Post by: Kain on March 20, 2012, 07:57:55 PM
Quote
To keep the Senate Gavel in the hands of Harry Reid
Today, Senators John Thune (R-SD) and David Vitter (R-LA) introduced legislation to recognize national reciprocity for gun owners who can legally carry concealed firearms in the state where they reside.
The Thune-Vitter bill, S. 2213, was introduced with a huge show of support. Twenty-nine Senators sponsored or cosponsored the bill, and this is, in large part, thanks to you! Because of all your efforts over the last week, the following Senators signed on in support of the legislation:
Ayotte (NH), Barrasso (WY), Boozman (AR), Burr (NC), Chambliss (GA), Coburn (OK), Cochran (MS), Cornyn (TX), Crapo (ID), DeMint (SC), Enzi (WY), Graham (SC), Grassley (IA), Hatch (UT), Inhofe (OK), Isakson (GA), Ron Johnson (WI), Lee (UT), Lugar (IN), McConnell (KY), Paul (KY), Portman (OH), Risch (ID), Rubio (FL), Sessions (AL), Thune (SD), Toomey (PA), Vitter (LA), Wicker (MS) Moran (KS) and Roberts (KS).
This bill, the Respecting States’ Rights and Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act, treats concealed carry as a RIGHT belonging to the people – not a privilege granted by the government.
“Rather than establish a national standard, our bill will ensure that law-abiding citizens are able to carry concealed firearms while at the same time respecting the laws of the respective states they visit,” said Sen. Thune.
The Thune-Vitter bill provides national recognition for concealed carry permit holders (who have obtained one from their home states), but it also recognizes the right to carry for residents of Constitutional Carry states (where no permit is required).
This is a huge win for gun owners! Constitutional Carry is currently the law in five states, and more than a dozen states have legislation to move in that direction.
A competing bill, S. 2188, offers reciprocity ONLY for permit holders -- and thus it would prevent many gun owners, who can legally carry in their home states, from carrying firearms when they travel out-of-state. This compromise bill, sponsored by anti-gun Senate Democrats Mark Begich (AK), Joe Manchin (WV) and Max Baucus (MT), would deal a severe blow to the momentum we have in passing Constitutional Carry at the state level.
It is crucial that Senators support the Constitutional Carry-friendly bill, and to oppose any efforts to weaken the Thune-Vitter legislation.
ACTION: Contact your Senators right away. Thank those who have sponsored S. 2213. If your Senators have not yet cosponsored, please urge them to do so … and to stay off of the Begich-Manchin bill.
There are two different letters, depending on whether your Senators are cosponsoring S. 2213.
Post by: washelkhntr on March 20, 2012, 08:19:00 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on March 21, 2012, 06:17:02 AM
Post by: Atroxus on July 16, 2012, 12:49:00 PM
Post by: Bean Counter on July 16, 2012, 01:04:41 PM
And, do you think our esteemed Senators Cant-do-well and the grandmother in tennis shoes will support it? Not going to happen.
I hope not. I oppose this measure. :twocents:
Post by: Atroxus on July 16, 2012, 01:37:18 PM
And, do you think our esteemed Senators Cant-do-well and the grandmother in tennis shoes will support it? Not going to happen.
I hope not. I oppose this measure. :twocents:
Why on earth would you oppose CCW reciprocity?
Post by: Bean Counter on July 16, 2012, 02:11:19 PM
Post by: Atroxus on July 16, 2012, 02:24:35 PM
I have made and will continue to make the tough choices to secure my liberty and freedom. The ratification of this bill is contraindicated to such a world view as it is a short term high with potentially devastating long term fall out.
Correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that all it does is makes it so a CWP is valid in any state that allows concealed carry, pursuant to that state's laws. Kind of like a drivers license. So if I went to California I would be legal to carry concealed as long as I remained compliant with California CCW laws, just like I can drive down there now and as long as I don't speed or something like that my WA driver's license makes me legal to drive. What possible negative fallout could this have? :dunno:
Post by: pianoman9701 on July 16, 2012, 02:29:57 PM
I have made and will continue to make the tough choices to secure my liberty and freedom. The ratification of this bill is contraindicated to such a world view as it is a short term high with potentially devastating long term fall out.
Correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that all it does is makes it so a CWP is valid in any state that allows concealed carry, pursuant to that state's laws. Kind of like a drivers license. So if I went to California I would be legal to carry concealed as long as I remained compliant with California CCW laws, just like I can drive down there now and as long as I don't speed or something like that my WA driver's license makes me legal to drive. What possible negative fallout could this have? :dunno:
States like OR, who require taking a course before issuing a CWP, would no longer be able to require the course if someone had a CWP from another state. The negative fallout in their eyes is going to be state's rights over fed law. From our perspective, it's a win all around.
Post by: Atroxus on July 16, 2012, 02:44:33 PM
I have made and will continue to make the tough choices to secure my liberty and freedom. The ratification of this bill is contraindicated to such a world view as it is a short term high with potentially devastating long term fall out.
Correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that all it does is makes it so a CWP is valid in any state that allows concealed carry, pursuant to that state's laws. Kind of like a drivers license. So if I went to California I would be legal to carry concealed as long as I remained compliant with California CCW laws, just like I can drive down there now and as long as I don't speed or something like that my WA driver's license makes me legal to drive. What possible negative fallout could this have? :dunno:
States like OR, who require taking a course before issuing a CWP, would no longer be able to require the course if someone had a CWP from another state. The negative fallout in their eyes is going to be state's rights over fed law. From our perspective, it's a win all around.
I still don't see the down side....personally I think the second amendment should be the only thing we need for concealed carry. For now though I think that anything that moves us closer to that is a good thing and should be pushed for.
Post by: pianoman9701 on July 16, 2012, 02:45:15 PM
Post by: Bean Counter on July 16, 2012, 02:49:23 PM
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.
Post by: CP on July 16, 2012, 02:50:49 PM
Post by: KyleMB123 on July 16, 2012, 03:00:45 PM
By supporting this bill you are also supporting the state mandates that you must carry a permit in order to carry a concealed firearm. State mandates which are unconstitutional.
Post by: Bean Counter on July 16, 2012, 03:09:20 PM
The activist SCOTUS upheld Obamacare as a tax despite the Dear Leader's claims to the contrary. I just cringe at how even Antonin Scalia opened the door to new gun bans in his 2008 opinion. The less the feds have too do with the RKBA, the better. :twocents:
Post by: Heredoggydoggy on July 16, 2012, 03:37:05 PM
Post by: KyleMB123 on July 17, 2012, 02:52:25 AM
Post by: Special T on July 17, 2012, 10:58:35 AM
Post by: huntrights on July 18, 2012, 10:22:05 PM
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=
Post by: Bigshooter on July 22, 2012, 10:06:33 AM
It creates a precedent for regulation of the 2nd Amendment at a federal level. :bdid:
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.
Post by: Atroxus on July 22, 2012, 11:39:50 AM
It creates a precedent for regulation of the 2nd Amendment at a federal level. :bdid:
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.
:yeah: 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. :twocents:
Post by: Bean Counter on July 22, 2012, 05:43:10 PM
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 :IBCOOL:
Post by: Bean Counter on July 22, 2012, 05:51:01 PM
Post by: Wacenturion on July 22, 2012, 09:49:23 PM
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.
Post by: KyleMB123 on July 23, 2012, 05:28:00 AM
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.