Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Two lawmakers are calling on President Obama to issue a veto threat against gun legislation working its way through Congress that would make it easier for people to carry concealed handguns across state lines, signifying growing concern among Democrats that the measure may reach the president’s desk.
Senator Frank R. Lautenberg of New Jersey and Representative Carolyn McCarthy of New York sent a letter to President Obama on Wednesday calling the legislation a “dangerous measure” and saying its passage would weaken state gun laws.
I'll work for constitutional carry. Working for government permission concedes that the right to keep and bear arms is nothing more than a privilege to be granted or withheld by those in power.
Does that mean that there won't be "national reciprocity"? If it does just remember that freedom isn't free.
Sadly probably not, even with the rediculous arguments they make.
"the bill “would make it easier for the Jared Loughners of the world to carry their guns in more places,†referring to the gunman who is accused of killing six people in Arizona and severely wounding Representative Gabrielle Giffords with a gun he carried legally under Arizona law.
I have mixed feelings about this bill:
On one hand I am getting tired of crossing state lines with my carry gun and MS carry permit and trying to understand what the laws are in the next state, and I would love the US government to give the finger to states such as Illinois and California that say I cannot carry in their states.
On the other hand, once you get the government involved, it gives them the right to not only invoke rights and privlidges, but also take away rights and privleges. We already have a right to bear arms - the 2nd ammendment. It's very clear, it's succinct, it's direct. It is illegal (not subject to interpretation in any way, shape, or form) for the government to legistlate gun ownership and possesion. It only needs to be enforced in those states and munincipalities that attempt to take away those rights (i.e Chicago, New York City, etc).
Obama won't veto it, not in a re-election year. As anti-gun as he is, polls show the majority of US, both democrats and republicans, as pro-gun rights. He would seal his doom as a one term president.
I have mixed feelings about this bill. On one hand I am getting tired of crossing state lines with my carry gun and MS carry permit and trying to understand what the laws are in the next state
This bill won't change that, states will still have their own individual laws that you'll have to know and abide by, you just won't have to jump through hoops and pay out the wazoo to get a non resident carry permit, your resident permit will be good throughout the country in states that allow carry.
This bill won't change that, states will still have their own individual laws that you'll have to know and abide by, you just won't have to jump through hoops and pay out the wazoo to get a non resident carry permit, your resident permit will be good throughout the country in states that allow carry.
Yeah exactly. That is what makes the bill potentially useless. You will get a state like California that will then pass a bill saying "yeah, OK, umm, but lets then make it OK only on Tuesday's and when the moon is full". Something restrictive.
My permit is currently good for 37 states anyways.
Edit: and I just read it will not force states and munincipalities that do not have currrent laws to allow carry (i.e. Illinios, New York City) to allow carry. You will will not be able to legaly defend yourself in those states with an out of state license.
I have mixed feelings about this bill:
On one hand I am getting tired of crossing state lines with my carry gun and MS carry permit and trying to understand what the laws are in the next state, and I would love the US government to give the finger to states such as Illinois and California that say I cannot carry in their states.
On the other hand, once you get the government involved, it gives them the right to not only invoke rights and privlidges, but also take away rights and privleges. We already have a right to bear arms - the 2nd ammendment. It's very clear, it's succinct, it's direct. It is illegal (not subject to interpretation in any way, shape, or form) for the government to legistlate gun ownership and possesion. It only needs to be enforced in those states and munincipalities that attempt to take away those rights (i.e Chicago, New York City, etc).
Obama won't veto it, not in a re-election year. As anti-gun as he is, polls show the majority of US, both democrats and republicans, as pro-gun rights. He would seal his doom as a one term president.
If you think getting a carry gun across state lines, and understanding the laws of the next state is complicated, try it with a Class-3. Living in the state next to MA, I think that would be close to impossible for me to ever go there.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
