Interstate reciprocity by means of FEDERAL law?
Author |
Message |
kimberman
|
Post subject: Interstate reciprocity by means of FEDERAL law? Posted: Wed Jun 10, 2009 7:36 pm |
|
Wise Elder |
![User avatar](./download/file.php?avatar=73_1252127598.jpg) |
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
|
|
|
|
![](images/spacer.gif) |
bensdad
|
Post subject: Posted: Wed Jun 10, 2009 8:56 pm |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
![](images/spacer.gif) |
ScottM
|
Post subject: Posted: Wed Jun 10, 2009 10:52 pm |
|
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
|
|
|
|
![](images/spacer.gif) |
SultanOfBrunei
|
Post subject: Posted: Thu Jun 11, 2009 7:20 am |
|
Longtime Regular |
![User avatar](./download/file.php?avatar=2242.jpg) |
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
|
|
|
|
![](images/spacer.gif) |
kecker
|
Post subject: Posted: Thu Jun 11, 2009 11:03 am |
|
Longtime Regular |
![User avatar](http://www.eckernet.com/images/avatars/talkinghead.gif) |
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.
|
|
|
|
![](images/spacer.gif) |
joelr
|
Post subject: Posted: Thu Jun 11, 2009 12:21 pm |
|
The Man |
![User avatar](./download/file.php?avatar=3.gif) |
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.
|
|
|
|
![](images/spacer.gif) |
bensdad
|
Post subject: Posted: Thu Jun 11, 2009 1:38 pm |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
![](images/spacer.gif) |
Carbide Insert
|
Post subject: Posted: Thu Jun 11, 2009 2:33 pm |
|
Poet Laureate |
![User avatar](./download/file.php?avatar=633.jpg) |
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.
|
|
|
|
![](images/spacer.gif) |
mrokern
|
Post subject: Posted: Thu Jun 11, 2009 3:25 pm |
|
Longtime Regular |
![User avatar](./download/file.php?avatar=2169_1246998412.jpg) |
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.
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
|
|
|
|
![](images/spacer.gif) |
bensdad
|
Post subject: Posted: Thu Jun 11, 2009 6:06 pm |
|
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. 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.
|
|
|
|
![](images/spacer.gif) |
mrokern
|
Post subject: Posted: Thu Jun 11, 2009 9:54 pm |
|
Longtime Regular |
![User avatar](./download/file.php?avatar=2169_1246998412.jpg) |
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. 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
|
|
|
|
![](images/spacer.gif) |
MostlyHarmless
|
Post subject: Posted: Thu Jun 11, 2009 10:44 pm |
|
Senior Member |
![User avatar](./download/file.php?avatar=2473.jpg) |
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.
|
|
|
|
![](images/spacer.gif) |
|
Page 1 of 1
|
[ 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
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 52 guests |
|
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
|