Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act

[steelslaver]

The constitution does not allow for states to restrict specific declared rights. The Bill of Rights is not a list of rights the government grants to the citizens…it is a list of rights which the government is prohibited from infringing upon.

It is completely different from the millions of pages of other statute crap they continue to push.

True, but do you really think that you should be able to board a commercial airplane carrying a loaded grenade launcher? Do you believe that the right to religious freedom includes allowing the practice of human sacrifices or having multiple wives or husbands or that its OK to stone people to death? Can I publish outright lies under the freedom of speech or scream fire in a crowded theater.

There is always going to be some lines.

 

[aircommuter]

We have trouble with the laws just within our state. Our sheriff says we need more CCW and when you drive to SF or LA (liberal coast) the police rarely know the laws about CCW. Simply because until recently they didn’t issue permits. As for knowing laws of other states the same thing applies to DL because they have different rules in different states.
They simply need to standardize so called sensitive areas and be done with all the lawsuits back and forth.

 

[goldenboy]

True, but do you really think that you should be able to board a commercial airplane carrying a loaded grenade launcher? Do you believe that the right to religious freedom includes allowing the practice of human sacrifices or having multiple wives or husbands or that its OK to stone people to death? Can I publish outright lies under the freedom of speech or scream fire in a crowded theater.

There is always going to be some lines.

Most of those are already covered…thou shalt not murder…otherwise live and let live as it’s not hurting anyone.

 

[ladder13]

I think this is the point. NO other constitutional right is interpreted differently as you go from state to state. I’d think that a “disparity of treatment” lawsuit would have been raised long since. I do what I do every day and have for decades now in multiple states, BUT if I cross the river to the west into Illinois I’m suddenly a criminal. If that’s not disparate treatment what is?

Pretty clear to me as stated in the Constitution and BOR. The 10th A is also pretty clear on the powers of the states. I wonder if women could be denied the right to vote by a state? Or troops quartered in homes? Or……
The 2A is quite clear and noted in the Constitution what states can do. Posting speed limits, no turn on red, marriage laws, bridge tolls, drug laws, and kind, ok
What other amendments are not absolute?
There is a process to amend the Constitution, go for it.
The frog has been boiling since the Constitution and BOR were enacted.

 

[walkin' trails]

A large % of Republican pols are anti-carry. There are no Teddy Roosevelts anymore, sadly.

Yeah! I wouldn’t want the Republican party to be a bunch of marxist drone like the other side, but I would be really American for the GOP to at least agree unanimously on this issue.

 

[jurnes]

Another amendment, the 1st..free speech, does not allow you to yell “FIRE” in crowded theater.

For those that don’t “get it”: the 2nd amendment is not absolute

 

[ladder13]

So, I’m in a movie theater and I notice there is a fire in the back of the theater where I am sitting as I always do, and everyone is watching the screen, I cannot say anything?

 

[SnidelyWhiplash]

You can yell FIRE! in a crowded theater. The right to do so includes taking responsibility for doing so when it goes south on you.

Then again...in today's world personal accountability seems a lost concept among some.

 

[14daMoney]

Another amendment, the 1st..free speech, does not allow you to yell “FIRE” in crowded theater.

For those that don’t “get it”: the 2nd amendment is not absolute

agreed! Our forefather's and their families had and used weapons for necessity, i.e. food and safety. But, along with that family members from VERY early ages were taught what the purpose of these weapons were and how to safely use and maintain them. Few people fall into the hunting category today, and even fewer fall into the category of how to safely us use and maintain them today. I have no objection to responsible qualified people having weapons, any more than being a safe and qualified driver.

 

[steelslaver]

I have no objection to responsible qualified people having weapons, any more than being a safe and qualified driver.

I don't either, but the problem is just who qualifies as responsible and qualified and who defines and decides this? That breaks down with who gets to decide the what and the who. Montana's sheriffs or the governments of California or New Jersey.

Some states have done every thing possible to undermine the intent of both the Bruen and Heller decisions, if a national reciprocation law passed they would be on it like a pack of wolves on a crippled deer

 

[Bald1]

Yes but sometimes the deer escapes!!!! And this is my point. The state’s undermining it are breaking the law.

 

[bobsguns]

Yeah! I wouldn’t want the Republican party to be a bunch of marxist drone like the other side, but I would be really American for the GOP to at least agree unanimously on this issue.

They prefer to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, it's been said.

 

[steelslaver]

Yes but sometimes the deer escapes!!!! And this is my point. The state’s undermining it are breaking the law.

Actually they are undermining the intent, but doing it by staying within the letter. They are allowed to designate sensitive areas, so they make lots of them encompassing huge areas. They must issue, but take months to do so as there is no time limit etc etc.

As far as the the current party goes remember this statement when speaking on red flag laws. Trump: ''We're going to take the firearms first and then go to court, because that's another system. Because a lot of times by the time you go to court ... it takes so long to go to court to get the due process procedures. I like taking the guns early, like in this crazy man's case that just took place in Florida; he had a lot of fires [and] they saw everything. To go to court would have taken a long time, so you could do exactly what you're saying but take the guns first, go through due process second.''

 

[XP10035Rem]

I wish we could carry in all states if we have a CWP. When I travel out of state and pull over in a rest area to catch a nap with out of state plates I don't want everyone to know I can't carry (legally) in their state.

 

[Z16monte]

You can as long as you keep it unloaded and locked up in a box.
I get your sentiment and believe I should be able to carry in every state. But, the reality is that each state WILL restrict that right with or without reciprocation. IF YOU BELIEVE IN STATES RIGHTS, YOU SHOULD BE BELIEVE IN A STATES RIGHT TO REGULATE WHAT HAPPENS IN IT. If you believe reciprocity would give you the right to carry what ever gun, with what ever capacity and ammo you want or is legal in your state where ever you want, you do not believe in states rights. The idea that the 2nd does not allow for any infringements what so ever is long gone. Do you believe anyone who so wishes should be able to board any plane they want with a loaded M79 grenade launcher? No, Well that would be an infringement now wouldn't it? THERE IS A LINE.

Nowhere in the Constitution will you find the concept of "States Rights". Those POWERS not granted by the Constitution to the federal government are reserved to the states..... The people of the individual states have the right to restrict the powers of their state, based on it's own constitution. Rights are individual, not collective.

 

[LostintheOzone]

Nowhere in the Constitution will you find the concept of "States Rights". Those POWERS not granted by the Constitution to the federal government are reserved to the states..... The people of the individual states have the right to restrict the powers of their state, based on it's own constitution. Rights are individual, not collective.

I'm not sure why most RKBA advocates can't understand 10A, or even 2A for that matter.

2A only applies to what the federal government can't restrict although they do it anyway with NFA 34 and GCA 68. If you want to call a foul that's where it is, not what's in the state constitutions and restrictions.

This has been the norm now for at least 125 years. Does anyone actually believe that congress is going to amend the constitution and it will be ratified by 75% of the states. I'll bet against that and even give you some odds.

More than likely congress would pass another assault weapons or magazine ban instead of national reciprocity. Best just let sleeping dogs lay.

“No man’s life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session.”

— Mark Twain

 

[duncan4521]

In Bruen, SCOTUS stated that carry in "sensitive places" could be restricted. The battle now is over what those sensitive places consist of. On another forum an idiot was crowing about how Texas isn't really gun friendly because there are places that you can't carry. What was really funny was that he was comparing it to Massachusetts.

Different states have different thoughts on what constitutes a sensitive place, which is as it should be.

There is a thing called the Supremacy Clause where Federal Law trumps state law. A state does not have the right to violate the Constitution. The 10th Amendment states that anything not particularly specified in the Constitution falls under the jurisdiction of the states. However, the second amendment, delineates the RIGHT of the PEOPLE to KEEP and BEAR ARMS, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. This specific delineated RIGHT trumps any state law.

 

[Puller]

A large % of Republican pols are anti-carry. There are no Teddy Roosevelts anymore, sadly.

Sure, if you watch the main stream media you would think that. In reality, there actually are a good number of Teddy like Republicans with regards to firearms. They just don't get any air time with the socialist media.

 

[Bald1]

There is a thing called the Supremacy Clause where Federal Law trumps state law. A state does not have the right to violate the Constitution. The 10th Amendment states that anything not particularly specified in the Constitution falls under the jurisdiction of the states. However, the second amendment, delineates the RIGHT of the PEOPLE to KEEP and BEAR ARMS, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. This specific delineated RIGHT trumps any state law.

Well said Sir……yet some here are going to argue with you.

 

[Muss Muggins]

There is a thing called the Supremacy Clause where Federal Law trumps state law. A state does not have the right to violate the Constitution. The 10th Amendment states that anything not particularly specified in the Constitution falls under the jurisdiction of the states. However, the second amendment, delineates the RIGHT of the PEOPLE to KEEP and BEAR ARMS, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. This specific delineated RIGHT trumps any state law.

Clearly that has been well litigated by now . . .