Jump to content


Photo

Good News About National Reciprocity!


  • Please log in to reply
415 replies to this topic

#61 wbear

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 192 posts
  • Joined: 02-February 12

Posted 10 January 2017 - 10:23 AM

Wow, are you me? I'm in the same boat looking at it the same way. The Illinois permit is just too damn expensive. By the time you jump through all the hoop's you've basically wasted the price of a new handgun on training and fees along with blowing 18 hours of your time on a diminishing skill. I'd much rather get the permit cheap and spend the 4 months it takes to get, along with the money saved on range time or gear to actually do it right.

 

 

Yep we are on the same page and I'll bet there are many others who would take advantage if the law ends up allowing it. I waited for IL to get concealed carry for years and had high hopes for a reasonable law but I'm just not going to jump through the hoops, time and expense that I feel are unnecessary. Compared to other states, even the ones surrounding us, IL is taking advantage of it's law abiding citizens and I just can't bring myself to bend over.



#62 TomKoz

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,046 posts
  • Joined: 04-February 10

Posted 11 January 2017 - 10:54 AM

Oh you WILL bend over. For one thing or another, and in one way or another, Madigan will see to it that you bend over!!
Stay Alert ... Stay Alive !!

#63 kwc

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,296 posts
  • Joined: 17-December 13

Posted 12 January 2017 - 07:32 AM

It does not say that states must recognize nonresident permits issued to its own residents of the state.  That would probably be overstepping Federal authority.  ​

 

The bill's sponsor made his intent clear in an interview yesterday. Read this: http://freebeacon.co...-carry-permits/

 

 

“My legislative intent is to ensure a non-resident carry permit is recognized, and I’ve confirmed this with legislative counsel and Judiciary Committee staff,” Hudson said.

 

Many gun owners in states that use a “may issue” permitting process, such as California or New Jersey, are not able to obtain concealed carry permits from their home state—even if they’ve passed a background check and met the training requirements—since the final decision in those states is left at the discretion of government officials. However, those same gun owners may be able to obtain a non-resident permit from a state with different gun laws. Under Hudson’s proposal, that permit would allow them to carry across the country—including in their home state.

 


Edited by kwc, 12 January 2017 - 08:44 AM.

"Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up." - Galations 6:9 (NIV)

"If you can't explain it to a six-year old, you don't understand it yourself." - Albert Einstein (paraphrased)

#64 Quiet Observer

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 817 posts
  • Joined: 20-May 15

Posted 12 January 2017 - 10:08 AM

kwc,

 

Thanks very much for the information :) .  I hope that the language of the bill is amended to specifically state that.  I think that the original language could make one subject to arrest and prosecution in a hostile state.  Even if cleared, there would still be a lot of hassle and time wasted. 

 

If passed, I think that the law will be challenged in court by Attorney's General of several hostile states on the basis of conflicting with states' rights.  I will leave that debate for someone else.  For now, though, things are looking better.



#65 Just some guy

    Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 64 posts
  • Joined: 10-May 16

Posted 12 January 2017 - 10:37 AM

Here's a link to follow the bill (Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017):

https://www.congress...rt=alphaByState


Fast is fine, accurate is final.


#66 kwc

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,296 posts
  • Joined: 17-December 13

Posted 12 January 2017 - 11:11 AM

If passed, I think that the law will be challenged in court by Attorney's General of several hostile states on the basis of conflicting with states' rights. 


Oh, I have no doubt this will be challenged--assuming it passes.
"Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up." - Galations 6:9 (NIV)

"If you can't explain it to a six-year old, you don't understand it yourself." - Albert Einstein (paraphrased)

#67 Quiet Observer

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 817 posts
  • Joined: 20-May 15

Posted 12 January 2017 - 11:53 AM

Here's a link to follow the bill (Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017):

https://www.congress...rt=alphaByState

 

Five co-sponsors, so far, all from Indiana.  It is early; there will be more.


Edited by Quiet Observer, 12 January 2017 - 11:55 AM.


#68 kwc

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,296 posts
  • Joined: 17-December 13

Posted 12 January 2017 - 12:21 PM

 

Here's a link to follow the bill (Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017):

https://www.congress...rt=alphaByState

 

Five co-sponsors, so far, all from Indiana.  It is early; there will be more.

 

 

No, there are 116 co-sponsors.  You need to uncheck "Indiana."


"Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up." - Galations 6:9 (NIV)

"If you can't explain it to a six-year old, you don't understand it yourself." - Albert Einstein (paraphrased)

#69 Quiet Observer

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 817 posts
  • Joined: 20-May 15

Posted 12 January 2017 - 12:29 PM

Thanks,

 

I was going by what I saw posted on the page from the link above.  I was not familiar with the site.

Here is the link without any state checked.  Maybe this will help others new to that site.

 

https://www.congress...avis, Rodney"]}



#70 RoadyRunner

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,794 posts
  • Joined: 03-October 12

Posted 13 January 2017 - 06:06 PM

If passed, I think that the law will be challenged in court by Attorney's General of several hostile states on the basis of conflicting with states' rights. 


Oh, I have no doubt this will be challenged--assuming it passes.
I agree.

However, I'm happy to see my rep has signed onto it... :)

IC Supporting member
NRA life member
NRA certified Basic Pistol Instructor

Illinois Certified Concealed Carry Instructor

 


#71 Gamma

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,248 posts
  • Joined: 29-December 13

Posted 13 January 2017 - 06:22 PM

If passed, I think that the law will be challenged in court by Attorney's General of several hostile states on the basis of conflicting with states' rights.

Oh, I have no doubt this will be challenged--assuming it passes.

Which is why I dislike the carry in home state on a non-res permit part, as I think that will likely fail in the courts and might well bring down the whole thing. Although... did any state litigate against LEOSA? That allowed LEO's to carry in their home states even if their state law or dept policies didn't allow for it... so there is that.

Edited by Gamma, 13 January 2017 - 06:23 PM.

Illinois' FCCA is a prime example of the maxim that sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.

#72 MrTriple

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,831 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 13

Posted 14 January 2017 - 02:27 PM

This will be passed, I guarantee you it will, and possibly be challenged. We're forgetting that with Trump as president the SCOTUS is hopefully going to become more pro-gun in its outlook, and all it'll take is a few good 2A cases and the gun control movement will become obsolete (not an bad thing at all). They might be just smart enough to realize that the next SCOTUS justice that'll need to be replaced will be one of the liberal stalwarts (Ginsberg, Kennedy, or Justice Ice Cream) and that'll permanently shift the court in a pro-gun direction. If that occurs in conjunction with a SCOTUS challenge to a reciprocity law...well, we can predict the outcome.
"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

#73 kwc

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,296 posts
  • Joined: 17-December 13

Posted 14 January 2017 - 02:48 PM

This will be passed, I guarantee you it will, and possibly be challenged.


My prediction--The House will easily pass this bill. But then one of two things will happen:

1. It will flounder until 2018, when the GOP increases its numbers in the Senate, and will be reintroduced in the next Congress; or

2. It will be stripped down to remove some of the controversial provisions, and tacked onto another must-pass and popular bill.

Let's give it a few months and see where this goes.


"Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up." - Galations 6:9 (NIV)

"If you can't explain it to a six-year old, you don't understand it yourself." - Albert Einstein (paraphrased)

#74 kwc

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,296 posts
  • Joined: 17-December 13

Posted 28 January 2017 - 06:16 AM

The Senate Majority Leader has pretty much ruled out the possibility of using the nuclear option to eliminate the 60-vote filibuster rule for SCOTUS appointees. As a result, 60 votes are still required to move forward with SCOTUS confirmations AND to proceed to a vote on all legislative actions in the Senate.

http://thehill.com/h...libuster-change
"Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up." - Galations 6:9 (NIV)

"If you can't explain it to a six-year old, you don't understand it yourself." - Albert Einstein (paraphrased)

#75 lockman

    Member

  • Members
  • 7,613 posts
  • Joined: 07-July 06

Posted 28 January 2017 - 06:47 AM

If the nuclear option is what is required to get the job done he would be a fool not to do it. After all Harry changed the rules. Let's get back to reality, if it only takes 51% to change this rule the 60% limit is illusory. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

"We must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately."
-- Benjamin Franklin, 1776

Life Member NRA, ISRA,  CCRKBA, GOA, & SAF


#76 kwc

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,296 posts
  • Joined: 17-December 13

Posted 28 January 2017 - 08:32 AM

If the nuclear option is what is required to get the job done he would be a fool not to do it. After all Harry changed the rules. Let's get back to reality, if it only takes 51% to change this rule the 60% limit is illusory.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


Reid didn't nuke the filibuster rule for legislative actions, only for non-SCOTUS federal appointments.

McConnell's view is that it takes 67% agreement to change a rule.

Edited by kwc, 28 January 2017 - 08:35 AM.

"Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up." - Galations 6:9 (NIV)

"If you can't explain it to a six-year old, you don't understand it yourself." - Albert Einstein (paraphrased)

#77 C0untZer0

    Contributing Member in Arrears

  • Members
  • 12,428 posts
  • Joined: 14-October 11

Posted 28 January 2017 - 08:49 AM

This will be passed, I guarantee you it will, and possibly be challenged. We're forgetting that with Trump as president the SCOTUS is hopefully going to become more pro-gun in its outlook, and all it'll take is a few good 2A cases and the gun control movement will become obsolete (not an bad thing at all). They might be just smart enough to realize that the next SCOTUS justice that'll need to be replaced will be one of the liberal stalwarts (Ginsberg, Kennedy, or Justice Ice Cream) and that'll permanently shift the court in a pro-gun direction. If that occurs in conjunction with a SCOTUS challenge to a reciprocity law...well, we can predict the outcome. 

 

 

The court could also be be more pro "State's Powers" and rule against it


Mayor Bloomberg himself has recently turned his attention from oversize soft drinks to gun control, confirming the tendency of the Progressive to go from nanny to tyrant.
- N. A. Halkides -
 

 


#78 tkroenlein

    OFFICIAL MEMBER

  • Members
  • 8,295 posts
  • Joined: 12-January 13

Posted 28 January 2017 - 12:52 PM

The Senate Majority Leader has pretty much ruled out the possibility of using the nuclear option to eliminate the 60-vote filibuster rule for SCOTUS appointees. As a result, 60 votes are still required to move forward with SCOTUS confirmations AND to proceed to a vote on all legislative actions in the Senate.
http://thehill.com/h...libuster-change


Good.

#79 MrTriple

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,831 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 13

Posted 28 January 2017 - 02:47 PM

This will be passed, I guarantee you it will, and possibly be challenged. We're forgetting that with Trump as president the SCOTUS is hopefully going to become more pro-gun in its outlook, and all it'll take is a few good 2A cases and the gun control movement will become obsolete (not an bad thing at all). They might be just smart enough to realize that the next SCOTUS justice that'll need to be replaced will be one of the liberal stalwarts (Ginsberg, Kennedy, or Justice Ice Cream) and that'll permanently shift the court in a pro-gun direction. If that occurs in conjunction with a SCOTUS challenge to a reciprocity law...well, we can predict the outcome. 

 
The court could also be be more pro "State's Powers" and rule against it

But state's rights ends when they interfere with our constitutional rights.
"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

#80 soundguy

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 4,744 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 05

Posted 28 January 2017 - 02:50 PM

 

 

This will be passed, I guarantee you it will, and possibly be challenged. We're forgetting that with Trump as president the SCOTUS is hopefully going to become more pro-gun in its outlook, and all it'll take is a few good 2A cases and the gun control movement will become obsolete (not an bad thing at all). They might be just smart enough to realize that the next SCOTUS justice that'll need to be replaced will be one of the liberal stalwarts (Ginsberg, Kennedy, or Justice Ice Cream) and that'll permanently shift the court in a pro-gun direction. If that occurs in conjunction with a SCOTUS challenge to a reciprocity law...well, we can predict the outcome. 

 
The court could also be be more pro "State's Powers" and rule against it

But state's rights ends when they interfere with our constitutional rights.

 

 

States don't have rights.

People do.


Life is a cooperative venture... That's what makes it work.

#81 chislinger

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 5,549 posts
  • Joined: 21-November 13

Posted 28 January 2017 - 04:12 PM

There is no advantage not to invoke the nuclear option, it can only hurt us because the Democrats already said they'd invoke it to push Hillary's picks through when they thought she'd win and they'd have a Senate majority.
"I'm not worried about following the U.S. Constitution." - Washington County, Alabama Judge Nick Williams

#82 kwc

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,296 posts
  • Joined: 17-December 13

Posted 28 January 2017 - 04:33 PM

There's a big difference between (1) nuking the filibuster rules for judicial appointments and (2) nuking the filibuster rules for legislation. IMHO the latter opens up a fresh can of worms for many years to come. If the Democrats take control of the Senate, their legislative agenda would be unstoppable.
"Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up." - Galations 6:9 (NIV)

"If you can't explain it to a six-year old, you don't understand it yourself." - Albert Einstein (paraphrased)

#83 tkroenlein

    OFFICIAL MEMBER

  • Members
  • 8,295 posts
  • Joined: 12-January 13

Posted 28 January 2017 - 10:36 PM

 

 

This will be passed, I guarantee you it will, and possibly be challenged. We're forgetting that with Trump as president the SCOTUS is hopefully going to become more pro-gun in its outlook, and all it'll take is a few good 2A cases and the gun control movement will become obsolete (not an bad thing at all). They might be just smart enough to realize that the next SCOTUS justice that'll need to be replaced will be one of the liberal stalwarts (Ginsberg, Kennedy, or Justice Ice Cream) and that'll permanently shift the court in a pro-gun direction. If that occurs in conjunction with a SCOTUS challenge to a reciprocity law...well, we can predict the outcome. 

 
The court could also be be more pro "State's Powers" and rule against it

But state's rights ends when they interfere with our constitutional rights.
 


 
States don't have rights.
People do.


You get an Amen from me for this.

They have powers.

#84 C0untZer0

    Contributing Member in Arrears

  • Members
  • 12,428 posts
  • Joined: 14-October 11

Posted 29 January 2017 - 09:12 AM

There is no advantage not to invoke the nuclear option, it can only hurt us because the Democrats already said they'd invoke it to push Hillary's picks through when they thought she'd win and they'd have a Senate majority. 

 

 

There is this pattern which the Republicans keep falling into, where they refrain from doing something because they think it will hurt the country - like Nixon refraining from contesting his loss to Kennedy even though Old Man Daley used Chicago-style voter fraud to hand Kennedy the election.  Nixon declined to contest the election because he feared it would create a constitutional crisis, tear the country apart and lead to chaos.   We've seen that Democrats did not follow suit and they don't care one wit about the Constitution.  They only care about getting in power and changing America to their liking, which means twisting the constitution or simply gutting it, as they did in Illinois with their violations of the Second Amendment.

 

Whatever the Republicans refrain from doing now for posterity's sake is exactly what will be shoved down their throats 4 or 8 years from now.


Mayor Bloomberg himself has recently turned his attention from oversize soft drinks to gun control, confirming the tendency of the Progressive to go from nanny to tyrant.
- N. A. Halkides -
 

 


#85 OldMarineVet

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 2,108 posts
  • Joined: 17-August 14

Posted 29 January 2017 - 01:43 PM

 

There is no advantage not to invoke the nuclear option, it can only hurt us because the Democrats already said they'd invoke it to push Hillary's picks through when they thought she'd win and they'd have a Senate majority. 

 

 

There is this pattern which the Republicans keep falling into, where they refrain from doing something because they think it will hurt the country - like Nixon refraining from contesting his loss to Kennedy even though Old Man Daley used Chicago-style voter fraud to hand Kennedy the election.  Nixon declined to contest the election because he feared it would create a constitutional crisis, tear the country apart and lead to chaos.   We've seen that Democrats did not follow suit and they don't care one wit about the Constitution.  They only care about getting in power and changing America to their liking, which means twisting the constitution or simply gutting it, as they did in Illinois with their violations of the Second Amendment.

 

Whatever the Republicans refrain from doing now for posterity's sake is exactly what will be shoved down their throats 4 or 8 years from now.

 

Agreed



#86 spec5

    Nuclear Member

  • Members
  • 4,327 posts
  • Joined: 18-April 09

Posted 30 January 2017 - 02:30 PM

There is no advantage to saying to whether or not you will invoke the nuclear option. Why put your cards on the table? The only plan is to get a good pro second amendment jurist appointed. The other side says they will filibuster and don't even know who they are going to filibuster. Why is it that Senator McConnell has to let us know what he will do other than to say the nominee will get enough votes to be appointed to SCOTUS nuclear option or not.
NRA Member Life Member
ISRA Member
Illinois Carry
Pershing Nuclear Missile 56th Field Artillery Brigade Veteran
1/41 Field Artillary Germany

#87 vern

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 485 posts
  • Joined: 19-April 07

Posted 31 January 2017 - 08:53 AM

Don't know about the rest of you but I am ready for an executive order on the making us all constitutional carry and no force of law for banned places. That's my dream!!

#88 Plinkermostly

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 613 posts
  • Joined: 20-April 13

Posted 31 January 2017 - 10:42 AM

Maybe something unless it is a real assault weapon . . . .



#89 gangrel

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 2,833 posts
  • Joined: 13-April 11

Posted 31 January 2017 - 11:04 AM

Don't know about the rest of you but I am ready for an executive order on the making us all constitutional carry and no force of law for banned places. That's my dream!!

I prefer this be done by some means that would preclude it being undone 4-8 years from now with the stroke of a pen.


NRA Life Member

NRA Certified Range Safety Officer

NRA Certified Instructor - Basic Pistol, PPIH, PPOH, Rifle, Shotgun, Home Firearm Safety
ISP Approved Firearm Concealed Carry Instructor

Utah CCW Instructor


#90 vern

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 485 posts
  • Joined: 19-April 07

Posted 31 January 2017 - 01:44 PM

Of course you are right




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users