NFOA MEMBERS FORUM
General Categories => Laws and Legislation => Topic started by: farmerbob on February 14, 2015, 07:37:52 PM
-
I wonder if the president would sign this into law?
http://www.guns.com/2015/02/14/senate-bill-would-grant-universal-concealed-carry-reciprocity-in-all-50-states/ (http://www.guns.com/2015/02/14/senate-bill-would-grant-universal-concealed-carry-reciprocity-in-all-50-states/)
-
I'm guessing it's about as likely as Hell freezing over. But in the past couple of elections the Democrats have been careful to keep civilian disarmament out of the debates, and the RINO-dominated Republican Party was happy to play along, as it nominated one anti-gun bigot after another. So anything like this that makes all of them take a stand on one side or the other can serve a good purpose in my opinion.
-
Federal control of concealed carry reciprocity will likely have many unintended consequences and none of them will be good.
I think the states should form a compact like they have for drivers license information sharing and enforcement of penalties and fines.
I sure don't want another BATFE branch in control of CCW licenses and reciprocity
-
Federal control of concealed carry reciprocity will likely have many unintended consequences and none of them will be good.
Yup. Such has ever been my viewpoint, as well.
Centralize it all in one place.
Then.................Kill It With One Blow.
sfg
-
We already have federal reciprocity: it's called the 2nd Amendment. I think the full faith and credit clause also guarantees national reciprocity, or should.
Getting the federal government involved does have risks, but if it's done right I think we're better with it than without it. Being done right though is questionable I agree. But if the federal government makes a law reinforcing the right to bear arms guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment, and makes all states obey the law by recognizing the permits issued by other states to exercise the right, we would be better off than without such a law. Ideally no permit to exercise a Constitutional right should be necessary at all. But as long as we have that, at least all states should recognize all permits. Any federal law should begin by stating unequivocally that there is a Constitutional right of law-abiding citizens to bear arms, that the right includes carrying concealed weapons, and that no state has the authority to deny that right to the citizens of the several states.
This might not necessarily be the best way, but we should be working toward making all states obey the law, because states disobeying the law with impunity weakens the law.
-
I don't understand those who scream for state's rights but when it's not what they want they want the feds to fix it.
-
I don't understand those who scream for state's rights but when it's not what they want they want the feds to fix it.
The right of states to infringe on the rights of American citizens is limited by the Constitution. For example, a state can't make it illegal to criticize the government, even if only within that state's own borders, because the First Amendment says it can't. I don't think anyone would call that a states' rights issue. So why does infringement on the Second Amendment become a states' rights issue?