Rep. Hudson to introduce Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act

Stoveman · Dec 27, 2016

j_h_smith said:
If the SCOTUS deems the 2A is the right of ALL citizens and that right does not stop at your front door, the 10th Amendment will not come into play. Call it what you will, but once the 2nd Amendment is ruled to mean what we all know it means, this entire thread can be put to bed. Will this bill pass this year, my guess is that it will be tabled until the SCOTUS can rule on a few other issues concerning the 2A. Then and only then should this bill come up.

We are an instant coffee kinda society but this is one where we need to let it sit and brew for a little bit. Instant coffee can be very bitter and no one likes that.

Respectfully, no. If the 2A is ruled to mean what we all know it means this bill wouldn't be necessary.

Pass it, pass it now. Baby steps towards the goal, a SCOTUS ruling would be a 100 yard kick return for a TD....

swinokur · Dec 27, 2016

Stoveman, I agree with you.

In fact passage of the bill with no resulting increase in shootings helps take more wind out of the anti's sails with theirludicrous argument about blood in the streets. Constitutinal carry has proven that.

The sooner this bill becomes law the better off we will be.

I'm smelling coffee.

eruby · Dec 27, 2016

swinokur said:
Stoveman, I agree with you.

In fact passage of the bill with no resulting increase in shootings helps take more wind out of the anti's sails with their argument about blood in the streets.

The sooner this bill becomes law the better off we will be.

I'm smelling coffee.

Agree with 99.99% of this post.

I'm too dense to get the coffee reference.

Inigoes · Dec 27, 2016

swinokur said:
the info i received came with my non resident permit. Obviously going to that state involves travel to that state.

Can the feds mandate to a state that all possible travellers to that stae be given the info? I think many AG and state police web sites have this information, which is more official than the privately run sites. That seems no different than getting an MVA pamphlet, although perhaps not aggregated in one place.

Once the states have been sued enough. It will be cheaper for the State to produce a guide of some type.

swinokur · Dec 27, 2016

eruby said:
Agree with 99.99% of this post.

I'm too dense to get the coffee reference.

.

j_h_smith said:
We are an instant coffee kinda society but this is one where we need to let it sit and brew for a little bit. Instant coffee can be very bitter and no one likes that.

eruby · Dec 27, 2016

swinokur said:
.

Reading is Fundamental (except for me).

j_h_smith · Dec 27, 2016

Stoveman said:
Respectfully, no. If the 2A is ruled to mean what we all know it means this bill wouldn't be necessary.

Pass it, pass it now. Baby steps towards the goal, a SCOTUS ruling would be a 100 yard kick return for a TD....

So by that standard, you're willing to throw a hail mary to win the game? I don't think so. We need solid footings to build this bill on. Without the SCOTUS ruling favorably on the 2A, this bill will never have any teeth. As it's been discussed here, you can see where there are holes and possibly caverns when talking about this matter. We need to make sure, when this bill comes up for a vote, we have a firm, solid footing which no left minded quagmire can stop. As many have said, the 10th Amendment would nip many of the benefits and we would still be sitting in a puddle of mud. A favorable ruling on the 2A and all questions concerning this bill go away.

But if we just pass this bill, as you say as a baby step, we could find it coming back to bite us if we don't dot our I's and cross our T's.

swinokur · Dec 27, 2016

SCOTUS has denied CERT on the past 2-3 carry cases presented to it. We have no guarantee they ever will hear another.

Waiting is a fools errand IMO.

GlocksAndPatriots · Dec 27, 2016

A "favorable" ruling on the 2nd Amendment from SCOTUS? We can't get ANY ruling from SCOTUS, and every lower court ruling except Moore has been made in bad faith. Congressional action is the only way changes will be made. The courts won't do it. Anybody who thinks otherwise has been burying his head in the sand for the past 8 years.

j_h_smith · Dec 27, 2016

swinokur said:
SCOTUS has denied CERT on the past 2-3 carry cases presented to it. We have no guarantee they ever will hear another.

Waiting is a fools errand IMO.

We can agree to disagree.

swinokur · Dec 27, 2016

yes we can.

navycraig · Dec 27, 2016

Inigoes said:
My point: Carry laws (concealed or open) need to be easier to follow than Driving.

^^^That was my point.

I know it's my responsibility, but it's a mine field out there.

j_h_smith · Dec 27, 2016

GlocksAndPatriots said:
A "favorable" ruling on the 2nd Amendment from SCOTUS? We can't get ANY ruling from SCOTUS, and every lower court ruling except Moore has been made in bad faith. Congressional action is the only way changes will be made. The courts won't do it. Anybody who thinks otherwise has been burying his head in the sand for the past 8 years.

Yeah, you're right. That Heller case meant nothing at all.... :sad20:

Inigoes · Dec 27, 2016

j_h_smith said:
So by that standard, you're willing to throw a hail mary to win the game? I don't think so. We need solid footings to build this bill on. Without the SCOTUS ruling favorably on the 2A, this bill will never have any teeth. As it's been discussed here, you can see where there are holes and possibly caverns when talking about this matter. We need to make sure, when this bill comes up for a vote, we have a firm, solid footing which no left minded quagmire can stop. As many have said, the 10th Amendment would nip many of the benefits and we would still be sitting in a puddle of mud. A favorable ruling on the 2A and all questions concerning this bill go away.

But if we just pass this bill, as you say as a baby step, we could find it coming back to bite us if we don't dot our I's and cross our T's.

We have been in a catch-22 since Heller and McDonald.

The courts have pointed to Congress saying they have not made an attempt to define 2A outside the home, so why should we?

If Congress can give the court(s) a direction instead of the slow incrementalism that has been adopted, the process to regain/restore a fundamental right might speed up past the cold molasses gear we are stuck in.

swinokur · Dec 27, 2016

sadly, Heller really didn't do much to move the ball, as SCOTUS was too vague in it's ruling. IT helped DC residents more than the rest of us.

sorry

Stoveman · Dec 27, 2016

j_h_smith said:
So by that standard, you're willing to throw a hail mary to win the game? I don't think so. We need solid footings to build this bill on. Without the SCOTUS ruling favorably on the 2A, this bill will never have any teeth. As it's been discussed here, you can see where there are holes and possibly caverns when talking about this matter. We need to make sure, when this bill comes up for a vote, we have a firm, solid footing which no left minded quagmire can stop. As many have said, the 10th Amendment would nip many of the benefits and we would still be sitting in a puddle of mud. A favorable ruling on the 2A and all questions concerning this bill go away.

But if we just pass this bill, as you say as a baby step, we could find it coming back to bite us if we don't dot our I's and cross our T's.

That's not what I said. National Reciprocity is the baby step. I don't see the bill in it's current language having any holes or caverns other than the citizens of states like MD can't benefit from it.

I fully expect some of the libtard states to go completely off the deep end if this passes. Would't surprise me if NY made all of NYC a GFZ for example, but I'd like to think that with a friendly USAG some pee pee whacking would be the result. Bring it on....

Stoveman · Dec 27, 2016

navycraig said:
^^^That was my point.

I know it's my responsibility, but it's a mine field out there.

Hardly. I'm not the smartest fella, but I negotiate the "minefield" successfully many times a year.

I just think it's funny that some of this group who routinely post up about how to be self sufficient during power outages, prep for TEOTWAWKI, get the best deal on cable TV, etc... think that doing a few minutes of research before travel is too much of a cross to bear....

swinokur · Dec 27, 2016

QFT brother Stove.. QFT.

j_h_smith · Dec 27, 2016

Stoveman said:
That's not what I said. National Reciprocity is the baby step. I don't see the bill in it's current language having any holes or caverns other than the citizens of states like MD can't benefit from it.

I fully expect some of the libtard states to go completely off the deep end if this passes. Would't surprise me if NY made all of NYC a GFZ for example, but I'd like to think that with a friendly USAG some pee pee whacking would be the result. Bring it on....

But don't you think that some state residents won't be treated equally as the rest of the country by the passing of this law? That's where the problem lies if this bill is passed without a more clear stance on the 2A. This is supposed to be a Federal law if passed. A law that some will not be afforded the same protections under that law simply by their state's legislature. In order for this bill to become the law of the land, the 10A restrictions must be removed. The only way I see that happening is a clear and concise ruling on the 2A.

Again, I have no issue with what you want, I just don't see it as a legitimate way for the Congress Critters to act on this matter. It's all opinion at this point. You have the right to have yours, as I do mine. I'm not right all of the time. There was this one time I thought I was wrong, but it proved I was actually wrong. So there, see, I'm not perfect. :innocent0

swinokur · Dec 27, 2016

The bill's legal footing is the Commerce Clause of the COTUS, not equal protection. The GFSZA uses the same constitutional foundation.

Been found to stand constitutional challenges and SCOTUS scrutiny. That's why the GFSZA was rewritten after the SCOTUS found it unconstitutional. The Commerce Clause was added and it then becamee Constitutional.
.

Rep. Hudson to introduce Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

TV Personality

In a State of Bliss

Confederate Jew

Head'n for the hills

In a State of Bliss

Confederate Jew

Ultimate Member

In a State of Bliss

Banned

Ultimate Member

In a State of Bliss

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Head'n for the hills

In a State of Bliss

TV Personality

TV Personality

In a State of Bliss

Ultimate Member

In a State of Bliss

Attachments

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics