Reciprocity Bill introduced with more than 25 Cosponsors

[Heredoggydoggy]

If Harry Reid has anything to do with it, I'm against it.  There has to be an ulterior motive there someplace.  And if any Democrats are for it, you can bet Senator Cant-vote-well, And the Granny-in-Tennis Shoes will vote for it.  I'm just glad that lying sack Inslee won't be in on it.  But if he gets in as Governor, he'll suggest it anyway! 

[KyleMB123]

I would also like to point out that Rand "sell-out" Paul is sponsoring this garbage bill. Thanks for attempting to expand federal gov't power and further legitimize infringements on the second amendment you constitutional scholar you. Rand must have been adopted.

[Special T]

I do think this bill puts many of us pro 2nd admendment types in a catch 22. I beliver we all know it is our consitutional right to bear arms and the reinforcement of that is a good thing. However it would seem that the only way to prevent rights from eroding is by banding together with like minded people in in states that protect our rights form the jack booted feds and those that inhabit the alfabet soup agencies.    I'm not as quick to judge Rand Paul as you Kyle. I think Rand is not a "pure" as the beloved Ron, but Rand may actually acomplish more by being a better player of the game... Time will tell...

[huntrights]

Here is a link to bring you up to date on National Right to Carry Reciprocity:

http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/hot-topics/national-right-to-carry.aspx?s=h.r.+822&st=&ps=

[Bigshooter]

It creates a precedent for regulation of the 2nd Amendment at a federal level. 

I made the tough choice to leave Washington, feeling that it is overrun by socialists. If the RKBA becomes prohibitively strangled at the federal level, there will be nowhere left to run. Be careful what you wish for.

You are right it creates pro 2nd Amendment precedent by the federal.  The federal government has already set anti 2nd Amendment precedent when Clinton signed the assualt weapons ban.  And you could say that Bush created more pro 2nd Amendent precedent when he let the assualt weapons ban expire.  To me it's a waste of time worrying about precedent being set by the federal government.  When one side has a majority they do what they want.

[Atroxus]

It creates a precedent for regulation of the 2nd Amendment at a federal level. 

I made the tough choice to leave Washington, feeling that it is overrun by socialists. If the RKBA becomes prohibitively strangled at the federal level, there will be nowhere left to run. Be careful what you wish for.

You are right it creates pro 2nd Amendment precedent by the federal.  The federal government has already set anti 2nd Amendment precedent when Clinton signed the assualt weapons ban.  And you could say that Bush created more pro 2nd Amendent precedent when he let the assualt weapons ban expire.  To me it's a waste of time worrying about precedent being set by the federal government.  When one side has a majority they do what they want.

  As far as "state's rights" argument goes though, I don't think states should be allowed to restrict our rights any more than the federal government. Our 2nd amendment doesn't say anything about requiring training to be able to keep and bear arms. The states that do have that requirement should not be allowed to affect the rights of people from states that do not.

Personally I think the people who nit-pick every pro-gun measure and dig in their heels because it isn't the end-all, be-all, perfect solution are doing just as much damage to our gun rights as the anti-gunners. Some of us would rather make no progress at all, then accept anything less than a "perfect solution".

As far as I can tell there is nothing in this measure that negatively affects our 2nd amendment rights. Sure some *censored* 10 years down the road might come along and ruin it, but that could be argued for ANY pro-gun measure, or any other measure for that matter. 

[Bean Counter]

I appreciate your comments, guys. It seems you are taking a more pragmatic approach and yes, I am admittedly an idealistic prick at times.

I would encourage you to review the tradition of how laws are enacted and later modified at the federal level. Roll up your sleeves and dig into the weeds a little. Just look at the federal income tax. I used to have a souvineer pamphlet on the wall of my office of the original income tax code. I think it was about ten pages. Today its 44,000. The top marginal income tax rate was 5%. Now its 35% (used to be 70% under Uncle Jimmy). Think about Obamacare. Many wise, heroic conservatives are attempting to repeal it BEFORE it takes full effect in a few years and you have a dependent  class of grabastic, moocher voters who depend on it and will loyally vote Democrat from cradle to grave.

Yes, a Democrat supermajority in both houses could enact sweeping gun bans down the road. But even with minorities in both houses its a lot easier to attach amendments to larger bills that start taking pot shots at CCW if there is an already existing federal CCW law. This would have direct effect on CCW in all of the Dear Leader's 57 states. Again, this would be an immediate improvement for those living in Kalifornia, but for those of us who have manned up and moved the heck out of communist states its overall a loss. I and a lot of people like me paid a high price to uproot from a state of socialistic f-tards like Washington. I don't want to suffer under the filth promulgated by Maria Cantwell and Patty Murray when I have chose to live insulated in a state where I can carry a gun without a permission slip from the government and SHE is still my governor 

[Bean Counter]

Bigshooter: you mention the 1994 AWB. I think it was Senator Diane Frankenstein from CA who said that the end result of the bill would be very little. She said it was in fact a stepping stone to broader regulation.

[Wacenturion]

Personally like the idea.  Maybe I'm wrong, but I would rather have the protection of 2nd Amendment rights handled at the federal level.  It's the governments job to uphold the Constitution.  That way you avoid differing opinions in 50 states and god only knows how many counties, cities and towns, due to local politicians.

Screw Chicago, Seattle, California and the rest of the country that oppose it and the liberties given.  This is what the Constitution says....get with it or we're withholding federal funds.

[KyleMB123]

Personally like the idea.  Maybe I'm wrong, but I would rather have the protection of 2nd Amendment rights handled at the federal level.

The second amendment is already protected at the national level by the fact that it's the second amendment to our Constitution. Any CWP legislation at the national level is an infringement on the second amendment. Any CWP legislation at the state level is also an infringement on the second amendment. The second amendment is only one sentence. It is not at all difficult to understand it's meaning.