• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Support H.R. 822, the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011

Cmdr_Haggis

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2011
Messages
54
Location
Leesburg, VA
if that took place in a vacuum, you might be correct. Sure they could attempt to revoked concealed carry laws in their state, but they would then be answerable to the voters, and with the awakening of 2A rights supporters, that's going to be a difficult thing to vote for and stay elected.

I think you're giving way too much credit to the legislator-constituent relationship. I don't know too many elected officials who aren't vying for the perks of being a career politician which allows them to safely kiss a baby while stealing its lollipop. Even a staunch 2A politician can waver in their support if greased enough.
 

Mas49.56

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2010
Messages
308
Location
Florida, USA
So, right now I can travel back and forth within an hour between FL and AL. I can do it armed and at anytime. How is this bill better? It looks like I am ordered by the Federal government to write, email, or call Alabama law enforcement, get some kind of confirmation, print it out or be put on some approved list and only then be allowed to travel armed to Alabama? Do I have to do this everyday I go, or just once a month? When I drive on a trip through several states, do I have to do this for every state and organize my confirmation paperwork in a three ring binder? What if one state doesn't process my humble request before my trip? What do I do then? I have about a hundred more questions about this bill and the growing number of amendments. Well at least the BATFE can get a bigger budget and add a letter "T" for travel. BATFET.:eek: I know this is just a proposed amendment at the moment, but this is getting scary!
 
Last edited:

kcgunfan

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2011
Messages
1,002
Location
KC
I think you're giving way too much credit to the legislator-constituent relationship. I don't know too many elected officials who aren't vying for the perks of being a career politician which allows them to safely kiss a baby while stealing its lollipop. Even a staunch 2A politician can waver in their support if greased enough.

Not at all. I expect my elected officials to act in their own best interest. I just try to elect ones that match up best with mine. But, I am putting my faith in the constituents. In Missouri at least, I'm sure that any attempt to repeal the CC law will be met with considerable resistance, in all but a couple areas of the state. Since, according to the terms of this bill, the only "acceptable" solution to the antis would be to completely repeal the CCW law, since any solution less than that would permit the unwashed heathen in the other 49 states to hide their death sticks on them. I'm not worried that this will happen.
 

kcgunfan

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2011
Messages
1,002
Location
KC
So, right now I can travel back and forth within an hour between FL and AL. I can do it armed and at anytime. How is this bill better? It looks like I am ordered by the Federal government to write, email, or call Alabama law enforcement, get some kind of confirmation, print it out or be put on some approved list and only then be allowed to travel armed to Alabama? Do I have to do this everyday I go, or just once a month? When I drive on a trip through several states, do I have to do this for every state and organize my confirmation paperwork in a three ring binder? What if one state doesn't process my humble request before my trip? What do I do then? I have about a hundred more questions about this bill and the growing number of amendments. Well at least the BATFE can get a bigger budget and add a letter "T" for travel. BATFET.:eek: I know this is just a proposed amendment at the moment, but this is getting scary!

I like you're argument that you can travel back and forth between FL and AL, and do it armed and at anytime. And I will agree that this bill does not do you any good for that circumstance. Let me make my counter argument. I live in Missouri. One of our neighbor states is Illinois. I cannot carry my firearm for protection of my kids there, and some areas in Illinois that are known to be pretty violent. How does this bill help me?

Also, it's not a proposed amendment, it's a voted down amendment. And, from what I remember, it was voted down by something like 25 to 3. Basically, it was killed with fire. You can conclude that such a provision is vanishingly unlikely to make it into the final bill.
 

mrjam2jab

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2009
Messages
769
Location
Levittown, Pennsylvania, USA
I like you're argument that you can travel back and forth between FL and AL, and do it armed and at anytime. And I will agree that this bill does not do you any good for that circumstance. Let me make my counter argument. I live in Missouri. One of our neighbor states is Illinois. I cannot carry my firearm for protection of my kids there, and some areas in Illinois that are known to be pretty violent. How does this bill help me?

Also, it's not a proposed amendment, it's a voted down amendment. And, from what I remember, it was voted down by something like 25 to 3. Basically, it was killed with fire. You can conclude that such a provision is vanishingly unlikely to make it into the final bill.


I live in PA...of the 6 states that border PA only WV honors the PA LTCF. You can see where this bill will help me. :lol:
 

Redbaron007

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2011
Messages
1,613
Location
SW MO
I like you're argument that you can travel back and forth between FL and AL, and do it armed and at anytime. And I will agree that this bill does not do you any good for that circumstance. Let me make my counter argument. I live in Missouri. One of our neighbor states is Illinois. I cannot carry my firearm for protection of my kids there, and some areas in Illinois that are known to be pretty violent. How does this bill help me?

Also, it's not a proposed amendment, it's a voted down amendment. And, from what I remember, it was voted down by something like 25 to 3. Basically, it was killed with fire. You can conclude that such a provision is vanishingly unlikely to make it into the final bill.

I'm just asking, but are you insinuating this bill will allow you to carry in IL, if passed? If you do, this bill won't do that.

With the flurry of activity over the past week, trying to add amendments for both sides, make this bill a target for failure; which is pleasing to me. To many folks have confidence in the NRA using their clout to prevent other amendments that would water it down; I'm not convinced they can defeat all anti-gun amendments that creep in. What happens to this bill when the Dems have control?

This bill is about CCW, not about owning guns. The states should be the ones, like they have, to work out the reciprocity. It may be slow, but it is better than having the bureaucrats in Washington make the decision.
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
This bill is about CCW, not about owning guns. The states should be the ones, like they have, to work out the reciprocity. It may be slow, but it is better than having the bureaucrats in Washington make the decision.

I would argue that it should remain in the states so as to prevent the feds from pigeon-holing (pork-barreling) ten things we absolutely do not want in this legislation just so we can have reciprocity. In other words, national reciprocity is NOT worth the price of registration, mandatory permitting, fed-imposed age restrictions, and the rest. The 2A's prohibition is against Congress infringing on the RKBA. Any such pork is most certainly an infringement on the RKBA. In fact, I'm beginning to think part of the Dem's strategy is to use our own desire for national reciprocity as bait so they can hook us into infringements with which we otherwise would never have agreed.
 

Redbaron007

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2011
Messages
1,613
Location
SW MO
........ I'm beginning to think part of the Dem's strategy is to use our own desire for national reciprocity as bait so they can hook us into infringements with which we otherwise would never have agreed.

After this weekend, I'm a starting to really get the same thoughts. I spoke to several friends/acquaintances this weekend, who are liberal and believe guns are for hunting and defense of the home only, and they support this bill. That made my hair stand on end. After trying to figure out why they support it, I got the feeling they were suporting this bill, with the assumption, that later it could be used for their benefit of regulating pistols/firearms in the future. And BTW, several of these folks were educated on the issue. :uhoh:
 

Cmdr_Haggis

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2011
Messages
54
Location
Leesburg, VA
... I'm beginning to think part of the Dem's strategy is to use our own desire for national reciprocity as bait so they can hook us into infringements with which we otherwise would never have agreed.

More flies with honey... We want reciprocity, the Dems will give us national reciprocity. And then stab us by attaching a whole lot of rules. I can see the conversation around the Democrat water cooler in the Capital. "Damn, I can't believe those gun nuts fell for this!"

The Fed isn't needed 99% of the time, but who even knows what the 10th Amendment is for anymore?

From U.S. v. Darby:
The amendment states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered. There is nothing in the history of its adoption to suggest that it was more than declaratory of the relationship between the national and state governments as it had been established by the Constitution before the amendment or that its purpose was other than to allay fears that the new national government might seek to exercise powers not granted, and that the states might not be able to exercise fully their reserved powers.

What has the Citizen surrendered? What has the State surrendered? Could the national government exercise powers which were not granted? Through application of the Commerce and the "Necessary and Proper" clauses of Article I of the Constitution, the national government has near limitless authority (no matter how misguided or ill-conceived) to do whatever it cares at the moment. Those two clauses have effectively created the obscene blight that is the Fed. Patrick Henry, it is said, was concerned that this would cause the national government to have limitless power and would, in time, threaten one's liberty. (I wish I could find a proper cite for that, but I understand that it's in Reclaiming the American Revolution by William Watkins.)
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
Through application of the Commerce and the "Necessary and Proper" clauses of Article I of the Constitution, the national government has near limitless authority (no matter how misguided or ill-conceived) to do whatever it cares at the moment. Those two clauses have effectively created the obscene blight that is the Fed.

Sounds like we need another amendment, passed by 3/4 of the States!


"Article. V.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress..."


We should call it the "Take a Hike Initiative."
 
Last edited:
Top