Posted on 12/05/2016 8:38:46 AM PST by rktman
A Republican congressman is prepared to introduce national concealed carry legislation in the next Congress after Donald Trump is sworn in as president.
North Carolina Republican Rep. Richard Hudson introduced a similar bill in February 2015, H.R. 986.
Now known as the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017, the bill, which The Daily Caller obtained exclusively, would allow a person with a concealed carry license from one state to carry a concealed handgun in any other state that permits its resident to concealed carry, as long as the person is not banned from possessing or transporting a firearm under federal law. The bill excludes carrying “a machine gun or destructive device,” and the person must follow “the restrictions of that state.”
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
I hope this gets passed, but I’m not going to be the test case for New Jersey or NYC.
No doubt they would pass laws barring entry if you’re thinking about violating their state laws. Would it be any better if “they” were to issue a federal CCW permit? Again, why permit something that’s supposed to be protected by the BOR? All this probably makes me a racist bigot or something. Even further, if you feel the need to obtain a CCW, you just might be a racist. That’s about the mind set of some of the “brilliant” progressives out there.
California will go into full conniption over this.
As a “May Issue” state, usually only the politically connected can get a permit in the urban counties...as it is left up to the County Sheriff to approve.
The fact that “rednecks” from Ariz, NV and OR will be able to freely carry here will send them into another universe of conniption.
When someone is shooting at you a “permit” will be the last thing on your mind it’s up to the one’s who want to risk a fine or die.
As long as this doesn’t lead to a National Registry of CPL holders. Confiscation won’t be far behind.
2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.
So how you or I would like the Second Amendment to be interpreted, SCOTUS has the final say.
Better, IMO, to amend the 1963 GCA and allow those who are licensed CCWs to have firearms shipped directly to them after filling out a 4473 and sending it in with a copy of the license.
We can use the “Well he was mugged, fingerprinted and passed the State and Federal background checks, which is far more than Bloomberg’s schemes require, so why not?”
Use the liberals’ mantra “It’s not fair.” :-)
“.......a National Registry of CPL holders. Confiscation won’t be far behind.”........
You are probably very close to the truth.
I am more interested in the hearing protection act so we can buy supressors without having to pay a $200 tax and wait 6-12 months to get it.
Agreed.
My fear is that this might become linked to other requirements for gun owners.
I could not agree more.
Thus my asking why a permit is “required”. I know, the scotus has said the 2nd in not without some possible constraints, blah, blah, blah. Proving, that having a law degree does NOT in itself convey intelligence. Let’s go back to reading what it says. Not really open to a “hole” lot of interpretation. One man’s “truth” isn’t always another man’s “truth”. Opposing view points will NOT be allowed. Per the libs/socialists/commies/progs.
Should work the same way drivers licenses work.
Issued in one state but valid in all 50. I know, liberals just don’t get it.
“So how you or I would like the Second Amendment to be interpreted, SCOTUS has the final say.”
That’s not how our government is supposed to work. We have three branches of government, and if one of them goes mental the other two are supposed to correct it.
A loophole big enough to launch a Saturn V through.
Well, that's the death knell. Nobody will be coming in from out of state and carrying in any of the Slave States: NY, NJ, MA, MD, RI, CA, MN, IL, HI.
ISWYDT
Let me note that regardless of the bill’s passage or even its content, this is a step on the return path to “regular order”, where single-purpose bills are less than a thousand pages long, and drawn up by our lawmakers, not by think tanks or industry or “The Deep State”, and are publicized in advance and debated by the full Congress, not sneaked into “must pass” bills at the last minute.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.