Index  •  FAQ  •  Search  

It is currently Fri Nov 16, 2018 1:55 am

This is a static archive the Twin Cities Carry forum, maintained as a public service by the current forum of record, The Minnesota Carry Forum.

All times are UTC - 6 hours




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 12 posts ] 
 Interstate reciprocity by means of FEDERAL law? 
Author Message
 Post subject: Interstate reciprocity by means of FEDERAL law?
PostPosted: Wed Jun 10, 2009 7:36 pm 
Wise Elder
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 7:48 pm
Posts: 2782
Location: St. Paul
One month after successfully tucking an amendment into the credit card reform bill that expanded gun rights, a small number of Senate Republicans are looking at the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act as another chance to score a victory for the Second Amendment. The possible plan -- to add an amendment that would allow gun owners to carry their weapons from one state to another in accordance with concealed carry laws. The possible rationale -- to defend gay rights.

http://washingtonindependent.com/46097/ ... rimes-bill

See also: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-bar ... 13912.html


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jun 10, 2009 8:56 pm 
Longtime Regular

Joined: Sat May 17, 2008 9:55 pm
Posts: 598
Location: Dundas, Minnesota
I don't see any difference between this and... that.

http://twincitiescarry.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=12130

I don't want the federal government telling the states what to do. It may feel like positive movement in this instance, but its an increase in fed. power and control. Me still no likey.

_________________
I say I'm cleaning guns... My wife says I'm petting them.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jun 10, 2009 10:52 pm 
Gun-Toting Liberal

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 4:14 pm
Posts: 181
Location: Ellsworth, WI
I think I agree with bensdad right now but only until the 2nd is incorporated under the 14th. On the other hand I can drive in 49 other states with my WI DL and my wife and I are married in 50 states so there is an argument for reciprocity encouraged by the feds.

_________________
http://scott-randomassociations.blogspot.com/

"We are therefore persuaded that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment and applies it against the states and local governments." Nordyke v. King 4/20/09


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jun 11, 2009 7:20 am 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2008 3:13 pm
Posts: 1743
Location: Lakeville
bensdad wrote:
<...>
I don't want the federal government telling the states what to do. It may feel like positive movement in this instance, but its an increase in fed. power and control. Me still no likey.

+2


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jun 11, 2009 11:03 am 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2008 9:57 am
Posts: 818
Location: Apple Valley, MN
It's times like this I hate having to maintain intellectual integrity.

Agreed, this is not a federal issue

_________________
http://www.eckernet.com
My mind is like a steel trap - rusty and illegal in 37 states.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jun 11, 2009 12:21 pm 
The Man
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 5:43 am
Posts: 7970
Location: Minneapolis MN
I dunno. I don't think this is a Federal issue any less -- and maybe a little more, at least -- than a drivers license is. (A DL is a matter of great convenience; I don't think there's any inherent right.)

_________________
Just a guy.


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jun 11, 2009 1:38 pm 
Longtime Regular

Joined: Sat May 17, 2008 9:55 pm
Posts: 598
Location: Dundas, Minnesota
read Article 4 of the Const. We don't need anything more. Any law forcing states to recognize carry permits from other states assumes that Article 4 is dead and buried. How sad is that?

_________________
I say I'm cleaning guns... My wife says I'm petting them.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jun 11, 2009 2:33 pm 
Poet Laureate
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 19, 2006 11:36 am
Posts: 760
Location: Hutchinson, MN
About as sad as this in itself being insufficient:

US Constitution wrote:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

_________________
It's not always easy these days to tell which of our two major political parties is the Stupid Party and which is the Evil Party...
But it remains true that from time to time they collaborate on something that's both stupid and evil and call it bipartisanship. -Thomas E. Woods Jr.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jun 11, 2009 3:25 pm 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 9:40 pm
Posts: 2264
Location: Eden Prairie
bensdad wrote:
read Article 4 of the Const. We don't need anything more. Any law forcing states to recognize carry permits from other states assumes that Article 4 is dead and buried. How sad is that?


When it comes to carry permits, it is dead and buried. :evil:

Article 4 is tricky. Read Pacific Employers Insurance v. Industrial Accident for a legal interpretation.

Until SCOTUS rules that 2A is a universal carry permit, you aren't going to get anywhere with the Article 4 argument.

-Mark


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jun 11, 2009 6:06 pm 
Longtime Regular

Joined: Sat May 17, 2008 9:55 pm
Posts: 598
Location: Dundas, Minnesota
mrokern wrote:
bensdad wrote:
read Article 4 of the Const. We don't need anything more. Any law forcing states to recognize carry permits from other states assumes that Article 4 is dead and buried. How sad is that?


When it comes to carry permits, it is dead and buried. :evil:

Article 4 is tricky. Read Pacific Employers Insurance v. Industrial Accident for a legal interpretation.

Until SCOTUS rules that 2A is a universal carry permit, you aren't going to get anywhere with the Article 4 argument.

-Mark


I know. It wasn't my intention to get anywhere with Art. 4. I only intended to point out the travesty that our federal gov. has become.

_________________
I say I'm cleaning guns... My wife says I'm petting them.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jun 11, 2009 9:54 pm 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 9:40 pm
Posts: 2264
Location: Eden Prairie
bensdad wrote:
mrokern wrote:
bensdad wrote:
read Article 4 of the Const. We don't need anything more. Any law forcing states to recognize carry permits from other states assumes that Article 4 is dead and buried. How sad is that?


When it comes to carry permits, it is dead and buried. :evil:

Article 4 is tricky. Read Pacific Employers Insurance v. Industrial Accident for a legal interpretation.

Until SCOTUS rules that 2A is a universal carry permit, you aren't going to get anywhere with the Article 4 argument.

-Mark


I know. It wasn't my intention to get anywhere with Art. 4. I only intended to point out the travesty that our federal gov. has become.


My brother, that's a big +1 from me.

-Mark


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jun 11, 2009 10:44 pm 
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2008 3:24 pm
Posts: 471
Location: 12 miles east of Lake Wobegon
With regard to the appropriateness of federal laws regulating firearms, it is my view that the train left the station about 19 years ago.

A better argument against federally mandated reciprocity is that it may make it more difficult to pass pro-carry legislation at the state level. For example, Georgia has been shall-issue for years, but the vague and burdensome restriction that permit holders may not carry in a "public place" make it impractical to carry for many people. There have been some small legislative victories, but more needs to be done. A mandate to recognize permits from other states would not help the cause there.

A federal requirement to recognize out-of-state permits would be a more serious setback in states like Iowa, Illinois and Wisconsin where slow, careful work is being done to pass modern legislation. (I believe the proposed provision requiring states that don't issue permits at all to recognize out of state permits under expansive federal rules is unlikely to appear in any final legislation.)

So it's tradeoffs. I agree reciprocity is, overall, a mess. I agree that it probably won't get fixed at the state level. And I understand that for some people, the reciprocity problems are serious enough to amount to a right denied, because of their travel patterns.


Offline
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 12 posts ] 

This is a static archive the Twin Cities Carry forum, maintained as a public service by the current forum of record, The Minnesota Carry Forum.

All times are UTC - 6 hours


 Who is online 

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron


 
Index  |  FAQ  |  Search

phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group