Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017

via Infowars via Daily Caller via NC Rep Richard Hudson:

http://www.infowars.com/trumps-america-gop-congressman-preps-national-concealed-carry-bill/
http://dailycaller.com/2016/12/05/g...ional-concealed-carry-bill-for-next-congress/

 

person must follow "the restrictions of that state."
Deal killer for me.....CT, NY, NY city, NJ, CA have onerous rules that will trap anyone.

 

As mentioned in the other thread that I didn't see beforehand, this is simply a step in the right direction. We would all like to see that BS disappear overnight, but I doubt that will happen.

 

Should read "as long as you would be legal in home state, you would be legal in any state. " This would force people in their home state to fight vigorously for their carry rights.

 

It should read "Shall not be infringed"

 

National Concealed Carry? No thanks...that just cements the idea that .gov should be in the business of determining who/what/when. What happens when an unfriendly legislature is in charge and decides that "National Concealed Carry" should enforce NY/CA laws nationwide?

We should work for National Constitutional Carry or leave it as is with Sates having the power.

 

Well, that's kind of operating in reverse.

This is going back to the 2A, where your example would be moving further from it. - This is bringing us closer to the Supreme Law of the Land - being that States do not have direct control over our ability to arm ourselves.

Yes, it falls very short, but little by little.

 

shall not be infringed says it all a right of the states or the people . I believe as others that this is a right of the people feds or states shall not infringe . less law is more in the rights of the people

 

A Republican congressman is prepared to introduce national concealed carry legislation in the next Congress after Donald Trump is sworn in as president.

Yeah...he's about 225 years too late

 

National reciprocity is perfect. It's a fair balance of fed and state power. Fed gov can say "states you must accept CHP from all states if you have a CHP law on the books. However, you laws reign supreme on the details." It's not much different than drivers licenses.

NJ wouldn't be that difficult. Their biggest issue is mag limits. I believe they're down from 15 to 10rd now. So I could carry my shield there no issue, I would just need to read up on the where I can/can't carry. Which brings me to what I believe we'll see happen. States like NJ will likely pass laws prohibiting CCW within 1,000yds of a laundry list of places. They won't get away with banning carry while commuting on public roads so that'll be you're only exemption.

 

I'm uncomfortable further diminishing the 10th Amendment and granting Federal regulation of any kind over the Right to bear arms.

The 2nd is a restriction in federal power; this is an increase in federal power.

Whatever short-term privileges gained w I'll result in long term Liberty lost when the precedent of federal jurisdiction has been set and is used to restrict the concealed carrying of firearms.

The government never, ever gets more power and then uses it for good. Never.

Every increase in the power of government is mirrored by a decrease in the power of We, the People.

It is my opinion that national reciprocity through federal legislation is a covenant with Death.

Better to keep it in the States and then squash the restrictive States in the courts. We're winning there, Ang that's where the war will be won.

 

"...the restrictions of that state."

Either we have a right to keep and bear arms, or we do not.

While I'm sure that the intent is for people to follow the jurisdictional laws with respect to where a firearm may and may not be allowed, the verbiage is way too vague and allows for any state to place any other restrictions they feel like with respect to out of state permit holders.

 

Maybe I am seeing something that would not come to be. If Nationwide concealed carry was put into place, would that prevent a state such as California from restricting what handguns can be carried, although they would have to allow you to carry? If I understand correctly, there are certain handguns that are not allowed to be sold or possessed in California. Having a national concealed carry would not necessarily cover what handguns CAN be carried in California, it would just allow handguns to be carried. Therefore a person would have to only carry those handguns that are legal to have in California?

 

This is exactly the kind of problem that the wording "...the restrictions of that state" poses.

Any state can enact whatever restrictions they feel like, and you have to comply with them. At least until a few years and a few million dollars (per restriction event) are invested in overturning such restrictions in the courts.

So if a state decides, for example, to put restrictions on the kinds of firearms allowable, the kinds of ammunition allowable, the magazine capacities, ammunition that's micro-stamped, registration requirements, or even stretching things out to the number of magazines and/or rounds of ammunition you can have on your person, then you would have to comply with those.

Oh...and let's not forget maybe mandating a state concealed carry course, only available through certain approved sources and at a certain "nominal" fee.

And if you don't have a compliant firearm or ammunition, or aren't able to take a mandatory three day course? Tough.


And that's EXACTLY the kind of path states like California and New York would take if a federal concealed carry law is passed. They'll first fight it in the courts, then they'll make all kinds of restrictions to prevent out of state people from actually being able to carry concealed without a LOT of extra time and expense.

 

I like the idea. But I fear it.
Feds meddling in carry will happen.
Just like driving. Make them get insurance or we cut X funding. Require retention holsters or $. Require smart tech. Ten rounds... The federal gov manipulates the crap out of states by pulling purse strings. But it's cool though cause it's state laws passed by local reps... yeah ok.

 

Well, rights to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. Is the law. So we already have CC reciprocity. We just need all of government to understand that try have no rights to this and take the F out of the ATF. Allowing the government to regulate what you can buy is like having a crack dealer set the price and what the innovatory of the competing crack dealers. It is the right direction but not what is needed.

What do you do with states that have Constitutional Carry?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

It would result in an increase in Bull Dog sales since several jurisdictions ban hollow point ammo.
This restriction would also force people to waste money and time trying to figure out the lowest magazine limit which they pass through. Buying a buch of 10 round mags only for travel is BULL 5HIT!

 

And the rep WILL NOT accept any email via his congressional page from anyone that doesn't live in his district.
So, anyone who lives in his district, ask him to change the wording as such.
Strike the 'person must follow the restrictions of that state.'
Replace with: shall be able to carry any firearm, magazine, or ammo that is legally carried concealed in their home state or the state they are visiting (so that they can carry a 17 round mag in a free state even if their home state bans greater than 10.

Of course eliminating all gun/magazine/ammo bans is much better. Criminal get whatever they want.

 

NJ Bans all commonly used defensive ammo. Bull Dog is the only I know of that is FMJ and expanding and thus legal in NJ and other places that stupidly ban ammo that is less likely to pass through a scumbag.

 

Hate to break it to you, but whatever state you are traveling through, you are subject to their laws and regulations regardless of the law in your home state. Changing the wording accomplishes nothing.

 

One thing to consider is that the fed by virtue of the 2nd has a duty to uphold the shall not be infringed, especially when states do. It's been lax in its duty, but national reciprocity would be a step in the right direction. States do not have the privilege to impose restriction that they do and Uncle has a duty to put a stop to it when they do.

 

National Reciprocity as outline by this act is a violation of the Constitution. Then again, so are state issued CCW permits.

 

Well I would like for full rights to be restored but if they did it like we do with cars. NO registration but if they make it so that if it is legal in the state of your issued CCP then you may carry it, just like your car. If you have legal window tent on your car you do not have to remove it to travel to a location that does not allow it. We all don't have Cal. legal parts on our cars as they are not sold in Cal. Anyone that has worked on their own car they have seen on the package of many parts that it is not legal to be sold in the state of Cal. Do it that way then I can carry to friends and family.

What I want is that the feds now stop all funding to states and cities that infringe on the second amendment.

 

Some states have outlawed non factory installed limited slip and locking differentials. That doesn't make it illegal for my to drive a modified jeep in those states. Some states have limits on how high a suspension can be modified. But any truck with an NC plate can drive in any state.
If a state passed a law banning gas tanks bigger than 5 gallons that could not be enforced on out of state vehicles.

 

Yes, so weapons should be the same.

 

Not entirely true.

For example, my car is registered in SC. SC window tint laws allow me to tint my windows darker than VA does. I can still be ticketed and fined for driving my SC vehicle in VA with window tint that is darker than VA law allows.

NC and SC don't have bumper height restrictions for modified trucks or cars. VA does. We can be ticketed in VA for violating VA laws on this in our modifications are outside VA law.

This is because the laws aren't written for vehicles registered in the state of VA. They're written for ANY vehicle being driven on VA public roadways.

Here's an example:

No person shall drive on a public highway any motor vehicle registered as a passenger motor vehicle if it has been modified by alteration of its altitude from the ground to the extent that its bumpers, measured to any point on the lower edge of the main horizontal bumper bar, exclusive of any bumper guards, are not within the range of fourteen inches to twenty-two inches above the ground.

§ 46.2-1063 Alteration of suspension system; bumper height limits; raising body above frame rail

Remember hearing or reading that a police officer can pull almost anybody over at any time for a traffic or vehicular violation because there are so many laws on the books it's virtually impossible to be in compliance with all of them all of the time?

This is part of that. You CAN be ticketed and fined for not being in compliance with state vehicular code, regardless of your state of registration.

 

When I lived in NJ, I recall "HP's are illegal" being a common misconception as a result of incomplete reading of the law. You are correct though. They're only legal in your home or going directly to and from the place of purchase, range, hunting. Sounds like a decent use for frangible.

http://www.njsp.org/firearms/transport-hollowpoint.shtml

 

But will your tickets hold up in court? The main thing is if it works so that if what I have at home works when I am headed.

 

Yes, they will.

This isn't to say that a judge won't dismiss them or reduce the fines...anybody who has been to traffic court a time or two knows that this is possible. But barring leniency by the judge, they WILL hold up in court.

 

And if you fought it you would win. They right the tickets to out of state vehicles because they assume the person will not fight it.
But when people don;t fight it they end up getting hit with sir charges back home for 'operating an illegally modified vehicle.'
This happens to a lot of motorcycle owners with state complaint exhaust systems that drive in state that ban all motorcycle exhaust mods.
High Point supposedly has its own head light height rule that is put in place to manufacture 'probable cause' to pull over and search vehicles. The rule is contradicted by state law and tickets that are issued are always thrown out.