Rep. Hudson to introduce Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act

GlocksAndPatriots · Dec 27, 2016

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

It did mean nothing. Read this article from Gura. Other than the one favorable ruling from the 7th Circuit, there have basically been no changes. Heller has been symbolic, and that's about it.

http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/09/t...ve-justice-may-not-save-the-second-amendment/

swinokur · Dec 27, 2016

As I stated Heller helped DC residents who had previously been prohibited from possessing in their homes. It did nothing to advance the legality of carry outside the home.. Moore helped IL residents get carry.

That's it

Waiting is not the path to victory.

GlocksAndPatriots · Dec 27, 2016

j_h_smith said:
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.

There are no 10th Amendment restrictions. You realize that the courts haven't held that any federal law violates the 10th Amendment in decades right?

GlocksAndPatriots · Dec 27, 2016

swinokur said:
As I stated Heller helped DC residents who had previously been prohibited from possessing in their homes. It did nothing to advance the legality of carry outside the home.. Moore helped IL residents get carry.

That's it

Yes, exactly. Outside of those two, every ruling has been negative. From the $340 fee, to "may issue," to "safe storage," to "assault weapons bans," to the 10-day waiting period, the courts have universally used a standard of scrutiny that no law will ever fail. And it was that way by design.

vgplayer · Dec 27, 2016

There was a Gun Talk Podcast earlier this year that had Alan Gura and Alan Gottlieb (or another lawyer) which discussed the state of Heller, McDonald, and the SC. If I remember correctly the basic assertion was that Heller, McDonald aren't being applied correctly and these cases' dissenting opinions are being used by the lower courts. Combined with SC denying CERTs there is no checks in place to rectify this incorrect application so more and more cases are solidifying that incorrect application.

Alphabrew · Dec 27, 2016

I have a Utah carry license. If this passes does it essentially make my Utah license invalid since I don't have a home state of Maryland carry license?

swinokur · Dec 27, 2016

no, the proposed law has no requirement for a home state permit. Only that you possess a license issued by A STATE.

Which means non resident permits can also be recognized for reciprocity purposes.

GlocksAndPatriots · Dec 27, 2016

vgplayer said:
There was a Gun Talk Podcast earlier this year that had Alan Gura and Alan Gottlieb (or another lawyer) which discussed the state of Heller, McDonald, and the SC. If I remember correctly the basic assertion was that Heller, McDonald aren't being applied correctly and these cases' dissenting opinions are being used by the lower courts. Combined with SC denying CERTs there is no checks in place to rectify this incorrect application so more and more cases are solidifying that incorrect application.

Yes. The courts are basically applying rational basis scrutiny to laws that infringe upon a fundamental right.

swinokur · Dec 27, 2016

vgplayer said:
There was a Gun Talk Podcast earlier this year that had Alan Gura and Alan Gottlieb (or another lawyer) which discussed the state of Heller, McDonald, and the SC. If I remember correctly the basic assertion was that Heller, McDonald aren't being applied correctly and these cases' dissenting opinions are being used by the lower courts. Combined with SC denying CERTs there is no checks in place to rectify this incorrect application so more and more cases are solidifying that incorrect application.

Which is precisely why waiting on the courts is a giant waste of time. Only legislation can fix the log jam of conficting Appeals Court rulings with no clarification coming from SCOTUS

ShafTed · Dec 27, 2016

My opinion on SCOTUS as relates to 2A.

Getting a "proper" replacement for Scalia will only return the SC to the previous status quo. That means there will be 4 hard-left liberals, 3 reasonably solid conservatives, and 2 squishies-in-the-middle: Roberts and Kennedy. I have heard some speculation that Kennedy in particular might have switched sides from Heller and McDonald and that is one reason for no cert on 2A cases, since no one knows which side Kennedy is on anymore. Pure guesswork on my part, seems feasible but worth exactly what you paid for it. Roberts' convoluted affirmation of Obama's health insurance disaster was an eye opener, I'm not so sure he can still be counted on for support of 2A.

In order for the court to be at least somewhat safer for advancing 2A issues, we will need to also replace one or more of the hard lefties. Ginsberg will either retire or expire as she chooses, or maybe we can replace Breyer or Kennedy with a good, known-solid conservative. Then and only then will substantial progress be made.

(Not on-topic for this discussion but still SC related, I would also like to see Thomas retire sometime soon so President Trump can replace him with someone who is the same only 30 years younger. This is another thing which will be a big step toward securing the SC long into the future.)

Again, this is only my opinion, and worth exactly nothing in the grand scheme of things.

swinokur · Dec 27, 2016

excellent summation and I concur.

GlocksAndPatriots · Dec 27, 2016

ShafTed said:
My opinion on SCOTUS as relates to 2A.

Getting a "proper" replacement for Scalia will only return the SC to the previous status quo. That means there will be 4 hard-left liberals, 3 reasonably solid conservatives, and 2 squishies-in-the-middle: Roberts and Kennedy. I have heard some speculation that Kennedy in particular might have switched sides from Heller and McDonald and that is one reason for no cert on 2A cases, since no one knows which side Kennedy is on anymore. Pure guesswork on my part, seems feasible but worth exactly what you paid for it. Roberts' convoluted affirmation of Obama's health insurance disaster was an eye opener, I'm not so sure he can still be counted on for support of 2A.

In order for the court to be at least somewhat safer for advancing 2A issues, we will need to also replace one or more of the hard lefties. Ginsberg will either retire or expire as she chooses, or maybe we can replace Breyer or Kennedy with a good, known-solid conservative. Then and only then will substantial progress be made.

(Not on-topic for this discussion but still SC related, I would also like to see Thomas retire sometime soon so President Trump can replace him with someone who is the same only 30 years younger. This is another thing which will be a big step toward securing the SC long into the future.)

Again, this is only my opinion, and worth exactly nothing in the grand scheme of things.

Great post. And since there's no guarantee that Trump will win a second term or that any liberal judge (I'm including Kennedy in this) will die or retire in the next 4 years, "waiting for SCOTUS" could mean waiting forever. This is the first time the GOP has had control of all three branches of government since 2006. It's time to take advantage of it while we still can.

Inigoes · Dec 27, 2016

GlocksAndPatriots said:
Great post. And since there's no guarantee that Trump will win a second term or that any liberal judge (I'm including Kennedy in this) will die or retire in the next 4 years, "waiting for SCOTUS" could mean waiting forever. This is the first time the GOP has had control of all three branches of government since 2006. It's time to take advantage of it while we still can.

Ginsburg isn't getting any younger at 80
Breyer is next at 77

GlocksAndPatriots · Dec 27, 2016

Inigoes said:
Ginsburg isn't getting any younger at 80
Breyer is next at 77

And she won't retire with Trump in office. Will she die in next 4 years? Maybe, but no guarantees.

Alphabrew · Dec 27, 2016

swinokur said:
no, the proposed law has no requirement for a home state permit. Only that you possess a license issued by A STATE.

Which means non resident permits can also be recognized for reciprocity purposes.

That's awesome! But I know on the Utah application it asks if you have a permit for your state *IF* your state grants reciprocity with Utah. So it will be interesting to see how this all shakes out...

swinokur · Dec 27, 2016

depends on whether being forced to recognize a permit by a Federal statute counts as reciprocity. if it does, get a FL permit. problem solved.

KevinK · Dec 27, 2016

swinokur said:
depends on whether being forced to recognize a permit by a Federal statute counts as reciprocity. if it does, get a FL permit. problem solved.

swinokur · Dec 27, 2016

better et, get a NH NR permit. 100 bucks

no training, no fingerprints. And get carry in PA right now.

gulfwarsubvet · Dec 27, 2016

swinokur said:
yep, there is a lot of butt hurt among those of us who are being deprived of a right, not a privilege.

And rightlfully so.

I wonder if you'd feel differently if you were one of us who are not deemed worthy by the Lords of Maryland

Congratulations on your permit.

This.....I was one of those who was butthurt for years. Tired of carrying a security clearance for 20+ years, but couldn't carry in my home state. While people with records, and who knew the right people, were given permits. Tired of seeing a state with gun laws as lax as any state back in the 70s digress to a wanna-be California.
I'm sincerely hoping things get better for you guys in MD...especially a right to carry for the common man.
Firearms laws were one of the main factors I left and important enough to me that I took an almost 50% paycut to do so. But, I have never looked back...as life is good outside of MD. In free America it only took me and the wife 2 weeks to get permits. Today I stopped on the way home and bought a new revolver and carried it home with me.
I know it's a long shot, but I'm hoping the laws there get better for my friends and family back there...such that you get to enjoy some of the same freedoms. Maybe the incoming administration and a couple Supreme Court justices will help at the Federal level, accomplish what seems to be a lost cause at times in states like MD. :fingerscrossed:

JPG · Dec 27, 2016

If this passes, i wonder if the next step will be allowing anyone to buy any gun from any FFL in any state. :shrug:

Rep. Hudson to introduce Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Banned

In a State of Bliss

Banned

Banned

Ultimate Member

Binary male Lesbian

In a State of Bliss

Banned

In a State of Bliss

Ultimate Member

In a State of Bliss

Banned

Head'n for the hills

Banned

Binary male Lesbian

In a State of Bliss

Ultimate Member

In a State of Bliss

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics