Welcome to M1911.ORG
The M1911 Pistols Organization Forums Site


Sponsors Panel
If you intend to buy something from Brownells, Cabela's, TandemKros or Tekmat, please use their banners in our sites. Whatever you buy from them, gives us a small commission, which helps us keep these sites alive. You still pay the normal price, our commission comes from their profit, so you have nothing to lose, while we have something to gain. Also, don't forget to visit our other sponsors sites, click-throughs are appreciated by our advertisers. Your help is appreciated.
If you want to become a sponsor and see your banner in the above panel, click here to contact us.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 22

Thread: National carry reciprocity

  1. #11
    Join Date
    21st September 2008
    Posts
    9,390
    Posts liked by others
    59
    Quote Originally Posted by Doran View Post
    Do either the House or Senate bills address those states that have or passed constitutional carry?
    Good question.

    Presumably, any valid form of identification proving that its holder is a resident in a state that has constitutional carry, would have to count as a carry permit in any other state... no?
    Too many people miss the silver lining because they're expecting gold.
    M. Setter

  2. #12
    Join Date
    2nd June 2004
    Location
    Terra
    Posts
    20,374
    Posts liked by others
    102
    Quote Originally Posted by Doran View Post
    Do either the House or Senate bills address those states that have or passed constitutional carry?
    The House bill does. See lines 16 and 17.

    ... or is entitled to carry a concealed firearm in the State in which the person resides, ...
    Hawkmoon
    On a good day, can hit the broad side of a barn ... from the inside

  3. #13
    Join Date
    12th April 2005
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    23
    Posts liked by others
    2
    If the National Carry Reciprocity bill actually becomes law, does that mean that anti gun states like, NJ, NY, MA, CA, MD and the others have to comply with this? There are states such as New jersey where the law avicving citizens are not allowed to leaglly carry a firearm for personal defense. They have to have a "Justifiable Need" according to NJlaw. being that NJ is one of the very anti gun gun states, democrats outnumber republicvans and a majortiy of elected officials are Dems and sit in Trenton (NJ State capital). Will this law supercede any state's firearms laws or not? that is something that needs to be addressed in the national Carry Reciporcity Bill or discussed. I support the National Reciporicity Bill. It will meet fierce opposition for the Anti Gunners.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    2nd June 2004
    Location
    Terra
    Posts
    20,374
    Posts liked by others
    102
    Quote Originally Posted by stephen coraggio View Post
    If the National Carry Reciprocity bill actually becomes law, does that mean that anti gun states like, NJ, NY, MA, CA, MD and the others have to comply with this? ... Will this law supercede any state's firearms laws or not? that is something that needs to be addressed in the national Carry Reciporcity Bill or discussed.
    This is answered at the very beginning of the proposed bill. See lines 3 through 9:

    (a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 926C the following:

    ‘‘§ 926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms

    ‘‘(a) Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof ...
    That's what that means. That phrase means this federal law (if enacted) supersedes any state or local law to the contrary. It's the same language that appears in the LEOSA, which has been tested in court.

    Unfortunately, those in the government who oppose President Trump (both Democrats and Republicans) have created enough road blocks that the national reciprocity bill has been mostly forgotten. It wouldn't hurt to write the President, the Speaker of the House, and your own elected representatives to ask that they move this forward.

    What IS missing from the bill is repeal of the Gun-Free School Zone act. As written, carrying a handgun within 1000 feet of a school property (not ON the school property, and not inside the building, just within 1000 feet of the property) is illegal under federal law unless you have a carry permit issued by the state in which the school zone is located. Words have meaning. Reciprocal registration of a permit from another state is not the same as a license issued by the state in which the school zone is located. So that has to be fixed or reciprocity is significantly neutered.
    Hawkmoon
    On a good day, can hit the broad side of a barn ... from the inside

  5. #15
    Join Date
    1st October 2008
    Posts
    6
    Posts liked by others
    0
    I thought the Original Thirteen Colonial Delegates passed Constitutional Carry
    “God assumed from the beginning that the wise of the world would view Christians as fools ... and He has not been disappointed,” Anonin Scalia

  6. #16
    Join Date
    2nd June 2004
    Location
    Terra
    Posts
    20,374
    Posts liked by others
    102
    Quote Originally Posted by themountainman View Post
    I thought the Original Thirteen Colonial Delegates passed Constitutional Carry
    The Second Amendment was an amendment -- as was the entire Bill of Rights. That means it had to be ratified by the legislatures of the thirteen states, not just delagates to a constitutional convention.
    Hawkmoon
    On a good day, can hit the broad side of a barn ... from the inside

  7. #17
    Join Date
    2nd December 2004
    Posts
    413
    Posts liked by others
    0
    A number of states made their ratification of the Constitution contingent on adding a 'Bill of Rights' to clearly identify limits on the Federal Government.

    The counter argument was made that the government did not have the power to interfere with the rights identified in the BOR.

    See 'Federalist' vs. 'Anti-Federalist' arguments.
    Last edited by brickeyee; 10th June 2017 at 10:47.


  8. #18
    Join Date
    2nd June 2004
    Location
    Terra
    Posts
    20,374
    Posts liked by others
    102
    Quote Originally Posted by brickeyee View Post
    A number of states made their ratification of the Constitution contingent on adding a 'Bill of Rights' to clearly identify limits on the Federal Government.

    The counter argument was made that the government did not have the power to interfere with the rights identified in the BOR.

    See 'Federalist' vs. 'Anti-Federalist' arguments.
    Correct. And that was the case, until the post-Civil War 14th Amendment. Even then, the 14th Amendment was not universally used to apply all the rights in the Bill of Rights to state governments. The rights were "incorporated" incrementally, one by one, over the course of many years. The 2nd Amendment wasn't finally incorporated (ruled to constrain the states as well as the federal government) until the McDonald v. Chicago case.

    It's an interesting paradox. Originally, at the time of the founding, the states had all the rights that became enshrined in the Bill of Rights, and the concern was that they didn't want the federal government to usurp those rights. At the time of the founding, I don't think any of the founding fathers foresaw the day when the individual states would usurp those rights and the federal government would have to step in to restore them.
    Hawkmoon
    On a good day, can hit the broad side of a barn ... from the inside
    Last edited by Hawkmoon; 10th June 2017 at 15:53.


  9. #19
    Join Date
    7th December 2014
    Posts
    53
    Posts liked by others
    1
    I will keep my opinion to myself on what should be, but will offer up free civics in this post. States have no rights. People have rights. States have authority. And states have no authority to restrict rights, and the 14th amendment authorizes the Federal government to enforce that restriction on state authority.

    Section 1.

    All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

    Section 5.The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.


    I'll gladly share my opinion, over at the politics and religion forum. And the many here who believe in following the law and constitution should like the choice of Neil Gorsuch.
    Last edited by Nick M; 10th June 2017 at 17:13.


  10. #20
    Join Date
    2nd June 2004
    Location
    Terra
    Posts
    20,374
    Posts liked by others
    102
    Bill of Rights:

    Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People

    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.
    Hawkmoon
    On a good day, can hit the broad side of a barn ... from the inside

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  



Sponsors Panel
If you intend to buy something from Brownells, Sinclair or Police Store, please use their banners above. Whatever you buy from them, gives us a small commission, which helps us keep these sites alive. You still pay the normal price, our commission comes from their profit, so you have nothing to lose, while we have something to gain. Your help is appreciated.
If you want to become a sponsor and see your banner in the above panel, click here to contact us.
-->

Non-gun-related supporters.
Thank you for visiting our supporters.