Author Topic: Ryan Blocking Concealed Carry Reciprocity, Congressman Tells Armed American Radio  (Read 1293 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online txradioguy

  • Propaganda NCOIC
  • Member
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 9,529
  • Rule #39
NYC may not have been their total end destination, but it was where their flights started or stopped.

Yeah I see that now that I read the Free Beacon article. The NRA piece on their website makes it look like people on connecting flights are being harassed for just passing through the state.

That being said it wouldn't surprise me if that starts happening sooner than later.
The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years. The cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil.

Republicans Don't Need A Back Bench...They Need a BACKBONE!

Online Cyber Liberty

  • Coffee! Donuts! It's what's for dinner!
  • Member
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 16,502
  • International Cracker of Wise
I don't find it "infringing" for states to put the responsibility of some minimum level of training on the people who want to carry.  Allowing the Fed Gov to set those requirements takes the rights of the States to do so.  There are plenty of states that don't have the exact same language of rules but still have reciprocity with each other.  I say let the States work it out.

Minimum training rules is the primary reasons some states won't reciprocate with others.  What I fear happening is big states like CA and NY will end up setting those standards for small states like AZ.
« Last Edit: September 12, 2017, 01:31:56 PM by Cyber Liberty »
Thanks to Cripplecreek and Oceander for the medal! 
From Member DB:  Once you've allowed yourself to be sold, all that remains is for how much.

Online RoosGirl

  • Member
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 5,055
Minimum training rules is the primary reasons some states won't reciprocate with others.  What I fear happening is big states like CA and NY will end up setting those standards for small states like AZ.

I think that more likely a concern if Fed Gov starts getting in on universal licensing.
Truth has to be repeated constantly, because Error also is being preached all the time, and not just by a few, but by the multitude. In the Press and Encyclopaedias, in Schools and Universities, everywhere Error holds sway, feeling happy and comfortable in the knowledge of having Majority on its side.

Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

Online driftdiver

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 4,534
  • Christ is King
I think that more likely a concern if Fed Gov starts getting in on universal licensing.

@RoosGirl
I have a CWP for Florida.  IMO the real risk of this is the CWP becoming a firearm license.   The extent of any reciprocity should be the same as with any other Constitutionally protected right, that the individual states cannot violate the rights of individuals.     Under the current President a federal reciprocity might be helpful, but under another Obama it would have the potential of being an expansion of Chicago, MA, or NY type gun laws.

Do we need a license to exercise any other Constitutionally protected right?
Fools mock, tongues wag, babies cry and goats bleat.

Online driftdiver

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 4,534
  • Christ is King
Yeah I see that now that I read the Free Beacon article. The NRA piece on their website makes it look like people on connecting flights are being harassed for just passing through the state.

That being said it wouldn't surprise me if that starts happening sooner than later.

@txradioguy
Unless you are a law enforcement officer or a pilot all firearms have to be in checked luggage.   Unless you are flying international or switching to a non-major carrier then your luggage is transferred to the next airline.  As such it is never in your possession.   The real problem is theft of firearms by airport and airline employees.
Fools mock, tongues wag, babies cry and goats bleat.

Online driftdiver

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 4,534
  • Christ is King
But none of those items are forced by the feds.  If the state chooses to recognize it fine.  But you want the feds to force one state to accept the rules and laws of another state?

If California says you can marry your Donkey, should Texas be forced to call that a legal marriage?

If the feds want to  enforce the 2nd amendment as written, that would be good.  Otherwise, see the 10th amendment.

@thackney

Not forced by the Feds?  Well no but it is required by the Constitution.   
Fools mock, tongues wag, babies cry and goats bleat.

Online Cyber Liberty

  • Coffee! Donuts! It's what's for dinner!
  • Member
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 16,502
  • International Cracker of Wise
I think that more likely a concern if Fed Gov starts getting in on universal licensing.

That's the direction this is heading, and why I resist it.  The very first thing the Fed will do is crack down on Constitutional Carry, which I am rather proud of here in AZ.  If Mrs. Liberty wants to carry her .380 on her trips to Walmart, she can and without a by-your-leave from the state.  Good thing too, because somebody was shot there a few years ago.
Thanks to Cripplecreek and Oceander for the medal! 
From Member DB:  Once you've allowed yourself to be sold, all that remains is for how much.

Online driftdiver

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 4,534
  • Christ is King
That's the direction this is heading, and why I resist it.  The very first thing the Fed will do is crack down on Constitutional Carry, which I am rather proud of here in AZ.  If Mrs. Liberty wants to carry her .380 on her trips to Walmart, she can and without a by-your-leave from the state.  Good thing too, because somebody was shot there a few years ago.

@Cyber Liberty
IMO if someone can't be trusted with possession of a firearm they probably shouldn't be roaming the streets.
Fools mock, tongues wag, babies cry and goats bleat.

Online Cyber Liberty

  • Coffee! Donuts! It's what's for dinner!
  • Member
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 16,502
  • International Cracker of Wise
@Cyber Liberty
IMO if someone can't be trusted with possession of a firearm they probably shouldn't be roaming the streets.

I agree with that very much, but there are still many, many laws on the books that say otherwise.  Even here in AZ it was only recently I became legal to carry in my car driving down a particular street in Tempe because it runs through a University.  I always avoid it anyway because college kids are stupid on their bicycles.
Thanks to Cripplecreek and Oceander for the medal! 
From Member DB:  Once you've allowed yourself to be sold, all that remains is for how much.

Online RoosGirl

  • Member
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 5,055
@RoosGirl
I have a CWP for Florida.  IMO the real risk of this is the CWP becoming a firearm license.   The extent of any reciprocity should be the same as with any other Constitutionally protected right, that the individual states cannot violate the rights of individuals.     Under the current President a federal reciprocity might be helpful, but under another Obama it would have the potential of being an expansion of Chicago, MA, or NY type gun laws.

Do we need a license to exercise any other Constitutionally protected right?

I actually don't believe we should need a license from the state to carry at all, but that's where we are right now, so that is the angle I'm speaking through.
Truth has to be repeated constantly, because Error also is being preached all the time, and not just by a few, but by the multitude. In the Press and Encyclopaedias, in Schools and Universities, everywhere Error holds sway, feeling happy and comfortable in the knowledge of having Majority on its side.

Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

Online RoosGirl

  • Member
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 5,055
Anyway, one of the bills the article is talking about is to allow non-residents to carry in a state that allows residents to carry; basically national reciprocity.  I say block that bill.


the second bill the article talks about is a rider for the first bill and specifically for the DC area.  Why don't they just get their stuff together and get rid of their stupid gun laws in the District?

Truth has to be repeated constantly, because Error also is being preached all the time, and not just by a few, but by the multitude. In the Press and Encyclopaedias, in Schools and Universities, everywhere Error holds sway, feeling happy and comfortable in the knowledge of having Majority on its side.

Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

Online txradioguy

  • Propaganda NCOIC
  • Member
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 9,529
  • Rule #39
@txradioguy
Unless you are a law enforcement officer or a pilot all firearms have to be in checked luggage.   Unless you are flying international or switching to a non-major carrier then your luggage is transferred to the next airline.  As such it is never in your possession.   The real problem is theft of firearms by airport and airline employees.

I worried about that on this trip...as discreetly as I could when I arrived in Boise and then back here in Louisville I checked my weapons cases I had in my checked luggage after I picked it up to make sure my pistols were still in there.
The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years. The cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil.

Republicans Don't Need A Back Bench...They Need a BACKBONE!

Offline Fishrrman

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 11,234
Smokin' Joe wrote:
"Another serious problem is that some States don't require any permit to legally carry concealed. There's nothing to have reciprocity with."

A good example is Vermont. For a while, it was the only state with (I guess what is called) "Constitutional Carry". No permit required, just pass the federal background check and buy what you want.

BUT... the downside is that a Vermonter has no "carry ID" to offer in -other states- as proof of his/her qualifications to carry. No documentation by which to establish reciprocity.

I'd like to make a suggestion. Feel free to knock it down if you wish.

In the field of business, there is the "Uniform Commercial Code" through which the federal government set standards by which all the states might use to formulate business law and policies. Stands to reason -- there is public benefit by ensuring that business can be conducted freely across state lines with as little friction as possible.

Instead of a federal "reciprocity" law, might it be possible for Congress to enact (for lack of a better term) a "uniform weapons carry code"? A set of recommendations, based upon sound Second Amendment principles and court rulings (such as Heller), that could serve as a "model code" for the states?

Not mandatory on the states, but it would certainly brand anti-Second-Amendment states such as New Jersey and California standouts as distinguished from other states which respect gun owners' rights. Perhaps it might serve as additional law that the courts would be bound to respect in instances where the anti-2nd states tried to further erode the standing of gun owners.

Just a thought.
Shoot holes in it if you wish.
Fire away!

Online Smokin Joe

  • Member
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 15,363
  • The light at the end of the tunnel.
Smokin' Joe wrote:
"Another serious problem is that some States don't require any permit to legally carry concealed. There's nothing to have reciprocity with."

A good example is Vermont. For a while, it was the only state with (I guess what is called) "Constitutional Carry". No permit required, just pass the federal background check and buy what you want.

BUT... the downside is that a Vermonter has no "carry ID" to offer in -other states- as proof of his/her qualifications to carry. No documentation by which to establish reciprocity.

I'd like to make a suggestion. Feel free to knock it down if you wish.

In the field of business, there is the "Uniform Commercial Code" through which the federal government set standards by which all the states might use to formulate business law and policies. Stands to reason -- there is public benefit by ensuring that business can be conducted freely across state lines with as little friction as possible.

Instead of a federal "reciprocity" law, might it be possible for Congress to enact (for lack of a better term) a "uniform weapons carry code"? A set of recommendations, based upon sound Second Amendment principles and court rulings (such as Heller), that could serve as a "model code" for the states?

Not mandatory on the states, but it would certainly brand anti-Second-Amendment states such as New Jersey and California standouts as distinguished from other states which respect gun owners' rights. Perhaps it might serve as additional law that the courts would be bound to respect in instances where the anti-2nd states tried to further erode the standing of gun owners.

Just a thought.
Shoot holes in it if you wish.
Fire away!
Not a bad concept, but here's the other rub. If I took my Sig from my home state with the full capacity magazine into a state that limits magazines to ten rounds, I'd have a different compliance issue, and would be able to be charged. The AR-15 in Wyoming with a 30 round mag in the well, becomes a liability in COlorado where those are banned as "high capacity magazines" (What drove Magpul out of CO).

There are a host of infringements out there, from the minor to the insane, and they vary from state to state. Even now, those issues exist for the traveler who has reciprocity, and they wouldn't go away with permit requirement normalization nor even full faith and credit.
How God must weep at humans' folly! Stand fast! God knows what he is doing!
Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression
And I looked, and rose up, and said unto the nobles, and to the rulers, and to the rest of the people, Be not ye afraid of them: remember the Lord, which is great and terrible, and fight for your brethren, your sons, and your daughters, your wives, and your houses. Nehemiah 4:14 (KJV)

About the only "Big" Liberals don't revile is "Big Government"

Online txradioguy

  • Propaganda NCOIC
  • Member
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 9,529
  • Rule #39
What I fear happening is big states like CA and NY will end up setting those standards for small states like AZ.

@Cyber Liberty

I can see a day when those states you mention try and place restrictions on magazine capacity and other such nonsense on the military units within their borders, not just National Guard, but Reserve and Active Duty.

Could you imagine Soldiers at Fort Drum, NY or at the National Training Center in California being restricted to single fire only 10 round magazines in their rifles and pistols for training purposes?


We all chuckle at that happening now...
The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years. The cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil.

Republicans Don't Need A Back Bench...They Need a BACKBONE!

Online InHeavenThereIsNoBeer

  • TBR Advisory Committee
  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,177
@thackney All 50 states accept my drivers license, marriage, recognize the hunter training I had in NYS to grant me a license in any of them. Why should this be any different?

I was thinking of that the other day.

I moved from VA to FL many years ago.  One day I transferred my license and insurance.

13 years later I go to renew my FL license and am told that I cannot, as VA has suspended it.  Seems when they heard I cancelled (replaced) my VA insurance they mistakenly ASSUMED I was driving without insurance, charged me and fined me.  None of which I ever heard of until I went to renew my FL license.

So, if CCW reciprocity is not different, under what circumstances would VA be able to deny my right to carry in FL like they did with my DL?  Would I have to have had a VA CCW first?  What I if was in VA, say yesterday (I was), in possession of a handgun (I was, but it was lost on the way home), and they didn't like the color of the case or some other stupid technicality?

CCW should NOT be the same as DL.   DL is broken.  VA should be able to suspend my VA DL (which I don't have), and not honor  (after due process) my FL DL in VA.  But they should have no right to say I can't drive in FL on a FL DL because VA made a mistake (or any reason I can think of).  [They should also not be allowed to extort an "admin fee" to clear their mistake from my record after I proved that I had continuous coverage].

Offline RetBobbyMI

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,035
Well, if he can get enough other clownsmen together, like they did when they ousted Bonehead, then they can change the rules to take power away from the speaker.  The onus is on them.  Otherwise he is just part of the problem.
"Life is tough, but it's tougher when you're stupid."  -- John Wayne
"Talk sense to a fool and he calls you foolish.” ― Euripides, The Bacchae
"Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it.” ― Laurence J. Peter, The Peter Principle
"A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand.” ― Bertrand Russell, A History of Western Philosophy

Online driftdiver

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 4,534
  • Christ is King
Smokin' Joe wrote:
"Another serious problem is that some States don't require any permit to legally carry concealed. There's nothing to have reciprocity with."

A good example is Vermont. For a while, it was the only state with (I guess what is called) "Constitutional Carry". No permit required, just pass the federal background check and buy what you want.

BUT... the downside is that a Vermonter has no "carry ID" to offer in -other states- as proof of his/her qualifications to carry. No documentation by which to establish reciprocity.

I'd like to make a suggestion. Feel free to knock it down if you wish.

In the field of business, there is the "Uniform Commercial Code" through which the federal government set standards by which all the states might use to formulate business law and policies. Stands to reason -- there is public benefit by ensuring that business can be conducted freely across state lines with as little friction as possible.

Instead of a federal "reciprocity" law, might it be possible for Congress to enact (for lack of a better term) a "uniform weapons carry code"? A set of recommendations, based upon sound Second Amendment principles and court rulings (such as Heller), that could serve as a "model code" for the states?

Not mandatory on the states, but it would certainly brand anti-Second-Amendment states such as New Jersey and California standouts as distinguished from other states which respect gun owners' rights. Perhaps it might serve as additional law that the courts would be bound to respect in instances where the anti-2nd states tried to further erode the standing of gun owners.

Just a thought.
Shoot holes in it if you wish.
Fire away!

 "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."

I'd suggest the DOJ file suit against any state, county or city which fails to adhere to the above.  Jumping through hoops to placate the communists in Chicago or Baltimore is never gonna work.
Fools mock, tongues wag, babies cry and goats bleat.

Online Jazzhead

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 5,061
"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."

I'd suggest the DOJ file suit against any state, county or city which fails to adhere to the above.  Jumping through hoops to placate the communists in Chicago or Baltimore is never gonna work.

Be careful what you wish for.   The plain language of the Constitution frames the gun right in terms of a militia.   The key principle we must defend is the idea of the gun right being an individual right, separate and apart from any militia.   A right derived from the individual, not the collective, right of self-defense.  For that, the Second Amendment alone isn't very helpful.   We need to stand behind the Heller decision, which for the first time, and by a precarious 5-4 majority,  held the gun right to be an individual one.   
"He demanded freedom of expression and lived in what we consider the most important and moral of freedoms: freedom from hate, unconditionally; freedom from self-pity (even throughout all the pain and bad news); freedom from fear of possibly doing something that might help another more than it might himself; and freedom from the kind of pride that could make a man feel he was better than his brother or neighbor."

 - From Duke Ellington's eulogy for Billy Strayhorn

Online RoosGirl

  • Member
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 5,055
Be careful what you wish for.   The plain language of the Constitution frames the gun right in terms of a militia.   The key principle we must defend is the idea of the gun right being an individual right, separate and apart from any militia.   A right derived from the individual, not the collective, right of self-defense.  For that, the Second Amendment alone isn't very helpful.   We need to stand behind the Heller decision, which for the first time, and by a precarious 5-4 majority,  held the gun right to be an individual one.   

Interesting that you're in favor of the individual right in this case.
Truth has to be repeated constantly, because Error also is being preached all the time, and not just by a few, but by the multitude. In the Press and Encyclopaedias, in Schools and Universities, everywhere Error holds sway, feeling happy and comfortable in the knowledge of having Majority on its side.

Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

Offline TomSea

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 14,777
Last Summer;

Quote
NRA endorses Paul Ryan in primary race, backs him after House duel over gun control

    AP

By Tom Howell Jr. - The Washington Times - Tuesday, July 19, 2016

The National Rifle Association endorsed House Speaker Paul Ryan for re-election to his congressional seat Tuesday, saying the “lifelong outdoorsman and avid hunter” can be trusted to stave off gun-control measures favored by President Obama and presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.

Mr. Ryan, Wisconsin Republican, earned an A-plus from the association for his voting record in favor of Second Amendment rights.

The NRA, which also endorsed soon-to-be GOP nominee Donald Trump, said Mr. Ryan backed a series of legislative proposals to promote firearms dealers, hunters and everyday gun owners, including a concealed carry reciprocity law that lets American with concealed handgun permits transfer that right into other states that allow concealed carry.

Continued: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jul/19/nra-endorses-paul-ryan-primary-race-backs-him-afte/


I'd like to hear more about this whole situation. I'm not just going to necessarily take the word of one congressman on this.
« Last Edit: September 13, 2017, 02:22:30 PM by TomSea »

Online Cyber Liberty

  • Coffee! Donuts! It's what's for dinner!
  • Member
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 16,502
  • International Cracker of Wise
Interesting that you're in favor of the individual right in this case.

He's not.  Ask him if he favors outlawing carrying in Philly, where he lives.  He's consistently stated he should be able to outlaw that.
Thanks to Cripplecreek and Oceander for the medal! 
From Member DB:  Once you've allowed yourself to be sold, all that remains is for how much.

Online InHeavenThereIsNoBeer

  • TBR Advisory Committee
  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,177
Interesting that you're in favor of the individual right in this case.

I didn't read it that way.

I read "the Constitution doesn't affirm the individual's right to bear arms" (using the lame "militia" stunt), and "the SCOTUS needs to alter what the Constitution says for it to apply to the individual".

Online driftdiver

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 4,534
  • Christ is King
Be careful what you wish for.   The plain language of the Constitution frames the gun right in terms of a militia.   The key principle we must defend is the idea of the gun right being an individual right, separate and apart from any militia.   A right derived from the individual, not the collective, right of self-defense.  For that, the Second Amendment alone isn't very helpful.   We need to stand behind the Heller decision, which for the first time, and by a precarious 5-4 majority,  held the gun right to be an individual one.   

@Jazzhead
Not if you know the english language and understand sentence structure.

But then our illustrious SC has ignored the 2nd for decades and has created rights where none exist.   They cannot be trusted.
Fools mock, tongues wag, babies cry and goats bleat.

Online endicom

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3,945
Last Summer;

I'd like to hear more about this whole situation. I'm not just going to necessarily take the word of one congressman on this.


That is wise.




Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf