User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 11/11/2011 9:23:14 PM EDT
[#1]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I really, REALLY hope this passes. I live in NY and urging my "representatives" to vote for this is fruitless. This thing would open up a whole new avenue for challenging restrictions on our carry permits. Not to mention that NY CCP is not legal in NYC, which is total bullshit. So when an out-of-stater has an ability to carry concealed in NYC and New York resident doesn't, the current status quo can be challenged. I will be writing my issuing officer to remove all restrictions from my carry permit and give me as much freedom as everyone from a different state is allowed. Please urge your representatives to vote "YES". you may want to read / re-read the bill. State laws still apply to out of state ccw holders The issue in NY is that getting a CCW is damn near impossible even though the law allows for it. This would just mean he could get a out of state permit and carry in his home state as long as he followed NY State law in the mannor in which he is supposed to carry. NY State will deny your permit for anything and you must actually have reason for applying for a CCW. Its like one state requoring a drivers ed course and another not but you can still drive in either state as long as you have a valid license. Its not complicated. I am not going to read it again, but I am fairly certain the law would require recognition of the persons resident home state permit, not a non-resident 3rd party state permit. ie. Fl resident with a florid permit in NY and NY must honor the permit. A FL non-resident permit in NY state held by a NYer does not have to be honored. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/11/2011 9:28:39 PM EDT
[#2]
FOPA is ignored in many states. This bill will be no different.
There is no ruling on carrying as a right, as such there are states that more or less don't issue permits to peons. There are localities that you cannot purchase/possess a pistol. This is just putting the cart before the horse. A political stunt, at best.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/11/2011 9:28:47 PM EDT
[#3]
So if this doesn't pass can we get past the whole LEO can CCW nationwide thing?
I really get tired of it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/11/2011 11:12:52 PM EDT
[#4]
Quoted:
So if this doesn't pass can we get past the whole LEO can CCW nationwide thing? I really get tired of it. Nope. Your support of this is meaningless––––you supported LEOSA because you are LE, and you cannot support non-LE CC reciprocity because you are LE, and therefore oppose expanded carry abilities for anyone else. Unless it is for some nefarious purpose, like this bill, which will, singlehandedly, finally give the federal legislative branch the authority to pass laws imposing gun control. Which they have never before been able to do. Ever. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/11/2011 11:45:01 PM EDT
[#5]
Quoted:
Quoted:
why didn't they do this 2004 when it had a chance of passing the house, senate and potus? they are full of shit is why. Rs only do stuff like this when they know it won't pass but want your vote anyway. Sounds awfully similar to the modus operandi of the NRA......  They tried and it was defeated. Take the tinfoil off and put it in the recycling container 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/12/2011 9:53:01 AM EDT
[#6]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I really, REALLY hope this passes. I live in NY and urging my "representatives" to vote for this is fruitless. This thing would open up a whole new avenue for challenging restrictions on our carry permits. Not to mention that NY CCP is not legal in NYC, which is total bullshit. So when an out-of-stater has an ability to carry concealed in NYC and New York resident doesn't, the current status quo can be challenged. I will be writing my issuing officer to remove all restrictions from my carry permit and give me as much freedom as everyone from a different state is allowed. Please urge your representatives to vote "YES". you may want to read / re-read the bill. State laws still apply to out of state ccw holders The issue in NY is that getting a CCW is damn near impossible even though the law allows for it. This would just mean he could get a out of state permit and carry in his home state as long as he followed NY State law in the mannor in which he is supposed to carry. NY State will deny your permit for anything and you must actually have reason for applying for a CCW. Its like one state requoring a drivers ed course and another not but you can still drive in either state as long as you have a valid license. Its not complicated. I am not going to read it again, but I am fairly certain the law would require recognition of the persons resident home state permit, not a non-resident 3rd party state permit. ie. Fl resident with a florid permit in NY and NY must honor the permit. A FL non-resident permit in NY state held by a NYer does not have to be honored. You are correct. You must have a permit from your residence state, not a "non-resident" permit. Sorry Vermont.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/13/2011 2:24:41 PM EDT
[#7]
Quoted: Quoted: Some times gun owners are our own worst enemy. This, 100%. People who think this opens the door for some kind of federal gun registry or anything more than what the current driver's license system is have no idea what they're talking about and need to take some of the tinfoil out of their hats. Read the bill. Understand the bill. It's a damn good thing for gun owners in this country. It doesn't help that certain gun rights groups are saying the same crap I'm reading in this thread. I don't want an equivalent of a drivers license for firearms. If I need to get a permit and pay a tax to carry a firearm, it is not a right, but a privilege (which is how states already treat drivers licenses). |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/13/2011 2:32:08 PM EDT
[#8]
Quoted:
Slippery slope IMO. While on one hand I would greatly appreciate national reciprocity, it would certainly eliminate some minor problems travelling poses; I do agree that the states should have rule over their CC laws - as much as I may agree or disagree with them. It does seem to be another example of an over-reaching fed.gov. But logic seems to on the side of nat.reciprocity moreso. -JC Why should states have the right to regulate a fundamental right guaranteed in the Constitution? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/13/2011 2:37:54 PM EDT
[#9]
Quoted:
Quoted:
I really really really hope this does not pass. This is pandoras box. Yep, horrible things. Just as bad as allowing driver's licenses be valid in states other than the ones they were issued in, or marriages being honored in states other than the ones they were performed in. That will truly suck. 
Hell, we recognize marriage outside of the country, with some 30yr old to a 16 yr old girl! |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/13/2011 2:46:35 PM EDT
[#10]
ready for disappointment
 |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/13/2011 4:00:42 PM EDT
[#11]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Slippery slope IMO. While on one hand I would greatly appreciate national reciprocity, it would certainly eliminate some minor problems travelling poses; I do agree that the states should have rule over their CC laws - as much as I may agree or disagree with them. It does seem to be another example of an over-reaching fed.gov. But logic seems to on the side of nat.reciprocity moreso. -JC Why should states have the right to regulate a fundamental right guaranteed in the Constitution? They shouldn't, but they already do. Making them accept other state permits is the first step. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/13/2011 5:15:59 PM EDT
[#12]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Slippery slope IMO. While on one hand I would greatly appreciate national reciprocity, it would certainly eliminate some minor problems travelling poses; I do agree that the states should have rule over their CC laws - as much as I may agree or disagree with them. It does seem to be another example of an over-reaching fed.gov. But logic seems to on the side of nat.reciprocity moreso. -JC Why should states have the right to regulate a fundamental right guaranteed in the Constitution? They shouldn't, but they already do. Making them accept other state permits is the first step. Agreed... |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/13/2011 5:55:49 PM EDT
[#13]
Quoted: why didn't they do this 2004 when it had a chance of passing the house, senate and potus? they are full of shit is why. Rs only do stuff like this when they know it won't pass but want your vote anyway. Maybe because the Heller decision didn't affirm the individual right of the 2A until 2008, and the SCOTUS didn't determine it to be an incorporated right until McDonald in 2010? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/13/2011 7:41:02 PM EDT
[#14]
Quoted:
Quoted:
So if this doesn't pass can we get past the whole LEO can CCW nationwide thing? I really get tired of it. Nope. Your support of this is meaningless––––you supported LEOSA because you are LE, and you cannot support non-LE CC reciprocity because you are LE, and therefore oppose expanded carry abilities for anyone else. Unless it is for some nefarious purpose, like this bill, which will, singlehandedly, finally give the federal legislative branch the authority to pass laws imposing gun control. Which they have never before been able to do. Ever. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2011 10:56:39 AM EDT
[#15]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Slippery slope IMO. While on one hand I would greatly appreciate national reciprocity, it would certainly eliminate some minor problems travelling poses; I do agree that the states should have rule over their CC laws - as much as I may agree or disagree with them. It does seem to be another example of an over-reaching fed.gov. But logic seems to on the side of nat.reciprocity moreso. -JC Why should states have the right to regulate a fundamental right guaranteed in the Constitution? In principal I agree wholeheartadly; if the fed.gov could be trusted to act honarably in recognition of the Constitution. But there's the catch. Part of my interpretation of the 2A is that it does grant the citizen the right to CC - and it should apply anywhere, anytime IMO. And I strongly disagree with the states that have legislated against it in violation of the 2A. As much as it's very controversial and a confusing matrix of state laws that already restrict our right, it does provide a system of diversity and choices and therefore safeguards. The possibility of a central, powerful .gov jamming something down the throats of the states that is oppressive is as equally offending as the current laws of some states. It is very possible - if not probable, that the court may not interperet the 2A as necessarilly including CC if posed with the question. If the fed.gov gets more involved with CC it could get worse for some states, possibly better for others. At least now if you don't like it in one state, move. If it were centralized options would cease. Maybe a bit paranoid? Sure. But I'm not so sure I entirely want any federal legislation regarding firearms at all. The bill as I read it seems good. But to me it's still questionable when we get them passing any more laws at all(install half-sarcastic tone here). -JC |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2011 11:02:31 AM EDT
[#16]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Slippery slope IMO. While on one hand I would greatly appreciate national reciprocity, it would certainly eliminate some minor problems travelling poses; I do agree that the states should have rule over their CC laws - as much as I may agree or disagree with them. It does seem to be another example of an over-reaching fed.gov. But logic seems to on the side of nat.reciprocity moreso. -JC Why should states have the right to regulate a fundamental right guaranteed in the Constitution? In principal I agree wholeheartadly; if the fed.gov could be trusted to act honarably in recognition of the Constitution. But there's the catch. Part of my interpretation of the 2A is that it does grant the citizen the right to CC - and it should apply anywhere, anytime IMO. And I strongly disagree with the states that have legislated against it in violation of the 2A. As much as it's very controversial and a confusing matrix of state laws that already restrict our right, it does provide a system of diversity and choices and therefore safeguards. The possibility of a central, powerful .gov jamming something down the throats of the states that is oppressive is as equally offending as the current laws of some states. It is very possible - if not probable, that the court may not interperet the 2A as necessarilly including CC if posed with the question. If the fed.gov gets more involved with CC it could get worse for some states, possibly better for others. At least now if you don't like it in one state, move. If it were centralized options would cease. Maybe a bit paranoid? Sure. But I'm not so sure I entirely want any federal legislation regarding firearms at all. The bill as I read it seems good. But to me it's still questionable when we get them passing any more laws at all(install half-sarcastic tone here). -JC This is a step in the right direction. I don't want states to have the ability to regulate –– but I'd far rather that the feds force them to at least pretend to honor the Constitution than letting states like NY and CA and IL basically completely abrogate the rights guaranteed in the Constitution. Regardless, the feds aren't going to make CCW more difficult. Gun control has pretty much become a 3d rail in politics. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2011 11:30:41 AM EDT
[#17]
Quoted:
Quoted:
I am completely for Carrying where ever I want, and I don't believe that I should be required to get a permit to protect myself. But I do, so I did. On top of that, I believe in states rights, and I think that states should be required to pick and choose what other states they recognize. The reason I say that is because the next step in the sequence is a FEDERAL carry permit. DO NOT WANT. I don't want a federally controlled carry policy. If anything, it needs to be deregulated. Yeah I mean look at that Federal drivers license you have to get to drive your car outside your home state... oh wait. Establishing a Federal Carry Permit would require completely different legislation. Why are people having trouble understanding this? Hmmm...you make a good point... ...Up until I realilze that I don't remember which States are considered "May Issue" (depending on your justification for a car) or "No Issue" (nobody gets a car). I've been against this Bill in the past. ARFcom has changed my mind on how I percieve it, and I support it now: It just doesn't apply to me. I'm not the same kind of Citizen as y'all are, by definition of geography. My particular (x,y) coordinates dictate a lesser citizen status. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/15/2011 9:46:59 AM EDT
[#18]
Bumped.
I believe they vote on this tomorrow. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/15/2011 10:07:25 AM EDT
[#19]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Slippery slope IMO. While on one hand I would greatly appreciate national reciprocity, it would certainly eliminate some minor problems travelling poses; I do agree that the states should have rule over their CC laws - as much as I may agree or disagree with them. It does seem to be another example of an over-reaching fed.gov. But logic seems to on the side of nat.reciprocity moreso. -JC Why should states have the right to regulate a fundamental right guaranteed in the Constitution? You mean like requiring permits for parades? Or enacting noise ordinances? Or conducting searches at state courthouse doors? Regulation of rights is permitted and there are well-established frameworks for determining what is allowed and what is not. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/15/2011 10:28:14 AM EDT
[#20]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I really really really hope this does not pass. This is pandoras box. Yep, horrible things. Just as bad as allowing driver's licenses be valid in states other than the ones they were issued in, or marriages being honored in states other than the ones they were performed in. That will truly suck.
...except that it didn't take congressional action, just an interstate compact, for reciprocity of driver's licenses. The various state AG's, who were so inclined, have already accomplished this. Those states that are not inclined, like NY, won't honor it anyways.
 That picture pretty much says it all Unfortunately, that appears to NOT actually be a legitimate Jefferson quote. (According to monticello.org, it is likely a Gerald Ford quote) |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/15/2011 10:32:11 AM EDT
[#21]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Hopefully it fails. Fuck the Feds messing with State's Rights. The 2nd Amendment is not a State's Rights issue. Thank you. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/15/2011 11:12:57 AM EDT
[#22]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I really really really hope this does not pass. This is pandoras box. Yep, horrible things. Just as bad as allowing driver's licenses be valid in states other than the ones they were issued in, or marriages being honored in states other than the ones they were performed in. That will truly suck. ...except that it didn't take congressional action, just an interstate compact, for reciprocity of driver's licenses. The various state AG's, who were so inclined, have already accomplished this. Those states that are not inclined, like NY, won't honor it anyways. That picture pretty much says it all Unfortunately, that appears to NOT actually be a legitimate Jefferson quote. (According to monticello.org, it is likely a Gerald Ford quote) someone need to update Magpul... and Mark Steyn agrees with you, DK http://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2009&month=04 As Gerald Ford liked to say when trying to ingratiate himself with conservative audiences, "A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take away everything you have." And that's true. But there's an intermediate stage: A government big enough to give you everything you want isn't big enough to get you to give any of it back. That's the position European governments find themselves in. Their citizens have become hooked on unaffordable levels of social programs which in the end will put those countries out of business. Just to get the Social Security debate in perspective, projected public pension liabilities are expected to rise by 2040 to about 6.8% of GDP in the U.S. In Greece, the figure is 25%—i.e., total societal collapse. So what? shrug the voters. Not my problem. I want my benefits. The crisis isn't the lack of money, but the lack of citizens—in the meaningful sense of that word. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
