The Good and Bad Of The Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act

[Cyber Liberty]

As I see it ANY infringement of a citizen's right to carry a gun compromises his safety ipso facto!

There is this belief liberals have that restricting the right to keep and bear arms somehow enhances the safety of the citizens.  I notice he's dismissing the meaning of the Second Amendment's words as "obsolete", so this one is a "constitution as living document" leftist. 

This is a fundamental difference of opinion so I'm not going to engage Jizzhead on the subject any further.  It's OK if he wants to talk about my cats.   

[Just_Victor]

Your gracelessness is palpable.  Damn right I don't want folks waltzing around downtown Philly totin' rifles.   You go right ahead with that hillbilly shit if you wanna,  just don't pass a law forcing my town to put up with it.   

All I'm saying is local communities shouldn't be forced to compromise the safety of their citizens as they see it.  No CC reciprocity.    You want to carry a gun here,  obey the law here.   

Because I'm not  resident of Pennsylvania, I am not eligible to apply for a license in that state.  I can't get a Penn drivers license for the same reason.  Without reciprocity, or a uniform law, I can't carry there even if I want to.

[Cyber Liberty]

Because I'm not  resident of Pennsylvania, I am not eligible to apply for a license in that state.  I can't get a Penn drivers license for the same reason.  Without reciprocity, or a uniform law, I can't carry there even if I want to.

That's OK, because he doesn't want your rifle waltzing, gun totin' in his town anyway.  I's so safe in Philly he doesn't need you messing up the place.   

[Bigun]

There is this belief liberals have that restricting the right to keep and bear arms somehow enhances the safety of the citizens.  I notice he's dismissing the meaning of the Second Amendment's words as "obsolete", so this one is a "constitution as living document" leftist. 

This is a fundamental difference of opinion so I'm not going to engage Jizzhead on the subject any further.  It's OK if he wants to talk about my cats.   

I am stuck inside today unable to go play in my woodshop because it is to freekin cold!  Have to entertain myself somehow.
 

[Cyber Liberty]

I am stuck inside today unable to go play in my woodshop because it is to freekin cold!  Have to entertain myself somehow.
 

Ouch!  When it's that cold you can't feel your fingers flying off the table saw!  Enjoy your shut-in time....

[Jazzhead]

I get it that you think the Bill of Rights aren't applicable to local laws, and natural rights can go hang, and like I said, I may as well as be talking to a wall.  You are on the wrong forum, we're constitutional conservatives here, not gun-grabbers.  Tote that.

Name-calling just makes you look small.   I fully agree with Scalia's opinion in Heller.  Keep and bear all the guns you want,  just do it in accordance with the law.  The laws in my city regulating the carrying of guns in public aren't unconstitutional and you know it.  Don't force your hillbilly values on my community,  and I'll defend your rights just as I do my own.     

[Cyber Liberty]

Name-calling just makes you look small.   I fully agree with Scalia's opinion in Heller.  Keep and bear all the guns you want,  just do it in accordance with the law.  The laws in my city regulating the carrying of guns in public aren't unconstitutional and you know it.  Don't force your hillbilly values on my community,  and I'll defend your rights just as I do my own.     

Heh.  You accuse me of name-calling, then you call me a hillbilly.  Too funny.

No thanks, I don't need you defending my rights when you think they come out of a pen in the SCOTUS.

[Doug Loss]

Nope.  The constitutionally-protected right is one's natural right of self-defense.   Guns have other uses, of course,  including hunting and recreational shooting,  but I highly doubt these uses fall under the rubric of constitutional protection.  (I've heard some liberals claim that only sportsmen should have guns.  That's back-assward, of course - guns are protected under the Constitution because they are means by which one may protect one's person and property.)

And again you're mistaking your opinion for the truth.  The constitutionally-protected right is not limited to self-defense.  It is in fact not limited at all, insofar as the Constitution has anything to do with it.  You're putting limits on the right that just aren't there.

[Doug Loss]

Your gracelessness is palpable.  Damn right I don't want folks waltzing around downtown Philly totin' rifles.   You go right ahead with that hillbilly shit if you wanna,  just don't pass a law forcing my town to put up with it.   

All I'm saying is local communities shouldn't be forced to compromise the safety of their citizens as they see it.  No CC reciprocity.    You want to carry a gun here,  obey the law here.   

And there we have it.  Your attitude is one of elitism.

[Doug Loss]

Name-calling just makes you look small.   I fully agree with Scalia's opinion in Heller.  Keep and bear all the guns you want,  just do it in accordance with the law.  The laws in my city regulating the carrying of guns in public aren't unconstitutional and you know it.  Don't force your hillbilly values on my community,  and I'll defend your rights just as I do my own.     

In fact, your city's laws are unconstitutional.  Both federally and state-wise.  I used to be a PA resident (not in Philly, fortunately), and we all could see that the Philly gun laws contravened both commonwealth laws and the PA constitution.

[Bigun]

In fact, your city's laws are unconstitutional.  Both federally and state-wise.  I used to be a PA resident (not in Philly, fortunately), and we all could see that the Philly gun laws contravened both commonwealth laws and the PA constitution.

ANY law anywhere in the USA that infringes on the right to keep and BEAR arms is unconstitutional IMHO!

[skeeter]

Don't force your hillbilly values on my community,  and I'll defend your rights just as I do my own.     

It makes me feel alot better knowing you got my hillbilly back.

[Cyber Liberty]

ANY law anywhere in the USA that infringes on the right to keep and BEAR arms is unconstitutional IMHO!

I think it's mentally lazy to just sit back and say "Your rights are defined by the Supreme Court."

[Cripplecreek]

It makes me feel alot better knowing you got my hillbilly back.

My liberal sister gets agitated because I call myself a redneck in public. She's positive that all rednecks are semiliterate drunken racists and I break her stereotype.

it really agitates her when I remind her that I came from the same place I did.

[skeeter]

My liberal sister gets agitated because I call myself a redneck in public. She's positive that all rednecks are semiliterate drunken racists and I break her stereotype.

it really agitates her when I remind her that I came from the same place I did.

She needs to go ahead & release her inner redneck. Its liberating.

[Doug Loss]

My liberal sister gets agitated because I call myself a redneck in public. She's positive that all rednecks are semiliterate drunken racists and I break her stereotype.

it really agitates her when I remind her that I came from the same place I did.

Yes, she's refusing to accept her redneck origins.  Tell her, "Embrace your roseate-cervical beginnings!  You'll feel better for admitting who you really are!"

[Bigun]

I think it's mentally lazy to just sit back and say "Your rights are defined by the Supreme Court."

Extremely so and entirely wrong to boot.

[Jazzhead]

I think it's mentally lazy to just sit back and say "Your rights are defined by the Supreme Court."

Marbury v. Madison.  But what the hell,  you don't want to listen to "gun grabbers" like me who dare to quote with favor the opinion of Justice Scalia.   So it's your view that your rights are defined by the barrel of your gun?    Isn't that what Mao said? 

By the way, sorry for the "hillbilly" cracks.   I was responding in kind to the rain of insults, but I shouldn't have said that.   I've been reading J.D. Vance's book this week  (which is excellent, by the way),  so that's why the word was on my mind.     

[Doug Loss]

Marbury v. Madison.  But what the hell,  you don't want to listen to "gun grabbers" like me who dare to quote with favor the opinion of Justice Scalia.   So it's your view that your rights are defined by the barrel of your gun?    Isn't that what Mao said? 

By the way, sorry for the "hillbilly" cracks.   I was responding in kind to the rain of insults, but I shouldn't have said that.   I've been reading J.D. Vance's book this week  (which is excellent, by the way),  so that's why the word was on my mind.   

Are you seriously saying that the courts determine what rights you have?  If so, that's about as leftist a concept as there is.  You need to read Locke.  And Marbury v. Madison had nothing to do with the rights of the people.  It was about judicial review of laws passed by Congress.

[Bigun]

Are you seriously saying that the courts determine what rights you have?  If so, that's about as leftist a concept as there is.  You need to read Locke.  And Marbury v. Madison had nothing to do with the rights of the people.  It was about judicial review of laws passed by Congress.

And there is  not one word in the Constitution charging SCOTUS with that.  It is an entirely self assumed role.

[Smokin Joe]

Conservatives clamor for the states to be restored to their historic roles defining marriage and regulating abortion.   So why the clamor here for a federal rule that will allow state law restrictions on the concealed carrying of firearms in public to be swept away?   Shouldn't each state be allowed to make its own decisions about a matter so consequential to the safety of its citizenry?

If full faith and credit can be given to a Marriage License, a driver's license, why not a concealed carry permit?
It involves a course of instruction, and a test to be passed before issuance in those jurisdictions which have one. In those which do not require a permit to carry concealed, proof of residence should be sufficient.

Because those criteria vary, and because it is practically impossible for those not politically connected to acquire one in some jurisdictions, there is an absolute hodge-podge of rules, which can and have ensnared the unwary with felony charges out of ignorance, for crossing a line on a piece of paper, getting off at the wrong exit, or any of a number of misfortunes.

Criteria for the use of deadly force also vary, and those can be a trap for the unwary. Some states set the bar for the use of lethal force lower than others, and using the criteria fro one of those states in one where use is limited to dealing with a imminent threat of serious injury or death can land you in prison.

At the least this opens the issue to discussion.

[Smokin Joe]

Careful with that broad brush...

Absolutely.  The author (and I) does not want this law, even though it may personally benefit him today.  The federal position should only be defense of the constitution on this issue.  The only legal action I desire on this topic for federal legislation is the removal of federal laws that conflict with the 2nd Amendment.

I agree about removing the laws which place infringements on the RKBA, going back to and including the NFA of '34.

All I want for the CCW is full faith and credit, like a driver's license. After all, an automobile in the hands of the malicious or incompetent is a deadly weapon, too.

[Cripplecreek]

In a word, no.  Marriage and abortion aren't concepts covered (or even mentioned) in the U.S. Constitution, and as such are reserved by that document for state consideration if the states desire to do so.  The bearing of arms is most definitely covered, and the Constitution is unequivocal in saying that that right shall not be infringed, either by the federal government (the 2nd Amendment) or by state or local governments (the 14th Amendment).  The states do not have the authority to restrict the bearing of arms where the federal government doesn't.  That principle is inarguable.

I like the very clear wording on guns in My state constitution. It doesn't even mention militia or regulation.

"Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state."

[Smokin Joe]

States either have carry or not (it should be uniform either way) and it is incumbent on a traveler to know which their destination is.

I just want reciprocity, the full faith and credit for a license I possess in one state to be good in another, one which does not intimately rely on the geology, geography, or laws of that state. For instance, with a ND CCW permit:
I can travel in any of the states in blue, and my permit is considered 'good'.

However, cross the border into Illinois, or go to any of the states in red and I immediately become (by definition) a felon. I didn't check my principles at the border, nor did I become some sort of homicidal maniac just crossing a State line, only the recognition of my status as one who can carry a concealed weapon changed by virtue of the laws of that state.

Drive a car into any of those states, and my driver's license is accepted as valid, why not my CCW?

[Bigun]

I just want reciprocity, the full faith and credit for a license I possess in one state to be good in another, one which does not intimately rely on the geology, geography, or laws of that state. For instance, with a ND CCW permit:
I can travel in any of the states in blue, and my permit is considered 'good'.

However, cross the border into Illinois, or go to any of the states in red and I immediately become (by definition) a felon. I didn't check my principles at the border, nor did I become some sort of homicidal maniac just crossing a State line, only the recognition of my status as one who can carry a concealed weapon changed by virtue of the laws of that state.

Drive a car into any of those states, and my driver's license is accepted as valid, why not my CCW?

You make an excellent point.  Why  not indeed?