Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011

Discussion in 'Carry Issues' started by mervstump, May 7, 2011.

  1. IndyGunFreak


    Jan 26, 2001
    This matter is best left to the states to handle.

  2. Kinda like Obama-care?

    While driver's licenses and marriages are privileges, this would provide an interesting 2A question. Are states not doing this "infringing?"
    Last edited: May 8, 2011

  3. BlackDobe


    Dec 28, 2009
    South Florida
    Would I love it if all 50 states reciprocated by recognizing CFL from any state? Absolutely! We are not too far from that already.

    My big concern is if this were mandated by the federal government then how long before the license itself becomes issued by the same federal government?

    If/when that happens, what other restrictions will be made part of that license?

    Do we really need the leftwing nut states putting immense pressure on the feds to make changes (additional restrictions) that accommodate their anti-gun sentiments that will have an impact on CFL holders in all other states?

    It's just too much of a risk, IMHO.

    Certain powers just need to remain in the hands of the states.

    I also believe that abortion laws belong in the hands of the states rather than the feds. <--- had to throw that in. :whistling:
  4. If the Feds can mandate that all states must recognize the CCW permits from other states as valid then the Fed also has the power to prohibit a CCW permit from one state being recognized as in any other state. Remember the ancient Chinese curse of "May you get what you wish for."
  5. Sippo


    Jul 27, 2010
    Did you ever wonder why that doesn't apply to your driver's license?
  6. As mentioned before, driver's licenses are recognized through an interstate compact among the states themselves, not through a federal law.
  7. btj


    Jun 22, 2010
    On The Road
    In a perfect world, I'd love to see this pass, but given that the world is not so perfect... I think I'd definitely rather see this left to the individual states to do as they see fit.
  8. Brucev


    Jul 19, 2009
    Leave it to the states. Do not at all trust anyone in the fed. govt. to have such power. Some states will not agree to cc. Tough for citizens of those states. Good for those in states that do agree to cc. Not willing to jeopardize things for all.
  9. TSAX


    Jun 5, 2010
    Some states now recognize others currently but if state A allows a permit from state B to M but not states C from N to Z then that is hypocritical. When I was in AZ and wanted to take a permit class I was told that I would have to get 3 from certain states that would have reciprocity with 33 states. Then the instructor said it was because of money, thats mainly why its like this.

  10. redbaron007

    redbaron007 Some Dude Lifetime Member

    Jan 26, 2009
    First, drivers licenses and such are a 'Priviledge' under that states rules, not a consitutional right.

    Second, the 'right to bear arms' is a consitutional issue. Two completely different issues.

    After briefly reading the bill, it appears it's just consolidating all the CCW permits to make them equal in all states in the states that issue CCWs. Meaning, if I have a MO permit and I am in AL, my permit is reciprocating with AL and I am bound by AL guidelines. It doesn't force the state to accept CCW, unless they already have it.

    I have mixed feelings. Since most of the states have different parameters for CCWs, I tend to side with it should be left up to the different states to either accept or not accept another states CCW. I don't feel comfortable letting Uncle Sam make that blanket acceptance. Seems like it could be a slippery slope after that.

    On the other hand, I think every state should offer the individual to purchase, retain and carry firearms.

    Just my .02.


  11. usmc4641

    usmc4641 NRA member

    Apr 4, 2007
    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
  12. Toorop


    Apr 28, 2010
    The Midwest.
    So is FOPA and LEOSA.
    Should we repeal those laws as well?
  13. Dragoon44

    Dragoon44 Unfair Facist Lifetime Member

    Apr 30, 2005
    This abomination pases and you can expect in a few years they will amend it. To "standardize" carry requirements like training etc. Then before long it will have it's own bureaucracy whose only purpose is to promulgate rules and regulations whether they are needed or not.
  14. Toorop


    Apr 28, 2010
    The Midwest.
    Marriage is not a privilege. In many religions you can only have sexual relations with someone whom you are married to. If you forbid people from marrying you are violating their religious beliefs in my opinion.
  15. vram74


    Feb 21, 2010
    How about instead of this we get a law spelling out and reaffirming the 2nd amendment as a right, the complete nullification of any Local/State/Federal law that restricts the 2nd amendment and a permanent ban on the possibility of it ever being brought up again in the future?
  16. Toorop


    Apr 28, 2010
    The Midwest.
    Then they will just repeal that law.
  17. Oso


    Dec 27, 2010
    Sturgis Michigan
    I think the whole point has been missed. The bill is for Reciprocity of CCW licenses. This means that the states have to recognize the CCW license as valid, not the issuing states laws. A state like New York could still limit your possession of "high"capacity magazines and where and how you can carry. I personally think it would become a logistic nightmare and anti-gun states would make it miserable enough that even valid CCW carries would be afraid to carry in that state.
  18. Gokyo


    Apr 24, 2005
    I like the idea. But it does violate states rights. I would not vote for it.
  19. Kegs

    Kegs Ol 8 fingers ;)

    Oct 26, 2009
    Cold side of conus
    We already have that - it's called the 2nd amendment.
  20. I think we have that now as a result of the Heller and the McDonald cases.
    All amendments are subject to reasonable regulation and restrictions.
    No such thing possible, as it unlawfully restricts the actions of a future elected body to consider and pass legislation.