GlockTalk Forum banner

41 - 60 of 65 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,714 Posts
No, it merely means that a state can no longer refuse to recognize a permit merely because it was issued by another state. It's really quite simple.

So? If a state issued a permit, another state can't refuse to recognize it. Does that actually confuse you?
No, it doesn't confuse me. But such a law will override a state's law about who they want to give a permit to. If a state requires range time, for instance, to get a permit, why should they be forced to accept a permit from a state that doesn't require range time?

The argument about driver licenses is often brought up, but a national reciprocity carry law isn't the same as the voluntary agreement among states to accept the driver licenses from the other states. There is no federal mandate for states to accept the driver licenses of another state.

I'd be surprised if a national reciprocity law would even be found to be constitutional, even with a conservative court.
 

·
Come on man!!
Joined
·
14,384 Posts
Whatever.
Are those statements not true?

Prove me wrong. If you can't, quit acting like a petulant child.

Like it or not, that is the truth as of this posting.


Sometimes, some gun owners, even if they are pro 2nd Amendment, manage to turn themselves into some of our worst enemies.

"Trump didn't do anything for gun owners!"
Yeah, other than flipping the most anti-second Amendment circuit court in the country from liberal to conservative, and in just a couple of days doing the same with the SCOTUS.

These Trump appointments are positive changes that will last generations. But maybe people like our friend here would have preferred Hillary instead of Trump. I'm sure she would have been awesomely helpful for preserving our gun rights
That's the best you've got?

Like it or not, Trump's judicial appointments have got us nothing so far, and until they do, my point stands.

Trump's SCOTUS picks to date have done nothing for gun owners, and as the ultimate arbitrators of Constitutional issues, until they rule on a 2nd Amendment case, none of the lower U.S. District Court decisions have an impact on America's gun laws.

Californians still can't buy high capacity magazines, so Duncan vs Becerra is not the law of the land yet, but here you are championing the case as if it's a done deal, and it's not.

If magazine restrictions become a thing of the past, I'll gladly give Trump credit for flipping the 9th Circuit and securing a huge win for gun owners. That's what grown-ups do. Until then, all gun owners have gotten under Trump is infringement.

Then you start spewing nonsense...

You are so fragile and egotistical that the mere statement of fact, and expecting an actual improvement in any area of firearms ownership is too much ask for in a debate with you, so your resort to baseless attacks?

I've been one of Trump's biggest supporters on this forum, but because I'm not blind to what he hasn't done for gun owners, and see what he has done to harm gun owners, somehow I'm now a Hillary supporter?

That argument alone makes you pathetic.

Grow up.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,109 Posts
No, it doesn't confuse me. But such a law will override a state's law about who they want to give a permit to. If a state requires range time, for instance, to get a permit, why should they be forced to accept a permit from a state that doesn't require range time?
The argument about driver licenses is often brought up, but a national reciprocity carry law isn't the same as the voluntary agreement among states to accept the driver licenses from the other states. There is no federal mandate for states to accept the driver licenses of another state.
I'd be surprised if a national reciprocity law would even be found to be constitutional, even with a conservative court.
The requirements for drivers licenses are substantially different from state to state. Particularly for juveniles. Yet they all accept a valid DL from any other state.
 
  • Like
Reactions: reniram

·
Come on man!!
Joined
·
14,384 Posts
No, it doesn't confuse me. But such a law will override a state's law about who they want to give a permit to. If a state requires range time, for instance, to get a permit, why should they be forced to accept a permit from a state that doesn't require range time?

The argument about driver licenses is often brought up, but a national reciprocity carry law isn't the same as the voluntary agreement among states to accept the driver licenses from the other states. There is no federal mandate for states to accept the driver licenses of another state.

I'd be surprised if a national reciprocity law would even be found to be constitutional, even with a conservative court.
That bolded part, that's an infringement.

State's are bound to follow the Constitution as written. The Constitution doesn't say anything about proving worthiness before exercising a right.

Our 1st Amendment rights aren't predicated on something as arbitrary as educational achievements and our 2nd Amendment rights shouldn't be predicated on something as arbitrary as range time.
 

·
Wallbuilder and Weapon Bearer
Joined
·
116,456 Posts
No, it doesn't confuse me. But such a law will override a state's law about who they want to give a permit to....
No, it does not change anything about a state's decision regarding who is eligible to receive one of their permits. It only prevents a state from refusing to recognize a permit merely because it was issued by another state. That's all it does.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,863 Posts
Problem is that it will never reach his desk. It is an issue buried to the deepest depths right now on the importance list. No one in congress probably has nor will think about it for quite some time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

·
Previously achieved fame and glory as Burebista
Joined
·
5,474 Posts
Are those statements not true?

Prove me wrong. If you can't, quit acting like a petulant child.

Like it or not, that is the truth as of this posting.




That's the best you've got?

Like it or not, Trump's judicial appointments have got us nothing so far, and until they do, my point stands.

Trump's SCOTUS picks to date have done nothing for gun owners, and as the ultimate arbitrators of Constitutional issues, until they rule on a 2nd Amendment case, none of the lower U.S. District Court decisions have an impact on America's gun laws.

Californians still can't buy high capacity magazines, so Duncan vs Becerra is not the law of the land yet, but here you are championing the case as if it's a done deal, and it's not.

If magazine restrictions become a thing of the past, I'll gladly give Trump credit for flipping the 9th Circuit and securing a huge win for gun owners. That's what grown-ups do. Until then, all gun owners have gotten under Trump is infringement.

Then you start spewing nonsense...

You are so fragile and egotistical that the mere statement of fact, and expecting an actual improvement in any area of firearms ownership is too much ask for in a debate with you, so your resort to baseless attacks?

I've been one of Trump's biggest supporters on this forum, but because I'm not blind to what he hasn't done for gun owners, and see what he has done to harm gun owners, somehow I'm now a Hillary supporter?

That argument alone makes you pathetic.

Grow up.
Congratulations, you've made it to my list of people who no longer exist on GTPI. Enjoy the company of leftist trolls and anti-Semitic scumbags.
Ta-ta now, see you never!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
788 Posts
To be honest I don't see national reciprocity happening in my lifetime, so I have no expectations. However, right now, I'd settle for the abolition of felony or misdemeanor charges for carrying in a non-reciprocal state; it shouldn't cost a person anymore than a $20 parking ticket if caught.
 

·
Wallbuilder and Weapon Bearer
Joined
·
116,456 Posts
... If a state requires range time, for instance, to get a permit, why should they be forced to accept a permit from a state that doesn't require range time?
Is Florida's range time test good enough to suit you? Only one round is fired.

If a state requires an elected politician's permission to get a permit, such as NC and probably others, don't you recognize that as an infringement when imposed against visitors from other states with a permit? You ain't from around here. We only let locals carry.

Or when a state (such as MD) requires showing a compelling reason to obtain a permit? They can still infringe upon their own citizens when deciding whether or not to issue a permit but they can't refuse to honor a valid permit merely because it was issued in another state. That's all reciprocity does.

Maybe I need to repeat this: that's all reciprocity does.
 

·
Previously achieved fame and glory as Burebista
Joined
·
5,474 Posts
No, it does not change anything about a state's decision regarding who is eligible to receive one of their permits. It only prevents a state from refusing to recognize a permit merely because it was issued by another state. That's all it does.
Reciprocity will render the laws of "may issue" States like Kalifornistan obsolete and useless.

If it is adopted, imagine how Democrats here in this State will be forced to justify in a Court of law that it is legal for millions of tourists and travelers visiting California have the right to carry a concealed gun for self protection, while their own constituents are deprived of the same right.

If we take back the House and maintain control of the Senate in two weeks, we will have reciprocity. The GOP of today isn't Paul Ryan's GOP anymore. Trump demonstrated it is possible to win elections as a conservative and cowering to the leftist mainstream media isn't necessary anymore to survive in DC. The Republicans are no longer unsure if Trump will survive or not, they see themselves now in the winning camp if they follow his lead.
 

·
Come on man!!
Joined
·
14,384 Posts
Congratulations, you've made it to my list of people who no longer exist on GTPI. Enjoy the company of leftist trolls and anti-Semitic scumbags.
Ta-ta now, see you never!
What I see you posting...

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,714 Posts
The requirements for drivers licenses are substantially different from state to state. Particularly for juveniles. Yet they all accept a valid DL from any other state.
Yep, but not by Federal decree. Driver license reciprocity is voluntary on the part of the states.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,714 Posts
No, it does not change anything about a state's decision regarding who is eligible to receive one of their permits. It only prevents a state from refusing to recognize a permit merely because it was issued by another state. That's all it does.
Which means that individuals who don't meet the state's criteria for getting a permit are allowed to carry while that state's own citizens cannot simply by decree of the federal government. What gives the federal government the right to decree that a state must recognize another state's permit? What portion of the constitution?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,714 Posts
Reciprocity will render the laws of "may issue" States like Kalifornistan obsolete and useless.

If it is adopted, imagine how Democrats here in this State will be forced to justify in a Court of law that it is legal for millions of tourists and travelers visiting California have the right to carry a concealed gun for self protection, while their own constituents are deprived of the same right.
Exactly the point that will be made when it is argued in front of the SCOTUS. The federal government has no right to force states to recognize a permit of any kind from another state. Under what part of the Constitution is that right granted to the federal government?
 

·
Previously achieved fame and glory as Burebista
Joined
·
5,474 Posts
Exactly the point that will be made when it is argued in front of the SCOTUS. The federal government has no right to force states to recognize a permit of any kind from another state. Under what part of the Constitution is that right granted to the federal government?
The Second Amendment part. Surprised you forgot about that, so let me remind you what it says: ''...the right of the People to keep AND BEAR arms shall not be infringed". That applies for the entire America, not just red gun friendly States.

That right is infringed every time when a gun owner with a valid concealed carry permit is not allowed to carry or it is prosecuted for exercising his constitutional right to bear arms if he travels to California, New York or other leftist States.

And the legal precedent of course, established in both Heller V. DC and McDonald V. Chicago SCOTUS decisions.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,714 Posts
Is Florida's range time test good enough to suit you? Only one round is fired.

If a state requires an elected politician's permission to get a permit, such as NC and probably others, don't you recognize that as an infringement when imposed against visitors from other states with a permit? You ain't from around here. We only let locals carry.

Or when a state (such as MD) requires showing a compelling reason to obtain a permit? They can still infringe upon their own citizens when deciding whether or not to issue a permit but they can't refuse to honor a valid permit merely because it was issued in another state. That's all reciprocity does.

Maybe I need to repeat this: that's all reciprocity does.
No, we don't only let locals carry. We only let individuals carry who have met the criteria that the state has laid out. Want to carry in our state? Get a permit just like the locals. ETA: Unless we have voluntarily entered into a reciprocity agreement, just like we did with driver licenses.

I've had a Florida permit for 30 plus years and have never fired a shot in order to receive it or renew it.

Sounds simple. "That's all reciprocity does". Still infringes on the states' rights if the states don't want to accept it. Where in the Constitution does it give the Feds that right?

Just because it is something that some feel would benefit gun owners, doesn't make it constitutional.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,714 Posts
The Second Amendment part. Surprised you forgot about that.
And the legal precedent, established in both Heller V. DC and McDonald V. Chicago SCOTUS decisions.
You might argue the Second Amendment to do away with all permits, but if permits are constitutional, then it doesn't help in this instance.

Neither Heller nor McDonald confirm the right to conceal carry.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
90 Posts
The House passed it a few years ago. The Senate has not brought it up for vote. The Senate has over 100 bills they should deal with. There should be a bill that each house must vote on within 30 days when brought up. McConnell tends to be a slug much of the time.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,714 Posts
The House passed it a few years ago. The Senate has not brought it up for vote. The Senate has over 100 bills they should deal with. There should be a bill that each house must vote on within 30 days when brought up. McConnell tends to be a slug much of the time.
To be fair, most Senate majority leaders ignore much of what is passed in the House.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,714 Posts
That bolded part, that's an infringement.

State's are bound to follow the Constitution as written. The Constitution doesn't say anything about proving worthiness before exercising a right.

Our 1st Amendment rights aren't predicated on something as arbitrary as educational achievements and our 2nd Amendment rights shouldn't be predicated on something as arbitrary as range time.
You're right, they shouldn't be, but in fact, they are. Until the courts strike down permits, we have to live with them or risk imprisonment. Even in states where permits aren't required, there are places you can't legally carry.

But if you want to argue that permits are unconstitutional, then why do we need a national reciprocity law at all? Doesn't such a law recognize a state's right to require permits?
 
41 - 60 of 65 Posts
Top