You are Unregistered, please register to use all of the features of!    
Firearm & Gun Forum - > General Firearms Forums > Legal and Activism >

National right to carry

LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-20-2011, 02:29 PM   #31
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 6,973
Liked 1307 Times on 665 Posts
Likes Given: 151


Originally Posted by ArizonaLawman View Post
Somebody grab a fire extinguisher and have fire-ems stand by...I KNOW I am about to get flamed here....

First, let me say that I am totally PRO carry. Totally PRO 2A. Totally PRO reciprocity, though my permit is good under HR218 LEOSA anyway...but I feel yours shold be too.

Now for the BUT and pre-flame....

What about state's rights?

If a state, by vote of it's people, and by "people" I mean their elected prepresentatives do not want to grant reciprocity...what gives the fedgod the right to trample further upon the rights of that state?????

I mean we all talk on this site about state's rights, and the fed pissing on those rights...though this IS to our it not the same thing?

Flame away....
Nope, you're completely right.

But the irony is it's the Fed that is stepping on the rights of states that are stepping on the rights of individuals.

Of all courts, the 9th Circuit incorporated 2A against the states in Nordyke v. King, April 2009. But the 9th Circuit court is the most overturned court in the nation. To my knowledge, though, this ruling has not been overturned.

Unless and until the SCOTUS rules definitively and completely on 2A, there will be games like this. What's a shame is we look to the SCOTUS as the supreme arbiter of whether or not we have rights. That's mighty concerning by itself.
bkt is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2011, 07:48 PM   #32
Lifetime Supporting Member
Feedback Score: 1 reviews
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Santa Cruz Mountains,CA
Posts: 14,922
Liked 9107 Times on 5290 Posts
Likes Given: 11970


Originally Posted by bkt View Post
it's the Fed that is stepping on the rights of states that are stepping on the rights of individuals.
That's the meat of it right there. Virtually all gun laws are restricting the rights of the individual, whether it be at the state or federal level.
Vikingdad is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-28-2011, 07:51 PM   #33
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
KalashnikovJosh's Avatar
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,156
Liked 320 Times on 191 Posts
Likes Given: 426


Actually,BKT,the CORRECT use of the supremacy clause is that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are to be the supreme law of the land.And not the stupidity coming from DC about any and all laws it makes are supreme.Such are ONLY supreme when made in accordance with the powers granted it by the Highest Law.

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."
-Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution,"the Supremacy Clause"

Please also note where the states are bound thereby.The Constitution is the Highest Law,the federal government,"as limited by the plain sense and intention"(Madison) of the Constitution may make laws ONLY in accord with its limitations,and while the states are not bound as such,they most certainly are bound to obey the Constitution.

The states do in fact have more leeway then the federal government by law,but they still have to abide within the Highest Law.

This means that states rights is not an issue in the realm of them being allowed to make -or infringe- on the 2A with regulatory "gun control" schemes,however,the states do,should,and have recently played a very important role in the fight to restrain the federal government from abuses and usurpations of power in this regard; I'm sure your familiar with the "Firearms Freedom Act".

Wouldn't it be nice that they also recognized their own place in the scope of things and tossed their own illegitimate infractions of the 2A into the dustbin.......
"You assist an evil system most effectively by obeying its orders and decrees. An evil system never deserves such allegiance. Allegiance to it means partaking of the evil. A good person will resist an evil system with his or her whole soul."
-Mahatma Gandhi
KalashnikovJosh is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-29-2011, 01:43 PM   #34
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
JCKelly's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Rochester,Michigan
Posts: 20
Liked 4 Times on 4 Posts


Currently Federal law says you can transport a pistol in the trunk of your car while passing through states which prohibit such locally. Now if you are traveling from Michigan to New Hampshire & are found to have such a pistol while traversing New York, the fine state of NY will arrest you & you will have a felony record. Yeah, NY violates Federal law but you gotta have a lot of $$$$ to challenge it.

Do you really think a federal law regarding reciprocity will do anything at all for you in NY or similar states?

Do you honestly believe that Obama would sign such a bill unless he knew it could be used to further restrict your rights?

Exactly what have you known the federal government to do right?

I hope this bill fails to get through the senate.

Yes, I have a permit to carry in Michigan, like to shoot & own more than one firearm.

I absolutely do not trust either the feds or states such as NY, CA & NJ to abide by such a law. Individual states are doing a fine job now with reciprocity. A little confusing sometimes, but it kinda works.
JCKelly is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-08-2012, 12:17 AM   #35
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 6

I am a believer in States Rights. Further, the Second Ammendment has never been "incorporated" which means it only applies to the Federal Government. That is why DC lost. It also means The Various States have authority in this matter.

Perhaps the Supreme Court will 'incorporate' it in the Chicago case. In either case, it seems reasonable for Federal Legislation to protect those with carry permits from prosecution in those states that do not have reciprocity. For instance, a maximum penalty of confisation of the locally illegal firearm.

In addition, immunity from prosecution if the individual with a carry permit uses his weapon for defensive purposes that would be legal from wence he came. Such Federal Laws would still need to overcome a Supreme Court challenge, should one be made.

Until the Supreme Court 'incorporates' the Second Ammendment, as has already been done with all the other Ammendments, The Various States have jurisdiction.
litespeed is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-08-2012, 03:16 AM   #36
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
Paladin201's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: St. Louis,MO
Posts: 445
Liked 5 Times on 5 Posts


This bill is certainly a good start, and it's very much welcome. But I won't rest until we have Constitutional Carry nation wide. Don't expect to live to see it. But its the ultimate goal.
Paladin201 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-08-2012, 03:21 AM   #37
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
BigByrd47119's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Detroit, MI
Posts: 3,426
Liked 1114 Times on 687 Posts
Likes Given: 2437


I warn against a national reciprocity for one simple reason.

Eventually it will lead to a national training requirement which will be harder to change as an individual when compared to state requirements.
“Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it’s realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy.”
---Ron Paul

"He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetuate it."
---Dr. Martin Luther King

"If you think we are free today, you know nothing about tyranny and even less about freedom."
---Tom Braun
BigByrd47119 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-08-2012, 04:28 AM   #38
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: West, by God, Funroe,Louisiana
Posts: 18,707
Liked 9225 Times on 5066 Posts
Likes Given: 74


Originally Posted by Paladin201
This bill is certainly a good start, and it's very much welcome. But I won't rest until we have Constitutional Carry nation wide. Don't expect to live to see it. But its the ultimate goal.
Hell yeah.
trip286 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-08-2012, 11:36 AM   #39
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: SW OK
Posts: 6,011
Liked 3585 Times on 1969 Posts
Likes Given: 5357


the senate or house can just not bring a bill forward. it happens all the time. it doesnt matter how many people want a bill to be voted on if the leadership of one chamber doesnt put the bill on the agenda it dies in committee.
The US house has a mechanism to bring the bill to the floor when the house leadership refuses. It's called the discharge petition. With 218 signatures on a discharge petition the leadership brings up the bill. However, the odds remain stacked in favor of the house leadership. Chances that the bill will be passed are very slim: This is because the sorry butts sign the discharge petition to appease their constituents back home and then vote against the bill when it comes to the floor. In other words, it's dirty politics as usual.
alsaqr is offline  
Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Firearms Forum Replies Last Post
National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011 Jpyle Legal and Activism 64 09-30-2011 04:05 AM
Concealed carry = Bad / Discreet Carry = Good -- Semantics canebrake Concealed Carrying & Personal Protection 27 07-04-2011 05:53 PM
Right to Carry in National Parks Smity Concealed Carrying & Personal Protection 14 05-31-2009 06:01 PM
Court suspends right to carry in national parks Musket Politics, Religion and Controversy 7 03-23-2009 03:57 AM