change their individual set of rules.... example; if state A says no carry in a place that serves
alcohol then the carrier must obey that rule in that state regardless of what his home state license allows.
Posted 24 December 2016 - 01:52 PM
and Hawaii, California, New York, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Oregon, etc. Icing on the cake would be DC.I would just love to see Illinois get their nose rubbed in it and be forced to allow non-residents to carry.
Oregon is a shall issue state, though like Illinois they don't recognize any other states CCW . No guns signs have no force of law in Oregon, only places legislated as CPZ's.
Disarming the people (is) the best and most effectual way to enslave them. George Mason
Though defensive violence will always be a sad necessity in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrong doers should dominate just men. - Augustine
Three school masacres have been stopped by civilians with firearms. Two with handguns and the third by a guy with a shotgun. (Pearl, Ms; Appalacian School of Law; Edinboro,Pa)
Posted 24 December 2016 - 03:12 PM
Posted 24 December 2016 - 10:03 PM
I would be happy to not be thrown in jail for having a
n unloaded gun in alocked case in my luggageholster anywhere in the U.S. and territories.
Fixed it for you.
Posted 24 December 2016 - 10:34 PM
Posted 24 December 2016 - 11:21 PM
Any law can be changed; or in some cases have a limited time period, as in the case of the old assault weapons ban.
I am for the concept of national carry. Laws are usually several paragraphs, even pages, long. What looks like a great bill by title and in paragraph 3 can become severely restrictive in paragraph 12. Then there is the possibility of amendments and riders. I think national carry bills should be approached with cautious optimism, and watched closely.
the bill proposed is NOT a national carry bill........ it is a bill that proposes that states recognize a license to carry issued
by other states..... just like drivers licenses....... no one is proposing a national carry bill where the Federal government would
have the ability to give or take away any rights...... it is simply, a reciprocal agreement.
Also, no one is proposing that states change their individual set of rules.... example; if state A says no carry in a place that serves
alcohol then the carrier must obey that rule in that state regardless of what his home state license allows.
I was not referring to any specific bill. In your example, if all states voluntarily recognize reciprocity with all other states, then there is no reason for input by the federal government. If the federal government mandates there be reciprocity among all states, that requires a federal law for enforcement or a Supreme Court decision for enforcement. A Congressional resolution would not accomplish that. Some states recognize only residential licenses of other states. Some of us in Illinois have previously obtained a Florida or Utah CCW before the FCCL passed here. Michigan does not recognize those nonresident licenses held by Illinois residents. I believe a few states may license 18 year olds, other states may not recognize that license until the holder reaches 21.
Posted 25 December 2016 - 02:24 AM
Yes they do, neighboring Indiana being one of them. Missouri issues to 18 year olds in the armed forces, or 19 otherwise.I believe a few states may license 18 year olds, other states may not recognize that license until the holder reaches 21.
Edited by Gamma, 25 December 2016 - 02:27 AM.
Posted 25 December 2016 - 11:24 AM
"We must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately."
-- Benjamin Franklin, 1776
Life Member NRA, ISRA, CCRKBA, GOA, & SAF
Posted 26 December 2016 - 02:29 PM
Posted 29 December 2016 - 08:35 AM
Posted 03 January 2017 - 09:33 PM
http://www.breitbart...e-new-congress/
https://hudson.house...Act of 2017.pdf
NRA Patriot Life Member
ISRA Life Member
GSL
Posted 04 January 2017 - 02:01 PM
GOP Rep Introduces National Concealed Carry Reciprocity On Day One of New Congress
http://www.breitbart...e-new-congress/
https://hudson.house...Act of 2017.pdf
If you read this bill closely, it appears to allow someone to obtain a license from any state (including one that is not your state of residence) and to carry in any other state with that license.
So an Illinois resident could get a Utah or Florida license instead of the Illinois CCL and carry anywhere in the country--including in Illinois. It would allow residents of may-issue states to carry in their own states, too, where they would be otherwise prohibited (here's looking at you, New Jersey).
"a person...
who is carrying a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of a State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm
or
is entitled to carry a concealed firearm in the State in which the person resides...
may possess or carry... in any State that..." (paraphrasing for brevity) issues licenses to its residents or has permitless carry policies in place.
The "or" threw me off on first read, but I believe it separates the clauses "license... pursuant to the law of a State" and the "entitled to carry... in the state in which the person resides." So either condition fulfills the requirement under this law.
In its current form this isn't going to be as easy to pass as some people believe.
Edited by kwc, 04 January 2017 - 02:06 PM.
Posted 04 January 2017 - 02:14 PM
GOP Rep Introduces National Concealed Carry Reciprocity On Day One of New Congress
http://www.breitbart...e-new-congress/
https://hudson.house...Act of 2017.pdf
If you read this bill closely, it appears to allow someone to obtain a license from any state (including one that is not your state of residence) and to carry in any other state with that license.
So an Illinois resident could get a Utah or Florida license instead of the Illinois CCL and carry anywhere in the country--including in Illinois. It would allow residents of may-issue states to carry in their own states, too, where they would be otherwise prohibited (here's looking at you, New Jersey).
"a person...
who is carrying a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of a State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm
or
is entitled to carry a concealed firearm in the State in which the person resides...
may possess or carry... in any State that..." (paraphrasing for brevity) issues licenses to its residents or has permitless carry policies in place.
The "or" threw me off on first read, but I believe it separates the clauses "license... pursuant to the law of a State" and the "entitled to carry... in the state in which the person resides." So either condition fulfills the requirement under this law.
In its current form this isn't going to be as easy to pass as some people believe.
Yes, but as it's currently written makes much more sense than the previous version.
It also includes language that defines a handgun as including the magazine and ammo, essentially removing capacity limits and ammo restrictions.
** Illinois Carry - Supporting Member
** National Association for Gun Rights - Frontline Defender
** Illinois State Rifle Association - 3 year Member
** National Rifle Association - Patron Life Member
Posted 04 January 2017 - 03:13 PM
"permits the person to carry a concealed firearm or is entitled to carry a concealed firearm in the State in which the person resides, "
Basically people in CA would still be screwed since most of them can't get a carry license and CA doesn't accept any other states.
You give peace a chance; I'll cover you if it doesn't work out.
NRA Benefactor Member
Remington Society of America Life Member
Ruger Collectors Association Life Member
Texas Gun Collector Honorary Member
Colt Collectors Association Honorary Member
Ruger Society Honorary Member
etc etc etc
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users