Post by: netcoyote on January 23, 2014, 07:01:13 AM
Bill Introduced To Allow Concealed Carry Permits to Transfer Across State Lines Like Drivers Licenses
Katie Pavlich | Jan 21, 2014
Texas Senator John Cornyn has introduced new legislation that if passed would allow concealed carry holders to travel from state to state without fear of breaking the law. The idea is similar to national reciprocity and concealed carry permits would be recognized as legal just like a drivers license.
San Antonio 1200 WOAI News Radio's Michael Board discussed the legislation with Cornyn yesterday.
"It would allow people with a concealed handgun license in Texas to travel to other states and maintain their legal status," Cornyn told 1200 WOAI's Michael Board.
Late last year Illinois finally became the 50th state with concealed carry permissions and more people than ever are applying for permits all over the country. Last week at the SHOT Show is Las Vegas it was clear manufacturers are meeting the high demand of concealed carry firearms with new lines of compact, easily concealable pocket pistols.
This story caught my attention since I recently spent a lot of time and money to get non-resident CPL for Idaho, Utah and Oregon to prepare for a road trip I have planned. It's a real hassle. It sure would be a lot easier to have permits treated like a driver's license which are recognized in every state. Of course, in order to do this, the Federal government has to be involved. To me, that is the real risk with passing a nation-wide reciprocity bill like the one being proposed.
You can't have it both ways. If Federalism (states having a certain amount of autonomy) is a good thing, then putting the concealed pistol license in the hands of the Federal government seems like a real risky idea. I think it's generally a bad idea to relinquish the right of individual states to govern their own destiny as much as possible. Right now, the concealed permit process is a real hodgepodge of concepts from none required at all (Vermont) to easily obtained shall-issue states like WA to some states that reserve total discretion (may-issue) and are hard to obtain. Legally carrying while traveling through a lot of states can be a real test of understanding different laws as well as meeting all the training and/or skills requirements of each state.
What do you guys think? Reciprocity for all states or leave the current state-by-state laws as they exist?
Post by: CAMPMEAT on January 23, 2014, 07:17:30 AM
Post by: Special T on January 23, 2014, 08:02:04 AM
Post by: Bean Counter on January 23, 2014, 08:06:17 AM
How well is federal involvement in wolf regulation working out for ya??
Post by: ghosthunter on January 23, 2014, 08:10:29 AM
I think your cpl should give you the right to carry cc anywhere the American Flag flies. I think you should be able to open carry any where the American Flag Flies unrestricted until you prove yourself unworthy of the right to carry.
But I prefer the management of my cpl to stay with my home state.
Post by: FC on January 23, 2014, 08:16:23 AM
The rules are complex enough in Wa that you really should at least acknowledge the differences of how you would be treated in the different counties here.
Wa state carry law is Wa state carry law, state preemption prevents any city, county, etc from making or enforcing more restrictive laws than state. It has been tried more than once and failed every time. You may get treated differently for it in different counties but not not for any reason involving law.
Post by: ghosthunter on January 23, 2014, 08:20:40 AM
The rules are complex enough in Wa that you really should at least acknowledge the differences of how you would be treated in the different counties here.
Wa state carry law is Wa state carry law, state preemption prevents any city, county, etc from making or enforcing more restrictive laws than state. It has been tried more than once and failed every time. You may get treated differently for it in different counties but not not for any reason involving law.
:yeah:
I would say you are more apt to be treated different depending on what city you are in. County lawman are well trained. Forest Service LE not so much.
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 23, 2014, 08:23:38 AM
Having reciprocity may be a stepping stone to a national database of concealed carry permit holders - as good as a gun list. As it stands now, WA state law gives the county sheriffs the right to oppose federal requests for their CPL lists. In the name of verification, were reciprocity allowed nationwide, I believe the feds would be asking to compile a list of anyone with a CPL, CCW, whatever.
Until our rights are maintained in this legislation by prohibiting the feds specifically from compiling a list, I would oppose this bill.
Post by: ghosthunter on January 23, 2014, 08:26:07 AM
In reality, we should be able to carry anywhere in the country with nothing more than our Constitutional rights required.
Having reciprocity may be a stepping stone to a national database of concealed carry permit holders - as good as a gun list. As it stands now, WA state law gives the county sheriffs the right to oppose federal requests for their CPL lists. In the name of verification, were reciprocity allowed nationwide, I believe the feds would be asking to compile a list of anyone with a CPL, CCW, whatever.
Until our rights are maintained in this legislation by prohibiting the feds specifically from compiling a list, I would oppose this bill.
:yeah:
Post by: Jonathan_S on January 23, 2014, 08:38:14 AM
In reality, we should be able to carry anywhere in the country with nothing more than our Constitutional rights required.
Having reciprocity may be a stepping stone to a national database of concealed carry permit holders - as good as a gun list. As it stands now, WA state law gives the county sheriffs the right to oppose federal requests for their CPL lists. In the name of verification, were reciprocity allowed nationwide, I believe the feds would be asking to compile a list of anyone with a CPL, CCW, whatever.
Until our rights are maintained in this legislation by prohibiting the feds specifically from compiling a list, I would oppose this bill.
:yeah:
x3 this is spot-on in my opinion. I cringe at the idea of new federalized rules but I would encourage nationwide carry rules based on the Constitution.
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on January 23, 2014, 08:42:39 AM
In reality, we should be able to carry anywhere in the country with nothing more than our Constitutional rights required.
Having reciprocity may be a stepping stone to a national database of concealed carry permit holders - as good as a gun list. As it stands now, WA state law gives the county sheriffs the right to oppose federal requests for their CPL lists. In the name of verification, were reciprocity allowed nationwide, I believe the feds would be asking to compile a list of anyone with a CPL, CCW, whatever.
Until our rights are maintained in this legislation by prohibiting the feds specifically from compiling a list, I would oppose this bill.
:yeah:
Make that X4 :yeah:
Post by: bigtex on January 23, 2014, 08:55:23 AM
Read the stats, federal land management agency LE (they all attend the same training) attend more training hours then WA officers.I would say you are more apt to be treated different depending on what city you are in. County lawman are well trained. Forest Service LE not so much.The rules are complex enough in Wa that you really should at least acknowledge the differences of how you would be treated in the different counties here.
Wa state carry law is Wa state carry law, state preemption prevents any city, county, etc from making or enforcing more restrictive laws than state. It has been tried more than once and failed every time. You may get treated differently for it in different counties but not not for any reason involving law.
Post by: CAMPMEAT on January 23, 2014, 09:08:23 AM
He'd even write bigtex a ticket for doing something completely legal.............. :chuckle:
Post by: bigtex on January 23, 2014, 09:17:17 AM
Our Forest Service LEO went to school in Kalifornia to become a biologist. There were no biologist jobs, so he started looking for a FEDERAL job, found this one in Republic with zero training in law enforcement at all, got hired on. Then his head got so big, it exploded with his power trips. Sure, he got raining AFTER the fact, but he needs more training for people skills. He's a horrible representation of any LEO I know. I know this guy personally too.Doesn't matter where he is from. It is nearly impossible for a federal officer (no matter what agency) to get hired on locally as their first job. It takes some feds their entire career to get back "home." And actually he had to attend the federal land management LE academy before he started working LE and that is a fact.
You actually may be surprised how many WDFW Officers are not WA natives and come from other states as well...
Post by: CAMPMEAT on January 23, 2014, 09:22:12 AM
The story was told to me from him. I don't care where someone is from. By the way, he leaving for places unknown. He took this job sight unseen and didn't have a clue what this area was like.
Post by: bigtex on January 23, 2014, 09:24:20 AM
bigtex,I am just saying prior to being commissioned as a USFS LEO he must have attended the academy. They don't give people badges and guns prior to attending the academy :twocents:
The story was told to me from him. I don't care where someone is from. By the way, he leaving for places unknown. He took this job sight unseen and didn't have a clue what this area was like.
Post by: Fl0und3rz on January 23, 2014, 09:26:14 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_Faith_and_Credit_Clause (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_Faith_and_Credit_Clause)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement_under_United_States_law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement_under_United_States_law)
Note that the Firearm Owners Protection Act's safe passage provision attempts to accomplish similar aims, at least for mere passage through a state, and subject to its requirements for restricting accessibility.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act#.22Safe_Passage.22_provision (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act#.22Safe_Passage.22_provision)
However, a national CPL registry would not be required, and any such attempts to attach such a registry should be rejected, even if that means no reciprocity enacted on a federal level.
I, too, believe that at least some (if not most) of the restrictions on keeping and bearing arms of the more restrictive states amount to unconstitutional infringements. But as a matter of practicality, it is a bit easier to conceive a path to federal reciprocity by legislation, at least now, than it is to conceive of the Supremes ordering it based on judicial precedent and a test case.
Post by: CAMPMEAT on January 23, 2014, 09:26:54 AM
bigtex,I am just saying prior to being commissioned as a USFS LEO he must have attended the academy. They don't give people badges and guns prior to attending the academy :twocents:
The story was told to me from him. I don't care where someone is from. By the way, he leaving for places unknown. He took this job sight unseen and didn't have a clue what this area was like.
I know. If you knew the guy, you might, he's just so goofy and unprofessional with people.
Post by: bigtex on January 23, 2014, 09:36:26 AM
Around 2011 the USFS made a policy that the local USFS LE command staff nationwide would no longer have hiring authority. Basically prior to this the local command staff (typically the Captain) did the hiring and selection process. Now, the local command staff does interviews, forwards a list of about 5-10 people on to HR in DC and HR in DC chooses who they will hire for the position. So it's a total surprise to the local command staff who they get to fill the position.
The reasoning for this is USFS has a diversity program and LE wasn't meeting it. HR told LE to essentially get with it and start diversifying, they didn't. So as a result HR is diversifying USFS LE by doing the hiring. Problem is now LEOs are going to areas where they might not fit in well at and are quitting/leaving quickly.
Post by: Special T on January 23, 2014, 07:36:24 PM
Our Forest Service LEO went to school in Kalifornia to become a biologist. There were no biologist jobs, so he started looking for a FEDERAL job, found this one in Republic with zero training in law enforcement at all, got hired on. Then his head got so big, it exploded with his power trips. Sure, he got raining AFTER the fact, but he needs more training for people skills. He's a horrible representation of any LEO I know. I know this guy personally too.
He'd even write bigtex a ticket for doing something completely legal.............. :chuckle:
There ARE lots of people that have fled Kalifornia and move here who have not adjusted thier way of thinking... Most of our states problems IMO. Leo or not.
Post by: Special T on January 23, 2014, 07:41:48 PM
Well just a warning, I am sure the next USFS LEO wont be liked either.
Around 2011 the USFS made a policy that the local USFS LE command staff nationwide would no longer have hiring authority. Basically prior to this the local command staff (typically the Captain) did the hiring and selection process. Now, the local command staff does interviews, forwards a list of about 5-10 people on to HR in DC and HR in DC chooses who they will hire for the position. So it's a total surprise to the local command staff who they get to fill the position.
The reasoning for this is USFS has a diversity program and LE wasn't meeting it. HR told LE to essentially get with it and start diversifying, they didn't. So as a result HR is diversifying USFS LE by doing the hiring. Problem is now LEOs are going to areas where they might not fit in well at and are quitting/leaving quickly.
This book does a great job of documenting the How and Why the USFS hiring promotes the best selection.
The Tinder Box: How Politically Correct Ideology Destroyed the U.S. Forest Service Paperback
by Christopher Burchfield (Author)
Post by: blackdog on January 24, 2014, 08:25:54 AM
Post by: bearpaw on January 24, 2014, 08:45:34 AM
My drivers license is recognized in all 50 States, my marriage license is recognized in all States and my CPL should be recognized in all 50 States. I do not fear this legislation and believe it to be a step forward to upholding the "full faith and credit" clause of the Constitution. :tup:
:yeah: sounds like a step in the right direction
Post by: netcoyote on January 24, 2014, 11:29:47 AM
My drivers license is recognized in all 50 States, my marriage license is recognized in all States and my CPL should be recognized in all 50 States. I do not fear this legislation and believe it to be a step forward to upholding the "full faith and credit" clause of the Constitution. :tup:
:yeah: sounds like a step in the right direction
Thanks for getting this thread back on topic...seemed like it was getting off into the bush there for awhile. Back to the topic of CPLs.
I think it's a bit misguided to compare CPL to driver's license or marriage license. The privilege to operate a motor vehicle or the excise tax in the form of a state marriage license certificate are not guaranteed by the Constitution as the enumerated right to own a firearm provided for in the 2nd amendment. You could make the case that the Constitution doesn't get into the level of detail of whether a firearm can be carried concealed or not but it does leave that level of detail explicitly in the hands of the state to work out the details. I don't think we want to make a proposal to throw any state issues back to the Federal government and that's what this proposal would do.
Assuming that this proposal would only guarantee reciprocity and leave the details to the states, it would open up a real can of worms for states rights issues. If a state recognizes the need for safety training as a prerequisite for CPL granting, why should they be forced to accept permits from states that have no requirement?
Post by: Curly on January 24, 2014, 11:46:40 AM
Just wondering because I don't see why a conceal carry permit is really necessary unless there are gun owners that can't be trusted to conceal carry but yet are allowed to own guns. :dunno:
I don't know what to think of national reciprocity, seems risky to let the Feds get involved where they shouldn't. So, I think reciprocity would be ok as long the Feds don't get involved. (But I'd rather not even have to have a CPL. The 2nd Amendment should be all the reciprocity needed.)
Post by: blackdog on January 24, 2014, 12:02:47 PM
Post by: bearpaw on January 24, 2014, 12:18:44 PM
I don't know what to think of national reciprocity, seems risky to let the Feds get involved where they shouldn't. So, I think reciprocity would be ok as long the Feds don't get involved. (But I'd rather not even have to have a CPL. The 2nd Amendment should be all the reciprocity needed.)
I agree, does this require any federal intrusion or oversight, or anything other than reciprocity between states?
If not then it seems like a good idea.
I hear what your saying the Federal Constitution says the States shall give"full faith and credit to the official acts" of the States. I'm licensed here in Washington and expect that to be honored nationwide. :twocents:
:yeah: I agree
Post by: washelkhunter on January 24, 2014, 12:33:11 PM
Post by: KFhunter on January 24, 2014, 12:57:41 PM
As mentioned in a previous post state preemption trumps all county/city. A Federal CC permit would trump all state CC laws.
I think it's a good idea because no matter what part of the country you find yourself in, the rules would be the same.
We'd all finally have the same play book.
It's too bad there is no trust though.
This would come with registration, and in conjunction with ACA....it would be easy to get diagnosed with a mental disorder and loose your right to carry.
Heck you could even go in for something routine and get prescribed a drug with Psychological Side Effects and loose your right.
Got heart burn problems? You could get prescribed heart burn medication with potential psychological side effects, and trigger a loss of gun rights. Everything a doc says or does is recorded in a computer, same with the nurses...right down to those two Tylenol pills they gave you while you were in the hospital.
Here is a nice little article discussing Psychological Side Effects of common prescription drugs.
http://www.healthcentral.com/static/pp/pdf_guides/psych65.pdf (http://www.healthcentral.com/static/pp/pdf_guides/psych65.pdf)
Post by: netcoyote on January 24, 2014, 07:00:11 PM
Every single CPL/CWP holder in the US has been veted by FBI. You have been fingerprinted and thoroughly background checked. In reality your CPL is an acknowledgement by the Fed govt that YOU are an outstanding citizen, something not implied by a mere drivers license or passport. I believe that as such you should be considered as a "deputy at large" to any and all law enforcement entities or jurisdictions in which you happen to find yourself nation wide.
This post gets to a problem I have with WA CPL as well as the notion of a universal reciprocity across all states. The NICS check only verifies that you do not meet the threshold for not being able to purchase a firearm. It DOES NOT indicate anything else such as you being an outstanding citizen, have any working knowledge of firearms or the legal implications of using a firearm in any particular state. THAT is a large deficiency in my opinion. Other than not being a felon, consuming oxygen is the only criteria for obtaining a CPL in WA. Like many on this forum, a lot of people take time to learn firearm techniques and some even go the next step to learn some of the legal issues and the responsibilities of using a firearm. It's those who don't have a clue, go out and buy a gun, get a permit and think they are ordained to resolve any conflict that comes their way that are the problem. They are a disaster waiting to happen will only serve to give the rest of us a bad name when they make a foolish mistake. Some states take this more seriously and do require some amount of training or proficiency to go along with the responsibility. My guess is that the states with higher standards would not look kindly on the notion of universal reciprocity.
Post by: blackdog on January 24, 2014, 07:40:08 PM
Post by: KFhunter on January 24, 2014, 07:56:54 PM
KFhunter no one is talking about a Federal permit! This not rocket science! If we can't the Constitution and its full faith and credit clause then who will! :bash:
A 50 state reciprocity deal would certainly mean a federal permit.
Otherwise you'd have states requiring class room instruction and range evaluation (IL) fighting with states who require nothing more than a background check (WA)
It's a foregone conclusion. I can't even fathom thinking otherwise :dunno:
Post by: washelkhunter on January 24, 2014, 08:15:45 PM
Every single CPL/CWP holder in the US has been veted by FBI. You have been fingerprinted and thoroughly background checked. In reality your CPL is an acknowledgement by the Fed govt that YOU are an outstanding citizen, something not implied by a mere drivers license or passport. I believe that as such you should be considered as a "deputy at large" to any and all law enforcement entities or jurisdictions in which you happen to find yourself nation wide.
This post gets to a problem I have with WA CPL as well as the notion of a universal reciprocity across all states. The NICS check only verifies that you do not meet the threshold for not being able to purchase a firearm. It DOES NOT indicate anything else such as you being an outstanding citizen, have any working knowledge of firearms or the legal implications of using a firearm in any particular state. THAT is a large deficiency in my opinion. Other than not being a felon, consuming oxygen is the only criteria for obtaining a CPL in WA. Like many on this forum, a lot of people take time to learn firearm techniques and some even go the next step to learn some of the legal issues and the responsibilities of using a firearm. It's those who don't have a clue, go out and buy a gun, get a permit and think they are ordained to resolve any conflict that comes their way that are the problem. They are a disaster waiting to happen will only serve to give the rest of us a bad name when they make a foolish mistake. Some states take this more seriously and do require some amount of training or proficiency to go along with the responsibility. My guess is that
the states with higher standards would not look kindly on the
notion of universal reciprocity.
I disagree with your rationale. For one the nics is the fbi and i dont want to see the states requiring some arbitrary level of special training in order to exercise your 2nd amenment rights. I would be interested to see what evidence is out there to support your conjecture that a citizen holding a cpl has decided they were ordained to resolve a conflict. You would think after all this time we would have read of some cpl disaster by now.
Post by: netcoyote on January 24, 2014, 08:36:26 PM
Every single CPL/CWP holder in the US has been veted by FBI. You have been fingerprinted and thoroughly background checked. In reality your CPL is an acknowledgement by the Fed govt that YOU are an outstanding citizen, something not implied by a mere drivers license or passport. I believe that as such you should be considered as a "deputy at large" to any and all law enforcement entities or jurisdictions in which you happen to find yourself nation wide.
This post gets to a problem I have with WA CPL as well as the notion of a universal reciprocity across all states. The NICS check only verifies that you do not meet the threshold for not being able to purchase a firearm. It DOES NOT indicate anything else such as you being an outstanding citizen, have any working knowledge of firearms or the legal implications of using a firearm in any particular state. THAT is a large deficiency in my opinion. Other than not being a felon, consuming oxygen is the only criteria for obtaining a CPL in WA. Like many on this forum, a lot of people take time to learn firearm techniques and some even go the next step to learn some of the legal issues and the responsibilities of using a firearm. It's those who don't have a clue, go out and buy a gun, get a permit and think they are ordained to resolve any conflict that comes their way that are the problem. They are a disaster waiting to happen will only serve to give the rest of us a bad name when they make a foolish mistake. Some states take this more seriously and do require some amount of training or proficiency to go along with the responsibility. My guess is that
the states with higher standards would not look kindly on the
notion of universal reciprocity.
I disagree with your rationale. For one the nics is the fbi and i dont want to see the states requiring some arbitrary level of special training in order to exercise your 2nd amenment rights. I would be interested to see what evidence is out there to support your conjecture that a citizen holding a cpl has decided they were ordained to resolve a conflict. You would think after all this time we would have read of some cpl disaster by now.
I wasn't basing that statement from any evidence, I was basing it on your own statement:
Quote
I believe that as such you should be considered as a "deputy at large" to any and all law enforcement entities or jurisdictions in which you happen to find yourself nation wide.
Are you proposing that someone with a CPL, regardless of training or demonstrated proficiency, should have the same level of authority as a LEO?
Post by: blackdog on January 24, 2014, 08:37:44 PM
Post by: KFhunter on January 24, 2014, 08:39:48 PM
Every single CPL/CWP holder in the US has been veted by FBI. You have been fingerprinted and thoroughly background checked. In reality your CPL is an acknowledgement by the Fed govt that YOU are an outstanding citizen, something not implied by a mere drivers license or passport. I believe that as such you should be considered as a "deputy at large" to any and all law enforcement entities or jurisdictions in which you happen to find yourself nation wide.
This post gets to a problem I have with WA CPL as well as the notion of a universal reciprocity across all states. The NICS check only verifies that you do not meet the threshold for not being able to purchase a firearm. It DOES NOT indicate anything else such as you being an outstanding citizen, have any working knowledge of firearms or the legal implications of using a firearm in any particular state. THAT is a large deficiency in my opinion. Other than not being a felon, consuming oxygen is the only criteria for obtaining a CPL in WA. Like many on this forum, a lot of people take time to learn firearm techniques and some even go the next step to learn some of the legal issues and the responsibilities of using a firearm. It's those who don't have a clue, go out and buy a gun, get a permit and think they are ordained to resolve any conflict that comes their way that are the problem. They are a disaster waiting to happen will only serve to give the rest of us a bad name when they make a foolish mistake. Some states take this more seriously and do require some amount of training or proficiency to go along with the responsibility. My guess is that
the states with higher standards would not look kindly on the
notion of universal reciprocity.
I disagree with your rationale. For one the nics is the fbi and i dont want to see the states requiring some arbitrary level of special training in order to exercise your 2nd amenment rights. I would be interested to see what evidence is out there to support your conjecture that a citizen holding a cpl has decided they were ordained to resolve a conflict. You would think after all this time we would have read of some cpl disaster by now.
I wasn't basing that statement from any evidence, I was basing it on your own statement:QuoteI believe that as such you should be considered as a "deputy at large" to any and all law enforcement entities or jurisdictions in which you happen to find yourself nation wide.
Are you proposing that someone with a CPL, regardless of training or demonstrated proficiency, should have the same level of authority as a LEO?
Authority like an LE on active duty and on the clock? Or an off duty LE on vacation in another state...
Post by: KFhunter on January 24, 2014, 08:41:17 PM
We don't have a federal drivers license or a federal marriage license and the actual federal legislation does not create a federal CPL. What am I missing? What legislation anywhere can you point to that creates a federal CPL? :hello:
Oh sorry I didn't mean that, the federal deal would come after the states sue one another and take it to SCOTUS
I was just looking down the road a little further, didn't mean to confuse you.
Post by: washelkhunter on January 24, 2014, 08:41:56 PM
Post by: blackdog on January 24, 2014, 09:22:47 PM
Post by: csaaphill on January 25, 2014, 10:55:57 PM
anyone know of or hear the story of the guy in FLorida going to Maryland and home geting stoped and accused of being a liar and having to prove his inocence because in Florida he has a CCL CPL or whatever you want to call it?
Howd they know it's becauase they ran his license and knew he had a concealed permit in Florda that's how kind of a registration isn't it?
But ya you should be able to move about in the United States without jumping through bunches of hoops!
Post by: netcoyote on January 26, 2014, 07:41:21 AM
Not at all, but if you are a male citizen between the ages of 16-56 then you are a member of the militia.
Huh?! Care to elaborate on that statement?
I never got no stinking badges...
Post by: deltaops on February 04, 2014, 03:03:09 PM
Not at all, but if you are a male citizen between the ages of 16-56 then you are a member of the militia.
Huh?! Care to elaborate on that statement?
I never got no stinking badges...
To elaborate for him, it's called the "Selective Service Act".
Post by: netcoyote on February 04, 2014, 06:35:31 PM
Not at all, but if you are a male citizen between the ages of 16-56 then you are a member of the militia.
Huh?! Care to elaborate on that statement?
I never got no stinking badges...
To elaborate for him, it's called the "Selective Service Act".
I'm really getting confused here. Anyone care to explain what the Selective Service Act or the militia has to do with nation-wide reciprocity for CPLs? Am I the only one confused about this?
Post by: Special T on February 04, 2014, 09:08:16 PM
Post by: smalldog on February 05, 2014, 03:28:34 PM
If everybody kept track of their elected representatives like they do football, baseball and basket ball, you would not have such a mess in government and the country would not be so screwed up. You would not have this President and Obamacare. Its going to bankrupt the country.
Post by: Curly on February 05, 2014, 03:46:10 PM
Post by: elkboy on February 21, 2014, 10:37:04 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on February 21, 2014, 10:38:31 AM
I work up and down the West Coast, and it irks me no end that the state in which I am most likely to experience violent crime (California, 533 violent crimes per 100,000 people / year, as opposed to 280 in Oregon and 346 in Washington) is the one that essentially prevents me from exercising my 2A rights with their draconian carry laws. I would be fully in favor of an act that ensured the nationwide reach of the Bill of Rights, even if such an act shouldn't be necessary!
After the 9th Circuit court ruling, it should be easier to get a permit there very soon, no?
Post by: elkboy on February 21, 2014, 10:52:39 AM
Post by: motg9_6 on February 21, 2014, 01:01:00 PM
this could be a way for all the states (or those willing) to agree to a set of standards and keep the feds out of it.
problem is getting them all on the same page.
Post by: Mongo Hunter on February 21, 2014, 01:09:04 PM
Post by: netcoyote on February 21, 2014, 01:54:04 PM
I see this as a prime example of "be careful what you wish for".
Post by: bigtex on February 21, 2014, 01:57:01 PM
personally I think your drivers license should be your CWP. I don't like the hassle of going to the sheriffs and paying a bunch of money and then paying MORE money to carry more places. Your drivers license should be enough (proof of age, name, DOB and should I say citizenship). but being THAT will never happen I say go for it NATION WIDE CWP!Problem is some states give driver's licenses to illegal aliens. So in your case you'd be giving CWP privileges to someone that can't even possess a firearm. Even ultra Republican Utah gives DL's to illegals.
Post by: Mongo Hunter on February 24, 2014, 08:27:51 AM
personally I think your drivers license should be your CWP. I don't like the hassle of going to the sheriffs and paying a bunch of money and then paying MORE money to carry more places. Your drivers license should be enough (proof of age, name, DOB and should I say citizenship). but being THAT will never happen I say go for it NATION WIDE CWP!Problem is some states give driver's licenses to illegal aliens. So in your case you'd be giving CWP privileges to someone that can't even possess a firearm. Even ultra Republican Utah gives DL's to illegals.
I know it would never happen but we shouldn't be giving Illegals Driver licenses. I know what your saying though, they do it now and that will probly never change. than again they broke FEDERAL law to get here what to say they are not going to break a concealed weapon law anyways? in some places its a misdemeanor slap on the wrist.
Post by: buckfvr on February 24, 2014, 08:39:59 AM
Post by: dmv9 on February 24, 2014, 09:29:34 AM
Post by: KelseyH on February 24, 2014, 03:20:42 PM
Post by: sakoshooter on February 26, 2014, 03:07:21 AM