User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 1/25/2009 12:54:28 AM EDT
[#1]
Tag
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2009 12:55:57 AM EDT
[#2]
Mixed feelings.
I'd certainly love for my Texas CHL to be recognized in all 50 States. On the other hand, this really isn't any of the Federal Government's business. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2009 12:57:55 AM EDT
[#3]
Quoted:
Mixed feelings. I'd certainly love for my Texas CHL to be recognized in all 50 States. On the other hand, this really isn't any of the Federal Government's business. what he said, this could be a mixed blessing 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2009 12:59:52 AM EDT
[#4]
I don't like it. Most people here are pretty much in favor of state's rights... and this is an encroachment on state's rights, even if it does look like it favors us.
Also, it lets the camel's nose under the tent flap; the federal government simply cannot ignore any attempt to expand its authority. Soon, this bill will look like something Obama cooked up. I say, let it die. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2009 1:25:52 AM EDT
[#5]
Is it really any difference than a drivers license?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2009 1:27:06 AM EDT
[#6]
Quoted:
Is it really any difference than a drivers license? There shouldn't be. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2009 1:51:29 AM EDT
[#7]
Quoted:
I don't like it. Most people here are pretty much in favor of state's rights... and this is an encroachment on state's rights, even if it does look like it favors us. Also, it lets the camel's nose under the tent flap; the federal government simply cannot ignore any attempt to expand its authority. Soon, this bill will look like something Obama cooked up. I say, let it die. Hoooly Shit! I don't believe I just read this here. I mean just pop in on any thread involving HR218 and you will see how folks here feel about cops getting something that they don't but should. I wouldn't benefit from this (as I am covered by HR218) but I support it in as much as you shouldn't be denied your God given right to be able to defend yourself with the best tool available no matter where you are. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2009 1:56:19 AM EDT
[#8]
This is one I'd like. I live in PA, and own plenty of handguns, and carry down here, but I'm on the border, and 90% of my business/errands are done in NY. I sure would love to be able to carry up there.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2009 1:58:25 AM EDT
[#9]
Quoted:
I don't like it. Most people here are pretty much in favor of state's rights... and this is an encroachment on state's rights, even if it does look like it favors us. Also, it lets the camel's nose under the tent flap; the federal government simply cannot ignore any attempt to expand its authority. Soon, this bill will look like something Obama cooked up. I say, let it die. I've got to agree. Be suspicious of anything that looks like it will be good. There's some other motive behind it, I think. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2009 2:02:25 AM EDT
[#10]
This has been introduced before and never made it out of committee. Given the current makeup of Congress I expect the same result. Wishful thinking on the part of holders of concealed carry licensees.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2009 2:08:26 AM EDT
[#11]
What exactly is a "federal standard" in regards to states that don't issue permits?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2009 2:17:27 AM EDT
[#12]
Like the Obamessiah will even sign it.
Come on.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2009 2:36:18 AM EDT
[#13]
I checked the forecast, no snow is predicted in Hell this year.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2009 3:55:42 AM EDT
[#15]
It would be nice to be allowed to carry all over the country (even in normally restricted areas), but I would also like to see the federal government keep their nose out of my business as much as possible. As you can tell, I have some mixed feelings about this type of thing. Once the government starts getting involved with right to carry, they are more likely to start adding restrictions and making it more difficult for people to get a permit at a later date. I definitely do not want to start seeing Washington D.C style gun laws down here in the sunshine state!
MAX |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2009 4:00:18 AM EDT
[#16]
Do not see any way this will get through a Democratic congress.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2009 4:18:11 AM EDT
[#17]
You can apply for a NY carry permit, or at least you could a few years ago. I live near the border as well. I was often tempted to get one in Allegany County, NY as the Sheriff there used to be very gun friendly.
Quoted:
This is one I'd like. I live in PA, and own plenty of handguns, and carry down here, but I'm on the border, and 90% of my business/errands are done in NY. I sure would love to be able to carry up there. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2009 5:26:31 AM EDT
[#18]
Quoted:
This has been introduced before and never made it out of committee. Given the current makeup of Congress I expect the same result. Wishful thinking on the part of holders of concealed carry licensees. Agree. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2009 5:31:57 AM EDT
[#19]
I would honestly, just prefer that states would just recognize the permits without coercion from the federal gooberment. What bothers me is the federal government always fucks things up. They will fuck up the process of getting and using a CWP.
Mark my words. With this congress and this president, this bill could be a nightmare in the waiting. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2009 5:41:34 AM EDT
[#20]
i dont know but to me, this is exactly what the federal government is supposed to, you know like ensure its citizens are not made felons by crossing some immaginary line drawn on a map.
i mean as a PA resident who holds a pa ccl i could be seriously harmed by MD if i were to carry a gun or even go to a range and make a stop, i would be thrown in jail, guns taken and have to shell out thousands of dollars on lawyers. in pa this would not be an issue. same thing in NY or NJ. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2009 5:42:31 AM EDT
[#21]
For a person living in NJ... tag.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2009 6:09:26 AM EDT
[#22]
Quoted: What exactly is a "federal standard" in regards to states that don't issue permits? "federal standard would apply. The bill would not create a federal licensing system; it would simply require the states to recognize each other's carry permits, just as they recognize drivers' licenses." read it again. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2009 6:12:20 AM EDT
[#23]
Wake me up when it passes.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2009 6:15:29 AM EDT
[#24]
Quoted: Quoted: What exactly is a "federal standard" in regards to states that don't issue permits? "federal standard would apply. The bill would not create a federal licensing system; it would simply require the states to recognize each other's carry permits, just as they recognize drivers' licenses." read it again. If it does become similar to driver's licenses or car registrations, then I am definitely supporting this! |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2009 6:21:36 AM EDT
[#25]
Quoted:
Mixed feelings. I'd certainly love for my Texas CHL to be recognized in all 50 States. On the other hand, this really isn't any of the Federal Government's business. I disagree. Think about how fucked up it would be if Florida said we don't want people from Texas driving here with a Texas drivers lic.? This may not be the feds jurisdiction but it sure has our best interest at heart, right? This matters to me because I live near the border of NYS and NJ. I have to travel through parts of those two states all the time. I have to get out of my vech. and lock up the gun. A real pain in the ass. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2009 6:22:28 AM EDT
[#26]
Quoted:
Mixed feelings. I'd certainly love for my Texas CHL to be recognized in all 50 States. On the other hand, this really isn't any of the Federal Government's business. Article IV, Section 1 of the United States Constitution, commonly known as the Full Faith and Credit Clause, addresses the duties that states within the United States have to respect the "public acts, records, and judicial rulings" of other states. 28 USC §1738: Such Acts, records and judicial proceedings or copies thereof, so authenticated, shall have the same full faith and credit in every court within the US and it Territories and Possessions as they have by law or usage in the courts of such State, Territory or Possession from which they are taken. The full faith and credit clause explains reciprocity in licenses, and extradition in crimes. Isn't this clause the reason that the DL from any state is recognized in all 50 states? I don't see how a concealed handgun license would be any different. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2009 7:31:44 AM EDT
[#27]
It'll never pass
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2009 7:42:26 AM EDT
[#28]
I wish it were possible to cut a deal on giving full faith and credit: CCW for gay marriage.The states get to make their own laws but must recognize permits issued by home states for non-residents and travellers.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2009 12:34:46 PM EDT
[#29]
Quoted:
Like the Obamessiah will even sign it. Come on. No shit. The republicans had both houses in congress and the whitehouse. What did they do? Nothing. Now that they know it won't pass, Pander switched on. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2009 12:39:46 PM EDT
[#30]
Quoted:
Like the Obamessiah will even sign it. Come on. +1 |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2009 12:44:58 PM EDT
[#31]
Sure! Why the hell not?
Who can't use more government?
Gimme that National ID/Drivers License/CHL with a RFID chip, a thumb print, and a retinal scan.
After all, we need to know that you are who you claim to be.
You can keep mine. Thanks. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2009 12:46:14 PM EDT
[#32]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Mixed feelings. I'd certainly love for my Texas CHL to be recognized in all 50 States. On the other hand, this really isn't any of the Federal Government's business. what he said, this could be a mixed blessing
Ditto |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2009 12:47:46 PM EDT
[#33]
The problem with these bills is what drives the basic difference between the NRA-ILA and groups like the GOA.
If a bill like this does get passed and signed, that is a tacit capitulation that you don't naturally have such a right as given by the 2A. Most of us believe we already have that right, and that individual states are violating it with their CCW/CHL restrictions and requirements. That itself isn't the problem. The problem is if you go down that road, and some years later that law is repealed, you no longer have a legal leg to stand on when claiming that ou always had such a right, without that law. It's the same thing if they pass a law tomorrow saying you have the right to walk and chew gum in all 50 states. If they then repeal that law, suddenly you no longer have that right. I like the law immensely, especially up here, being 'behind enemy lines' as it were when it comes to concealed carry. I would love to be able to carry in MA, ME, CT and NY with my NH permit... but then when they revoke that law, what happens? I disagree that they should be like drivers licenses. The RKBA is guaranteed by the constitution, driving is not. Also, DLs are basically standardized when it comes to requirements, while CHLs are not. This means basically that we don't (shouldn't) need such a law, and that the states are unlikely to go for it regardless. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2009 12:51:23 PM EDT
[#34]
it said that the rep has been introducing this since '95.
if it didnt happen in the earlier 2000's with R majority in both houses and R president, it sure as hell wont happen now. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2009 1:53:03 PM EDT
[#35]
AS an IL residence, o please.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2009 2:23:33 PM EDT
[#36]
Quoted: Sure! Why the hell not? Who can't use more government? Gimme that National ID/Drivers License/CHL with a RFID chip, a thumb print, and a retinal scan. After all, we need to know that you are who you claim to be. You can keep mine. Thanks. that's not how I took it, read it again. It said that if your state issued you a CHL ID card; like most do today; it would automatically be recognized by all states the same way they recognize your states drivers license. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2009 2:25:41 PM EDT
[#37]
Quoted:
The Republicans love to bring out nationwide CCW, etc, whenever they're in the minority in order to stick it to the Democrats. Too bad they never go through with it when they're in power. This has been introduced before and never made it out of committee. Given the current makeup of Congress I expect the same result. Wishful thinking on the part of holders of concealed carry licensees. 
Quoted:
Heller seemed to build the foundation for requiring states to either allow unlicensed open carry or do shall-issue CCW.
The problem with these bills is what drives the basic difference between the NRA-ILA and groups like the GOA. If a bill like this does get passed and signed, that is a tacit capitulation that you don't naturally have such a right as given by the 2A. Most of us believe we already have that right, and that individual states are violating it with their CCW/CHL restrictions and requirements. Kharn |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2009 2:25:53 PM EDT
[#38]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Mixed feelings. I'd certainly love for my Texas CHL to be recognized in all 50 States. On the other hand, this really isn't any of the Federal Government's business. Article IV, Section 1 of the United States Constitution, commonly known as the Full Faith and Credit Clause, addresses the duties that states within the United States have to respect the "public acts, records, and judicial rulings" of other states. 28 USC §1738: Such Acts, records and judicial proceedings or copies thereof, so authenticated, shall have the same full faith and credit in every court within the US and it Territories and Possessions as they have by law or usage in the courts of such State, Territory or Possession from which they are taken. The full faith and credit clause explains reciprocity in licenses, and extradition in crimes. Isn't this clause the reason that the DL from any state is recognized in all 50 states? I don't see how a concealed handgun license would be any different. I could be wrong, but I don't think that's because of the Full faith and credit clause. I think it's because the States all have reciprocity agreements with each other. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2009 2:27:13 PM EDT
[#39]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Mixed feelings. I'd certainly love for my Texas CHL to be recognized in all 50 States. On the other hand, this really isn't any of the Federal Government's business. Article IV, Section 1 of the United States Constitution, commonly known as the Full Faith and Credit Clause, addresses the duties that states within the United States have to respect the "public acts, records, and judicial rulings" of other states. 28 USC §1738: Such Acts, records and judicial proceedings or copies thereof, so authenticated, shall have the same full faith and credit in every court within the US and it Territories and Possessions as they have by law or usage in the courts of such State, Territory or Possession from which they are taken. The full faith and credit clause explains reciprocity in licenses, and extradition in crimes. Isn't this clause the reason that the DL from any state is recognized in all 50 states? I don't see how a concealed handgun license would be any different. I could be wrong, but I don't think that's because of the Full faith and credit clause. I think it's because the States all have reciprocity agreements with each other. So if PA and DE wanted to they could say "Fuck off NY, we won't accept your DLs any more"? VA could do the same to DC then. Cut off the enemies supply lines. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2009 2:31:15 PM EDT
[#40]
Quoted:
The problem with these bills is what drives the basic difference between the NRA-ILA and groups like the GOA. If a bill like this does get passed and signed, that is a tacit capitulation that you don't naturally have such a right as given by the 2A. Most of us believe we already have that right, and that individual states are violating it with their CCW/CHL restrictions and requirements. That itself isn't the problem. The problem is if you go down that road, and some years later that law is repealed, you no longer have a legal leg to stand on when claiming that ou always had such a right, without that law. It's the same thing if they pass a law tomorrow saying you have the right to walk and chew gum in all 50 states. If they then repeal that law, suddenly you no longer have that right. I like the law immensely, especially up here, being 'behind enemy lines' as it were when it comes to concealed carry. I would love to be able to carry in MA, ME, CT and NY with my NH permit... but then when they revoke that law, what happens? I disagree that they should be like drivers licenses. The RKBA is guaranteed by the constitution, driving is not. Also, DLs are basically standardized when it comes to requirements, while CHLs are not. This means basically that we don't (shouldn't) need such a law, and that the states are unlikely to go for it regardless. Well said. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2009 2:36:39 PM EDT
[#41]
The Department grants like reciprocity for driver licensing to residents of other states.
(1) Nonresident recognition in Texas of licenses held by persons from other states, territories of the United States, provinces of Canada, and the United States military service is based upon Texas Transportation Code, §521.029, and administrative policies. Thus: (A) residents of other states, including the District of Columbia but excluding United States territories and the provinces of Canada, who are at least 16 years of age may drive in Texas on a valid license from their home state, as a Class C or Class M driver only. (B) residents of other states, the District of Columbia, and the provinces of Canada who are at least 18 years of age may drive the same vehicles in Texas which they are licensed to drive at home as a Class A, B, C, or M operator, provided like recognition is granted to citizens of Texas; (C) for the purposes of determining nonresident reciprocity, United States territories are identified as follows: American Samoa, Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Corn Islands, Guam, Midway Islands, Trust Territory of Pacific Islands, Virgin Islands, Canton, Baker, Carolina, Christmas, Danger, Enderbury, Flint, Funafuti, Howland, Jarvis, Johnston, Kingman, Navassa, Malden, Manahiki, Nukufetan, Nukulailai, Nurakita, Palmyra, Penrhyn, Rakahanga, Reef, Sand, Starbuck, Swan, Vostok, Wake, and Phoenix Group. Reciprocity or nonreciprocity exists with these territories as indicated by the following: (i) Puerto Rico. One hundred twenty days for all classes; (ii) Guam. Thirty days for all classes; (iii) Trust Territory of Pacific Islands. All classes until residence is established; (iv) all other territories. No reciprocity. (D) In all cases where reciprocity exists with a United States territory, the driver must be at least 18 years of age. (E) Exceptions to general reciprocity provisions are Illinois, where all operators of passenger cars, motorcycles, motor-driven cycles, and "not for hire" commercial vehicles must be at least 18 years of age; operators of taxicabs, school buses, and "for hire" commercial vehicles must be at least 21 years of age. ... ... ... so unless there's some further explicit reciprocity agreement for Illinois that I haven't seen yet, Illinois drivers licenses are technically not recognized in the State of Texas. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2009 2:38:14 PM EDT
[#42]
I'm all for it. If I could carry in the PRK I would be willing to travel accross the Colorado again.
The only reason I opposed HR218 is because I don't think cops should be treated any different than normal citizens. This would give us equality under the law. That said I don't believe for a second that it would pass. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2009 2:39:47 PM EDT
[#43]
Quoted:
I searched but didn't find anything. http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=4330 Friday, January 23, 2009 U.S. Representatives Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.) and Rick Boucher (D-Va.), recently introduced H.R. 197–– the "National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2009"––a bill that would provide national recognition for valid state Right-to-Carry licensees. The bill would allow any person with a valid carry permit or license issued by a state, to carry a concealed firearm in any other state if the permit holder meets certain criteria. In states that issue permits, a state's laws governing where concealed firearms may be carried would apply within its borders. In states that do not issue carry permits, a federal standard would apply. The bill would not create a federal licensing system; it would simply require the states to recognize each other's carry permits, just as they recognize drivers' licenses. Senator John Thune (R-S.D.) is expected to introduce the Senate companion bill in the near future. Rep. Stearns has introduced such legislation since 1995. Please be sure to contact your U.S. Representative at (202) 225-3121, and urge him or her to cosponsor and support H.R. 197! I'd love to see this pass. Even if it did pass there's no way His Highness will sign it. And it won't pass with a veto-proof majority. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2009 4:28:35 PM EDT
[#44]
Quoted:
Quoted:
I searched but didn't find anything. http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=4330 Friday, January 23, 2009 U.S. Representatives Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.) and Rick Boucher (D-Va.), recently introduced H.R. 197–– the "National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2009"––a bill that would provide national recognition for valid state Right-to-Carry licensees. The bill would allow any person with a valid carry permit or license issued by a state, to carry a concealed firearm in any other state if the permit holder meets certain criteria. In states that issue permits, a state's laws governing where concealed firearms may be carried would apply within its borders. In states that do not issue carry permits, a federal standard would apply. The bill would not create a federal licensing system; it would simply require the states to recognize each other's carry permits, just as they recognize drivers' licenses. Senator John Thune (R-S.D.) is expected to introduce the Senate companion bill in the near future. Rep. Stearns has introduced such legislation since 1995. Please be sure to contact your U.S. Representative at (202) 225-3121, and urge him or her to cosponsor and support H.R. 197! I'd love to see this pass. Even if it did pass there's no way His Highness will sign it. And it won't pass with a veto-proof majority. He wouldn't have to. The democrat controlled congress would push it through with a veto proof majority. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2009 5:50:39 PM EDT
[#45]
+1 |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2009 5:53:58 PM EDT
[#46]
Quoted:
I would honestly, just prefer that states would just recognize the permits without coercion from the federal gooberment. What bothers me is the federal government always fucks things up. They will fuck up the process of getting and using a CWP. Mark my words. With this congress and this president, this bill could be a nightmare in the waiting. You know, sometimes it takes the Feds to make some things right. It is Federal law that makes recognize other state's driver's licenses, marriage licenses, etc. Why should our carry licenses be any different? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2009 5:55:24 PM EDT
[#47]
Quoted:
I don't like it. Most people here are pretty much in favor of state's rights... and this is an encroachment on state's rights, even if it does look like it favors us. Also, it lets the camel's nose under the tent flap; the federal government simply cannot ignore any attempt to expand its authority. Soon, this bill will look like something Obama cooked up. I say, let it die. My Second Amendment rights are not a state's rights issue. I know it has not been incorporated, but it is still in the Bill of Rights. Fuck states that try to infringe on people's rights to defend themselves and there are quite a few of those. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2009 5:57:41 PM EDT
[#48]
You states rights people crack me up. Which state can suspend my right to free speech, religion, 5th admendment, etc?
Keeping and bearing arms is a natural right. I have a right to defend myself. There should be no law keeping a law abiding, non-felon from having and carrying a gun anywhere. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2009 6:00:37 PM EDT
[#49]
Quoted:
Mixed feelings. I'd certainly love for my Texas CHL to be recognized in all 50 States. On the other hand, this really isn't any of the Federal Government's business. Winner. Zero support from me. The fed has trampled state's rights enough. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2009 6:00:47 PM EDT
[#50]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Mixed feelings. I'd certainly love for my Texas CHL to be recognized in all 50 States. On the other hand, this really isn't any of the Federal Government's business. Article IV, Section 1 of the United States Constitution, commonly known as the Full Faith and Credit Clause, addresses the duties that states within the United States have to respect the "public acts, records, and judicial rulings" of other states. 28 USC §1738: Such Acts, records and judicial proceedings or copies thereof, so authenticated, shall have the same full faith and credit in every court within the US and it Territories and Possessions as they have by law or usage in the courts of such State, Territory or Possession from which they are taken. The full faith and credit clause explains reciprocity in licenses, and extradition in crimes. Isn't this clause the reason that the DL from any state is recognized in all 50 states? I don't see how a concealed handgun license would be any different. I could be wrong, but I don't think that's because of the Full faith and credit clause. I think it's because the States all have reciprocity agreements with each other. Well, you are wrong. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
