Gun store Shooting Locations It is currently Fri Mar 29, 2024 5:24 am



Rules WGO Chat Room Gear Rent Me Shield NRA SAF CCKRBA
Calendar


Forum rules


Nothing contained in this section shall be construed as legal advice. All members and guests are advised to perform due diligence in regards to laws and legal actions.



Reply to topic  [ 35 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3
 Nationwide CCW Reciprocity - Probably not a good thing... 
Author Message
Site Supporter
User avatar
Site Supporter

Location: Marysville, WA
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2011
Posts: 11581
Real Name: Mike
Powderman wrote:
Two things.

First of all, there is NO need to pass any more laws. All that is needed is the full enforcement of Article 4 of the Constitution--Full Faith and Credit, meaning that each State must respect the judicial proceedings of the other. By following the letter of the law, a CCW/CPL from any State would be accepted by all.

Second...

Quote:
An anti-gun cop is pissed that he must 'allow' us average peons to have guns, and carry them...

He runs a plate...and follows them until he finds a reason to pull them over. He then 'knows' that the driver is armed, and, for 'officer safety' he decides to pull the driver out at gunpoint, forcing him onto the muddy ground, then writes as many tickets as he can, making sure he lets the driver know that this all happened 'for officer safety' because 'we know you have a gun'...




Really, dude? Really?


If you're referring to Article 4 Clause 1 your position has been dealt with by the Supreme Court:

Quote:
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

Clause One of Section 2 requires interstate protection of "privileges and immunities". The seeming ambiguity of the clause has given rise to a number of different interpretations. Some contend that the clause requires Congress to treat all citizens equally. Others suggest that citizens of states carry the rights accorded by their home states while traveling in other states.

Neither of these theories has been endorsed by the Supreme Court, which has held that the clause means that a state may not discriminate against citizens of other states in favor of its own citizens. In Corfield v. Coryell, 6 F. Cas. 546 (C.C.E.D. Pa. 1823), the federal circuit court held that privileges and immunities in respect of which discrimination is barred include

protection by the Government; the enjoyment of life and liberty ... the right of a citizen of one State to pass through, or to reside in any other State, for purposes of trade, agriculture, professional pursuits, or otherwise; to claim the benefits of the writ of habeas corpus; to institute and maintain actions of any kind in the courts of the State; to take, hold and dispose of property, either real or personal; and an exemption from higher taxes or impositions than are paid by the other citizens of the State.


Even under current reciprocity laws one has to obey the "carry laws" of the state they are carrying IN, not the state they are FROM.

I think people are failing to see a bigger picture. Laws are coming, like them or not. Short of armed insurrection they can't be stopped. The Supreme Court has ruled that the States have the right to impose reasonable regulation on firearm carry as long as they don't bar possession. Gun owners have two choices. Sit and bitch or get behind some "reasonable laws" before the other side jams their version of "reasonable" up our asses. Unfortunately the gun owners in this country are in the minority. Yes there are more guns than people in this country but that just means that most gun owners own more than one (or a lot more than one in many cases). Sadly, guns can't vote and that means that gun owners are outnumbered. It's time to look for ways to work with "the other side" and try to accomplish the same goal, stop "gun violence" (as well as illegal possession and use). You can't accomplish that unless a dialog is established rather than just sitting on the sidelines and "throwing bombs". Like someone once said in a forum like this (maybe it was this one) the "Out of my Cold Dead Hands" attitude may well be met with "OK".

Go back and check Dave Workman's writings before I-594. The gun community had an opportunity long before the 591/594 showdown to present a more reasonable solution. I think Allan Gotlieb's asshole has just about healed after the gun community got through with him. As a result we got I-594.

This is just my opinion and everyone is free to have their own. I've just been watching what's going on in this world longer than most and can probably predict what's next based on what I've seen over my 70 + years. most of them involving firearms.

_________________
"I've learned from the Dog that an afternoon nap is a good thing"

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


"For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother
" - William Shakespeare


Fri Nov 18, 2016 3:42 pm
Profile
Site Supporter
User avatar
Site Supporter

Location: Rochester, WA
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2016
Posts: 3761
Real Name: Mr. Idgaf
I respectfully disagree. Every time these politicians win a gun-control law victory the first shit out of their mouth is how its "an important first step". To them its always a first step. People like Dianne Feinstein will never be satisfied until all civilian gun ownership is banned. It has been stated as their ultimate goal by several of them several times, most of the time by accident. I have seen the compromises happen and its always the same story. The pro-gun side compromises and the anti-gun side takes the concession and they immediately start calling for another compromise, another law. Its always, "if we can make it just a little it harder". Always the same deal, make it harder for law abiding people to buy, own, and use responsibly and comply with the law. Its not compromise if they will not even engage in a debate about the pro-gun sides ideas on how to curb gun crime and gun violence. Evey time a sane voice on the pro-gun side starts to propose something they are shouted down as lunatics that want to see babies killed.


_________________
MadPick wrote:
Without penetration data, the pics aren't of much use.

Spoiler: show
"Half the harm that is done in this world is due to people who want to feel important. They don't mean to do harm -- but the harm does not interest them. Or they do not see it, or they justify it because they are absorbed in the endless struggle to think well of themselves." – T.S. Eliot

"The right of self defence is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction." - St. George Tucker

A careful definition of words would destroy half the agenda of the political left and scrutinizing evidence would destroy the other half. - Thomas Sowell

"To ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the innocent and law-abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless, and that the law will permit them to have only such rights and liberties as the lawless will allow...

For society does not control crime, ever, by forcing the law-abiding to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of criminals. Society controls crime by forcing the criminals to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of the law-abiding." - Jeff Snyder

Personal weapons are what raised mankind out of the mud, and the rifle is the queen of personal weapons. The possession of a good rifle, as well as the skill to use it well, truly makes a man the monarch of all he surveys. It realizes the ancient dream of the Jovian thunderbolt, and as such it is the embodiment of personal power. For this reason it exercises a curious influence over the minds of most men, and in its best examples it constitutes an object of affection unmatched by any other inanimate object.

Jeff Cooper
1997 The Art of the Rifle Page 1.

Spoiler: show
SUGGEST CASE BE SUBMITTED ON APPELLANT'S BRIEF. UNABLE TO OBTAIN ANY MONEY FROM CLIENTS TO BE PRESENT & ARGUE BRIEF.

The defense attorney's telegram to the clerk of the Supreme Court, March 29, 1939, in re United States. v. Miller.

You don't need to go to Law School to understand the constitutional implications of that.

“You can’t cut the throat of every cocksucker whose character it would improve.”
Spoiler: show
cityslicker wrote:
I don't want to be told that I can't remove the tree by some tree-hugging pole smoker from the eat-a-dick foundation/Olympia/King County.


Fri Nov 18, 2016 4:06 pm
Profile
Site Supporter
User avatar
Site Supporter

Location: Olympia
Joined: Sat Oct 29, 2011
Posts: 16044
Real Name: Steve
deadshot2 wrote:

Go back and check Dave Workman's writings before I-594. The gun community had an opportunity long before the 591/594 showdown to present a more reasonable solution. I think Allan Gotlieb's asshole has just about healed after the gun community got through with him. As a result we got I-594.

This is just my opinion and everyone is free to have their own. I've just been watching what's going on in this world longer than most and can probably predict what's next based on what I've seen over my 70 + years. most of them involving firearms.


The worst part is 591 would have stopped 594 and made us no worse of than before and better off than we are now, by preserving the status quo. Instead it was greeted with howls of rage, which neatly ignored the fact that if a Federal law came down the pike, all states would be stuck with it anyway.

_________________
"I won't insult your intelligence by suggesting that you really believe what you just said." - William Buckley, Jr.

"...steam, artillery and revolvers give to civilized man an irresistible power." -Perry Collins


Fri Nov 18, 2016 4:13 pm
Profile
Site Supporter
User avatar
Site Supporter

Location: Marysville, WA
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2011
Posts: 11581
Real Name: Mike
kf7mjf wrote:
deadshot2 wrote:

Go back and check Dave Workman's writings before I-594. The gun community had an opportunity long before the 591/594 showdown to present a more reasonable solution. I think Allan Gotlieb's asshole has just about healed after the gun community got through with him. As a result we got I-594.

This is just my opinion and everyone is free to have their own. I've just been watching what's going on in this world longer than most and can probably predict what's next based on what I've seen over my 70 + years. most of them involving firearms.


The worst part is 591 would have stopped 594 and made us no worse of than before and better off than we are now, by preserving the status quo. Instead it was greeted with howls of rage, which neatly ignored the fact that if a Federal law came down the pike, all states would be stuck with it anyway.


This is essentially what's happened with automobile regulations. First it was up to the individual States, Counties, and Towns to regulate. Then the State's took over. When interstate travel became more widespread the Fed's stepped in with various laws. The Fed's have created a "Model Traffic Code" that's pretty much used as the model for every state's traffic laws. With anything the Fed's send out to the states they force the state's to comply by withholding federal funds. Try building highways and bridges today without fed funds.

I wouldn't be surprised to see come more Federal intervention along the same lines with firearm laws. That means more restrictive for some states but it also may mean less restrictive (and more constitutional) laws in states like CA, Illinois, New Jersey, et al.

_________________
"I've learned from the Dog that an afternoon nap is a good thing"

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


"For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother
" - William Shakespeare


Fri Nov 18, 2016 4:27 pm
Profile
Site Supporter
User avatar
Site Supporter

Location: Rochester, WA
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2016
Posts: 3761
Real Name: Mr. Idgaf
From what I gather NRA is pretty horny about getting some CCW reciprocity legislation through congress. There are currently several bills on their way through:

S.498 - Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2015 - Currently has 35 co-sponsors
https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/498/text?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22cornyn%22%5D%7D

H.R.923 - Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2015 - Currently has 121 co-sponsors
https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/923/text?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22H.R.+923%22%5D%7D

H.R.986 - Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2015 - currently has 216 co-sponsors
https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/986/text?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22H.R.+986%22%5D%7D

H.R.402 - National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2015 - Currently has 103 co-sponsors
https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/402?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22H.R.+402%22%5D%7D

A couple other bills of note too:

H.R.3799 - Hearing Protection Act of 2015 - Currently 81 co-sponsors
This one was already on many of our radar I believe
https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/3799?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22H.R.3799%22%5D%7D&r=1

H.R.2611 - Collectible Firearms Protection Act - Currently 4 co-sponsors
https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/2611

_________________
MadPick wrote:
Without penetration data, the pics aren't of much use.

Spoiler: show
"Half the harm that is done in this world is due to people who want to feel important. They don't mean to do harm -- but the harm does not interest them. Or they do not see it, or they justify it because they are absorbed in the endless struggle to think well of themselves." – T.S. Eliot

"The right of self defence is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction." - St. George Tucker

A careful definition of words would destroy half the agenda of the political left and scrutinizing evidence would destroy the other half. - Thomas Sowell

"To ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the innocent and law-abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless, and that the law will permit them to have only such rights and liberties as the lawless will allow...

For society does not control crime, ever, by forcing the law-abiding to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of criminals. Society controls crime by forcing the criminals to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of the law-abiding." - Jeff Snyder

Personal weapons are what raised mankind out of the mud, and the rifle is the queen of personal weapons. The possession of a good rifle, as well as the skill to use it well, truly makes a man the monarch of all he surveys. It realizes the ancient dream of the Jovian thunderbolt, and as such it is the embodiment of personal power. For this reason it exercises a curious influence over the minds of most men, and in its best examples it constitutes an object of affection unmatched by any other inanimate object.

Jeff Cooper
1997 The Art of the Rifle Page 1.

Spoiler: show
SUGGEST CASE BE SUBMITTED ON APPELLANT'S BRIEF. UNABLE TO OBTAIN ANY MONEY FROM CLIENTS TO BE PRESENT & ARGUE BRIEF.

The defense attorney's telegram to the clerk of the Supreme Court, March 29, 1939, in re United States. v. Miller.

You don't need to go to Law School to understand the constitutional implications of that.

“You can’t cut the throat of every cocksucker whose character it would improve.”
Spoiler: show
cityslicker wrote:
I don't want to be told that I can't remove the tree by some tree-hugging pole smoker from the eat-a-dick foundation/Olympia/King County.


Sun Nov 20, 2016 5:58 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 35 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 37 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
You cannot post attachments in this forum



Rules WGO Chat Room Gear Rent Me NRA SAF CCKRBA
Calendar


Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Designed by ST Software for PTF.
[ Time : 0.619s | 16 Queries | GZIP : Off ]