Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 4/25/2014 4:32:32 AM EDT
Link Posted: 4/25/2014 4:35:03 AM EDT
Can Obama veto a bill like this?
Link Posted: 4/25/2014 4:35:44 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/25/2014 4:47:52 AM EDT by bjohnson425]
Ultimate reciprocity would to be to follow Alaska, Arizona and the few others where a CCW is not needed. No one who can legally own firearms should need permission to carry said weapon in any manner. If states did away with all the BS laws there would be no question of what is legal where.
Link Posted: 4/25/2014 4:36:21 AM EDT
I know the .gov is in all aspects of our lives, but I have a feeling inviting the Federal .gov to get involved with CCW has more for us to lose than gain.
Link Posted: 4/25/2014 4:39:03 AM EDT
5 million? Pathetic.
Link Posted: 4/25/2014 4:39:59 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By bjohnson425:
Ultimate reciprocity would to be to follow Alaska, Arizona and the few others where a CCW is not needed. No one who can legally own firearms should need permission to carry said weapon in any manor. If states did away with all the BS laws there would be no question of what is legal where.
View Quote
Sometimes , simplicity has a beauty all it's own .
Link Posted: 4/25/2014 4:40:33 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By TheGunCollector:
I know the .gov is in all aspects of our lives, but I have a feeling inviting the Federal .gov to get involved with CCW has more for us to lose than gain.
View Quote

I oppose a national registry or licensing scheme, but I support forcing the states to acknowledge and recognize a constitutional right.
Link Posted: 4/25/2014 4:40:42 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By peekay:
5 million? Pathetic.
View Quote
It is. If we had 30mil members, I don't think there would be much negotiating.
Link Posted: 4/25/2014 4:41:58 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Shqype:

I oppose a national registry or licensing scheme, but I support forcing the states to acknowledge and recognize a constitutional right.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Shqype:
Originally Posted By TheGunCollector:
I know the .gov is in all aspects of our lives, but I have a feeling inviting the Federal .gov to get involved with CCW has more for us to lose than gain.

I oppose a national registry or licensing scheme, but I support forcing the states to acknowledge and recognize a constitutional right.


This.

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile
Link Posted: 4/25/2014 4:43:16 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By bjohnson425:
Ultimate reciprocity would to be to follow Alaska, Arizona and the few others where a CCW is not needed. No one who can legally own firearms should need permission to carry said weapon in any manor. If states did away with all the BS laws there would be no question of what is legal where.
View Quote


What about in normal houses?
Link Posted: 4/25/2014 4:44:02 AM EDT
Good. Glad to seethe NRA pushing the boundaries.

Repealing NFA needs to be next on their list.
Link Posted: 4/25/2014 4:44:56 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By TheGunCollector:
I know the .gov is in all aspects of our lives, but I have a feeling inviting the Federal .gov to get involved with CCW has more for us to lose than gain.
View Quote


You're probably right.
Once the FedGov gets involved it won't be long before the standards for issuing permits will have to be uniform if they are to be recognized in all 50 states.

It's not hard to imagine that the standards dictated by the FedGov will look more like those in New York or Illinois than like those in Indiana.

Why some people can't figure this out is a mystery to me.
Link Posted: 4/25/2014 4:45:33 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By nick89302:


This.

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By nick89302:
Originally Posted By Shqype:
Originally Posted By TheGunCollector:
I know the .gov is in all aspects of our lives, but I have a feeling inviting the Federal .gov to get involved with CCW has more for us to lose than gain.

I oppose a national registry or licensing scheme, but I support forcing the states to acknowledge and recognize a constitutional right.


This.

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile


I don't think they are pushing for a national registry or licensing scheme. States still handle all of that. They are pushing for legislation to force states to recognize permits from other states. Nothing about this opens up any doors for regulation that aren't already open.
Link Posted: 4/25/2014 4:46:53 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By POLYTHENEPAM:


You're probably right.
Once the FedGov gets involved it won't be long before the standards for issuing permits will have to be uniform if they are to be recognized in all 50 states.

It's not hard to imagine that the standards dictated by the FedGov will look more like those in New York or Illinois than like those in Indiana.

Why some people can't figure this out is a mystery to me.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By POLYTHENEPAM:
Originally Posted By TheGunCollector:
I know the .gov is in all aspects of our lives, but I have a feeling inviting the Federal .gov to get involved with CCW has more for us to lose than gain.


You're probably right.
Once the FedGov gets involved it won't be long before the standards for issuing permits will have to be uniform if they are to be recognized in all 50 states.

It's not hard to imagine that the standards dictated by the FedGov will look more like those in New York or Illinois than like those in Indiana.

Why some people can't figure this out is a mystery to me.


It sucks that I have to admit that you do make a valid point.
Link Posted: 4/25/2014 4:50:17 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/25/2014 4:51:06 AM EDT by NWhiker]
Even if the senate passed it (which they won't) obongo would never sign it.
So instead of wasting their time, the NRA should be pushing for individual states to recognize out-of-state permits.
Link Posted: 4/25/2014 4:52:53 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By POLYTHENEPAM:


You're probably right.
Once the FedGov gets involved it won't be long before the standards for issuing permits will have to be uniform if they are to be recognized in all 50 states.

It's not hard to imagine that the standards dictated by the FedGov will look more like those in New York or Illinois than like those in Indiana.

Why some people can't figure this out is a mystery to me.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By POLYTHENEPAM:
Originally Posted By TheGunCollector:
I know the .gov is in all aspects of our lives, but I have a feeling inviting the Federal .gov to get involved with CCW has more for us to lose than gain.


You're probably right.
Once the FedGov gets involved it won't be long before the standards for issuing permits will have to be uniform if they are to be recognized in all 50 states.

It's not hard to imagine that the standards dictated by the FedGov will look more like those in New York or Illinois than like those in Indiana.

Why some people can't figure this out is a mystery to me.



I don't see you being wrong by any stretch of the imagination.


Originally Posted By LibertarianYankee:
Good. Glad to seethe NRA pushing the boundaries.

Repealing NFA needs to be next on their list.



I would get terribly excited about this if it were to happen.
Link Posted: 4/25/2014 4:53:35 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By RDak:
Can Obama veto a bill like this?
View Quote

I hope so.
Link Posted: 4/25/2014 4:55:21 AM EDT
Link Posted: 4/25/2014 4:56:50 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By POLYTHENEPAM:


You're probably right.
Once the FedGov gets involved it won't be long before the standards for issuing permits will have to be uniform if they are to be recognized in all 50 states.

It's not hard to imagine that the standards dictated by the FedGov will look more like those in New York or Illinois than like those in Indiana.

Why some people can't figure this out is a mystery to me.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By POLYTHENEPAM:
Originally Posted By TheGunCollector:
I know the .gov is in all aspects of our lives, but I have a feeling inviting the Federal .gov to get involved with CCW has more for us to lose than gain.


You're probably right.
Once the FedGov gets involved it won't be long before the standards for issuing permits will have to be uniform if they are to be recognized in all 50 states.

It's not hard to imagine that the standards dictated by the FedGov will look more like those in New York or Illinois than like those in Indiana.

Why some people can't figure this out is a mystery to me.


As I've said before on this, when the time comes that they try to pass those more restrictive laws that's when we should fight them. Gun owners are so shell-shocked that they're willing to reject pro-gun laws out of fear that something bad might happen later.
Link Posted: 4/25/2014 4:57:12 AM EDT
Link Posted: 4/25/2014 4:57:22 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By RDak:

It sucks that I have to admit that you do make a valid point.
View Quote


Unfortunately when considering a suggested change in the law, it is always necessary to ask the question: What is the possible downside?
Far too few people do this.

It's not hard to figure out the possible downside IF you're familiar with how the FedGov works.
Link Posted: 4/25/2014 5:00:17 AM EDT
I'm waiting to see what happens here. It probably is just posturing right now till after the elections. But still good to get it out there.

Not to hijack the thread, but what a freaking stupid quote from the Brady campaign guy.....

"But Malte counters reciprocity could ultimately leave states "powerless" to stop even violent individuals who cross the state line with weapons."

So someone is either violent or they are not. If they are, then I would assume the EXSITING LAWS EVERY STATE HAS about murder, assault or other violent acts would be all you need. Derp........what an idiot.
Link Posted: 4/25/2014 5:01:48 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Top_Secret:

As I've said before on this, when the time comes that they try to pass those more restrictive laws that's when we should fight them.
View Quote


Have you stopped to consider that the standards will probably be imposed by REGULATIONS rather than by statute?

How do you propose to fight the adoption of regulations?
Link Posted: 4/25/2014 5:01:52 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By GotGuns:


I don't think they are pushing for a national registry or licensing scheme. States still handle all of that. They are pushing for legislation to force states to recognize permits from other states. Nothing about this opens up any doors for regulation that aren't already open.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By GotGuns:
Originally Posted By nick89302:
Originally Posted By Shqype:
Originally Posted By TheGunCollector:
I know the .gov is in all aspects of our lives, but I have a feeling inviting the Federal .gov to get involved with CCW has more for us to lose than gain.

I oppose a national registry or licensing scheme, but I support forcing the states to acknowledge and recognize a constitutional right.


This.

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile


I don't think they are pushing for a national registry or licensing scheme. States still handle all of that. They are pushing for legislation to force states to recognize permits from other states. Nothing about this opens up any doors for regulation that aren't already open.

I agree, but the fear is that this will lead to a push by antis to start regulating a national licensing scheme.

One might say the federal government has enough power, they don't need to get involved with the rights of individual states. But understand this is NOT a state's rights issue. One of the only legitimate purposes of the federal government is to uphold and protect our Constitutional rights. In other words, forcing the states to accept reciprocity (the 2nd Amendment) is one of the FEW things a federal government actually has an obligation to do.
Link Posted: 4/25/2014 5:02:52 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By RDak:
Can Obama veto a bill like this?
View Quote


Any sitting president can veto any bill that its his desk during his term, for any reason whatsoever.
Link Posted: 4/25/2014 5:06:20 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By TheGunCollector:
It is. If we had 30mil members, I don't think there would be much negotiating.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By TheGunCollector:
Originally Posted By peekay:
5 million? Pathetic.
It is. If we had 30mil members, I don't think there would be much negotiating.


Getting 30 million members in the NRA is easy. Sadly, the NRA won't do it and insists on continuing to beat on the same dead horse over and over.

Here's a freebie for the NRA.

In 2008, Heller set the stage for the McDonald case. Yeah, you know the Heller case, the one the NRA tried to derail. Well, once the 2nd Amendment was incorporated under the 14th Amendment as a Fundamental Civil Right, the anti's saw the writing on the wall. They shifted their focus. Yeah, they still half heartedly go for bans to keep us occupied but now, they've shifted into prohibiting entire classes of people from owning firearms. The NRA doesn't get it and hasn't lifted a finger on this matter.

Here's how the NRA wins big. They go after ALL of the bans on the books. They hit the 1934 NFA, Hughes Amendment, import bans, etc. Under Heller and later McDonald, they can only lose if they throw the case. Once those bans are shot down, the anti's will be forced to shift all of their efforts to prohibiting classes of people. Farmer joe that had a DUI when he was young and doesn't care about an AR15 will suddenly be in the fight and no longer on the fence when he realizes that he could become a prohibited person and his Right to own any firearm is threatened. What is he going to do? Join the NRA. The harder the anti's push at that point will mean that many more members for the NRA.

I can see 50 million members in the NRA within a few years if they did this. However, the pansies in the NRA are more interested in creating controversy and keeping gun owners stressed over bans and such while the anti's slip in and get 20 steps ahead of us.
Link Posted: 4/25/2014 5:07:15 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/25/2014 5:08:13 AM EDT by RDak]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By POLYTHENEPAM:

.............

Unfortunately when considering a suggested change in the law, it is always necessary to ask the question: What is the possible downside?
Far too few people do this.

It's not hard to figure out the possible downside IF you're familiar with how the FedGov works.
View Quote


Understood but think about this................here we both are.......a couple of guys getting on in age and following 2A issues for decades and we are both suspicious of a national reciprocity bill being possibly anti-gun in the final analysis compared to if we just leave it up to the states.

Think how FUCKED UP this is in terms that our suspicions are not ridiculous tin foil!!

But this is where we are.
Link Posted: 4/25/2014 5:08:47 AM EDT
Never gonna' happen. Too many states would demand their CCW rules have to be followed.
Link Posted: 4/25/2014 5:09:09 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By RDak:


It sucks that I have to admit that you do make a valid point.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By RDak:
Originally Posted By POLYTHENEPAM:
Originally Posted By TheGunCollector:
I know the .gov is in all aspects of our lives, but I have a feeling inviting the Federal .gov to get involved with CCW has more for us to lose than gain.


You're probably right.
Once the FedGov gets involved it won't be long before the standards for issuing permits will have to be uniform if they are to be recognized in all 50 states.

It's not hard to imagine that the standards dictated by the FedGov will look more like those in New York or Illinois than like those in Indiana.

Why some people can't figure this out is a mystery to me.


It sucks that I have to admit that you do make a valid point.

Which is exactly why we need to simplify the process by following the letter and intent of the Second Amendment ....treat everyone that s legal to own as a Shall Issue .

If you are a violent felon or psycho, which is another topic entirely , you get a different background color or special seal or mark on your DL or ID to show, plainly and clearly , that you arent allowed to carry , posses , own , or whatever .

Otherwise , you , as a citizen , are good to go . Buy a pistol ...ammo...suppressor...machine gun ......whatever . Take all the .gov employees that will be out of a job because of the streamlining and thinning of the ATF and FBI , and give them jobs doing free public gun safety classes and shooting schools.


The damage is done as far as our privacy goes ...the gov will never pull back , so we may as well get as many citizens armed and familiar with shooting to help insure our checks and balances .

Link Posted: 4/25/2014 5:09:24 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By POLYTHENEPAM:


Unfortunately when considering a suggested change in the law, it is always necessary to ask the question: What is the possible downside?
Far too few people do this.

It's not hard to figure out the possible downside IF you're familiar with how the FedGov works.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By POLYTHENEPAM:
Originally Posted By RDak:

It sucks that I have to admit that you do make a valid point.


Unfortunately when considering a suggested change in the law, it is always necessary to ask the question: What is the possible downside?
Far too few people do this.

It's not hard to figure out the possible downside IF you're familiar with how the FedGov works.


Plus you also have to ask yourself what the NRA stands to gain. I'll tell you, money, and lots of it.

National Reciprocity will come with mandated training strings attached, you mark my words.

And who you might ask stands to gain by certifying the trainers....The NRA and the training weenies of course. Careful what you wish for.


Link Posted: 4/25/2014 5:09:24 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By POLYTHENEPAM:


Have you stopped to consider that the standards will probably be imposed by REGULATIONS rather than by statute?

How do you propose to fight the adoption of regulations?
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By POLYTHENEPAM:
Originally Posted By Top_Secret:

As I've said before on this, when the time comes that they try to pass those more restrictive laws that's when we should fight them.


Have you stopped to consider that the standards will probably be imposed by REGULATIONS rather than by statute?

How do you propose to fight the adoption of regulations?


Yes it's of course conceivable that they would allow whatever agency would enforce this to adopt regulations, if the bill is written correctly they won't be able to. How about we wait till we see what the law is before we preemptively lose our minds and reject it before it's even being debated?
Link Posted: 4/25/2014 5:11:32 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By FredMan:


Any sitting president can veto any bill that its his desk during his term, for any reason whatsoever.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By FredMan:
Originally Posted By RDak:
Can Obama veto a bill like this?


Any sitting president can veto any bill that its his desk during his term, for any reason whatsoever.


We need to fucking VETO the sitting president.
Link Posted: 4/25/2014 5:11:54 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By FredMan:


Any sitting president can veto any bill that its his desk during his term, for any reason whatsoever.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By FredMan:
Originally Posted By RDak:
Can Obama veto a bill like this?


Any sitting president can veto any bill that its his desk during his term, for any reason whatsoever.


That's what I figured and maybe his veto would be a good thing.

It pains me to admit that any Federal involvement in things firearms related could very well end up being more anti-gun than what we have now.
Link Posted: 4/25/2014 5:13:11 AM EDT
I'd much rather see them focus on removing the sporting purposes clause from GCA '68, or taking suppressors out of NFA, or strengthening FOPA, or a dozen other things. I think we're doing a good job of getting to shall issue thru the courts and hammering CCW all over the place is not a winning political issue.
Link Posted: 4/25/2014 5:16:35 AM EDT
It's just fucking sad that what should be such a good Bill can't be viewed that way considering the actions of the Federal government in recent years.

It just fucking sucks but it is what it is.
Link Posted: 4/25/2014 5:17:53 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/25/2014 5:19:01 AM EDT by fla556guy]
I like the idea of going national so that state's can't play their stupid political games anymore.....but I don't do permits for a right.

Any inroad that we think we are making, we are really just admitting that the 2a is limitable. That's not the case. Shall. Not. Be. Infringed.
Link Posted: 4/25/2014 5:18:30 AM EDT
Link Posted: 4/25/2014 5:18:43 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By POLYTHENEPAM:


You're probably right.
Once the FedGov gets involved it won't be long before the standards for issuing permits will have to be uniform if they are to be recognized in all 50 states.

It's not hard to imagine that the standards dictated by the FedGov will look more like those in New York or Illinois than like those in Indiana.

Why some people can't figure this out is a mystery to me.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By POLYTHENEPAM:
Originally Posted By TheGunCollector:
I know the .gov is in all aspects of our lives, but I have a feeling inviting the Federal .gov to get involved with CCW has more for us to lose than gain.


You're probably right.
Once the FedGov gets involved it won't be long before the standards for issuing permits will have to be uniform if they are to be recognized in all 50 states.

It's not hard to imagine that the standards dictated by the FedGov will look more like those in New York or Illinois than like those in Indiana.

Why some people can't figure this out is a mystery to me.
I can't figure out why a repeatedly abused person has any sympathy or trust for an antagonist either.....most humans are weird malleable things
Link Posted: 4/25/2014 5:20:39 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:



It only lost by two senate votes during the Bush years. iirc it was two dems who flipped after saying they would vote for it.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:
Originally Posted By garbageman:
Never gonna' happen. Too many states would demand their CCW rules have to be followed.



It only lost by two senate votes during the Bush years. iirc it was two dems who flipped after saying they would vote for it.


I don't know if I am for it any longer Bama.

I just don't know any longer.
Link Posted: 4/25/2014 5:26:49 AM EDT
Link Posted: 4/25/2014 5:28:31 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:

...............

It's nothing more than saying each state must honor another states CCW permit no different than a drivers license or a marriage license.

It is not setting a national permit standard. If it did that I would oppose it.

View Quote


I know.......that's how it is proposed.

My suspicions are will it stay that way.

The Federal politicians have a proven track record of expanding their authority in many instances.

I might just have to say let it stay the way it is.

And it SUCKS that I feel this way.
Link Posted: 4/25/2014 5:29:06 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By TheGunCollector:
I know the .gov is in all aspects of our lives, but I have a feeling inviting the Federal .gov to get involved with CCW has more for us to lose than gain.
View Quote

Link Posted: 4/25/2014 5:29:48 AM EDT
This would be an easy bill to pass. Just argue that we want equal recognition just like gay people want equal recognition o f their marriages. Use the liberal arguments against themselves.
Link Posted: 4/25/2014 5:31:24 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By bjohnson425:
Ultimate reciprocity would to be to follow Alaska, Arizona and the few others where a CCW is not needed. No one who can legally own firearms should need permission to carry said weapon in any manner. If states did away with all the BS laws there would be no question of what is legal where.
View Quote


This should be the starting point and the goal. Beginning anywhere else is a premature compromise.
Link Posted: 4/25/2014 5:32:10 AM EDT
Like drivers' licenses.

Or Marriage certificates.
Link Posted: 4/25/2014 5:35:07 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:


The did here. When AL updated the CCW law we now recognize any states CCW permit even without a formal reciporicty agreement.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:
Originally Posted By NWhiker:
Even if the senate passed it (which they won't) obongo would never sign it.
So instead of wasting their time, the NRA should be pushing for individual states to recognize out-of-state permits.


The did here. When AL updated the CCW law we now recognize any states CCW permit even without a formal reciporicty agreement.


Very cool.
Link Posted: 4/25/2014 5:40:00 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By TheGunCollector:
It is. If we had 30mil members, I don't think there would be much negotiating.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By TheGunCollector:
Originally Posted By peekay:
5 million? Pathetic.
It is. If we had 30mil members, I don't think there would be much negotiating.


But junk mail dude. Tons of Junk mail...

Not to mention fisherman's rights.

Link Posted: 4/25/2014 5:46:24 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By GotGuns:


I don't think they are pushing for a national registry or licensing scheme. States still handle all of that. They are pushing for legislation to force states to recognize permits from other states. Nothing about this opens up any doors for regulation that aren't already open.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By GotGuns:
Originally Posted By nick89302:
Originally Posted By Shqype:
Originally Posted By TheGunCollector:
I know the .gov is in all aspects of our lives, but I have a feeling inviting the Federal .gov to get involved with CCW has more for us to lose than gain.

I oppose a national registry or licensing scheme, but I support forcing the states to acknowledge and recognize a constitutional right.


This.

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile


I don't think they are pushing for a national registry or licensing scheme. States still handle all of that. They are pushing for legislation to force states to recognize permits from other states. Nothing about this opens up any doors for regulation that aren't already open.


No, but they use every law they pass as a basis to pass more. I foresee the use of this law as an example of how they have the prerogative to define the requirements for carrying on a national level. I believe this will be misused. I hope for the best, though.
Link Posted: 4/25/2014 5:50:46 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:
INDIANAPOLIS (AP) -- With concealed weapons now legal in all 50 states, the National Rifle Association's focus at this week's annual meeting is less about enacting additional state protections than on making sure the permits already issued still apply when the gun owners travel across the country.

"Right now it takes some legal research to find out where you are or are not legal depending on where you are," said Guy Relford, an attorney who has sued communities for violating an Indiana law that bars local gun regulation. "I don't think that's right."

Opponents fear the measure would allow more lenient gun regulations to trump stricter ones when permit holders travel across state lines.

"It's a race to the bottom," said Brian Malte, senior national policy director for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. "It's taking the lowest standards."

The push for reciprocity comes as the gun rights lobby is arguably stronger than ever before, with more than 5 million dues-paying members.

http://news.yahoo.com/nra-seeks-universal-gun-law-172729365.html;_ylt=AwrBJR_KSllTwQcAL9rQtDMD

This lost by two votes in the Bush years.
View Quote


It had over 50 votes twice in the Dem Senate in the last two legislative sessions. It will definitely be a part of whatever the next major gun legislation is. The question is what ELSE will be a part of it?
Link Posted: 4/25/2014 5:58:21 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Geohans:
Like drivers' licenses.

Or Marriage certificates.
View Quote
Which law requires that?
Link Posted: 4/25/2014 6:07:39 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:
INDIANAPOLIS (AP) -- With concealed weapons now legal in all 50 states, the National Rifle Association's focus at this week's annual meeting is less about enacting additional state protections than on making sure the permits already issued still apply when the gun owners travel across the country.

"Right now it takes some legal research to find out where you are or are not legal depending on where you are," said Guy Relford, an attorney who has sued communities for violating an Indiana law that bars local gun regulation. "I don't think that's right."

Opponents fear the measure would allow more lenient gun regulations to trump stricter ones when permit holders travel across state lines.

"It's a race to the bottom," said Brian Malte, senior national policy director for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. "It's taking the lowest standards."

The push for reciprocity comes as the gun rights lobby is arguably stronger than ever before, with more than 5 million dues-paying members.

http://news.yahoo.com/nra-seeks-universal-gun-law-172729365.html;_ylt=AwrBJR_KSllTwQcAL9rQtDMD

This lost by two votes in the Bush years.
View Quote

Another betrayal of the 2nd Amendment... /sarcasm.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top