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.
The issue isn't about nukes, it's about being able to transport a weapon. There was a post a few years back in the PA forum where a NY resident wanted to take his gun to a vacation residence in PA. His problem wasn't PA but legally getting it to the border. Federal law would prevent NY from charging me with transporting a firearm through NY as long as I can legally possess it where I'm departing from to my destination. In that case I have more rights than someone that lives there.
A few years back NJ police ARRESTED a women who was driving TROUGH the state and had a gun in here trunk. She held a LEGAL Concealed Carry permit from her home state.
The repub NJ Go. Chris Christy had her released and all charges dropped.
ALL driver's licenses are recognized nationwide and they are only a "privilege' yet carrying a gun, "shall NOT be infringed", is a RIGHT, is NOT recognized in all states as it should be.
You can now own a handgun if you are a resident of DC for starters (or anywhere else that outright banned ownership).
Many of these laws like the one we are discussing here came about because of that decision. They can't ban the gun so they just create laws making it expensive, difficult or impractical to own one.
Quote:
The impact will be small, no matter how you spin it.
It's not just the places that have a law like this in place, it would prevent any more laws like this from being implemented. The fundamental issue here is the ability to transport a firearm so it's not something that is trivial.
A few years back NJ police ARRESTED a women who was driving TROUGH the state and had a gun in here trunk. She held a LEGAL Concealed Carry permit from her home state.
The repub NJ Go. Chris Christy had her released and all charges dropped.
ALL driver's licenses are recognized nationwide and they are only a "privilege' yet carrying a gun, "shall NOT be infringed", is a RIGHT, is NOT recognized in all states as it should be.
The problem was that she was NOT travelling THROUGH the state, but had a destination in the state. She thought her PA LTCF (carry permit) was good in NJ. It was not, but she did not know that and they arrested her.
A few years back NJ police ARRESTED a women who was driving TROUGH the state and had a gun in here trunk. She held a LEGAL Concealed Carry permit from her home state.
The federal law allows you to transport it through a state, it doesn't cover concealed carry etc. You still need to store it properly in your vehicle. That said I would avoid driving through any state with strict gun laws if it can be avoided.
There is actually better example of this. Someone from Utah was traveling to PA, he was legal in both states. He checked his gun in Utah. His plane was late getting to Newark and he missed the connecting flight to PA. They had a bus because it was short trip to PA but his bag with his gun never made it onto the bus. He got off the bus, collected his bag with the gun and stayed at a hotel nearby. Next day he goes to get on the plane and check the gun and they arrest him.
He spent a few weeks in jail, they eventually released him with no charges but ended up taking a few years to get his gun back.
You can now own a handgun if you are a resident of DC for starters (or anywhere else that outright banned ownership).
That's what I mean. Local impact only, but it was still a good ruling. The Supreme Court exists to review cases (small and large) which might need to be overturned.
Quote:
It's not just the places that have a law like this in place, it would prevent any more laws like this from being implemented. The fundamental issue here is the ability to transport a firearm so it's not something that is trivial.
Cool beans. Like I said, it will have no impact in vast majority of the nation, but its good they look into it even if its only few isolated places.
yes I did. did you read the USA Today article? it lays out how it could happen.
I missed the USA article, those are quotes from the Cato Institute and the NRA not your most objective sources. I don't see the decision on carrying a gun outside the city limits turn into a national reciprocal agreement to carry guns in any state. That's just wishful thinking, the supreme court doesn't have any interest in taking up any of these cases except when they cross the line.
That's what I mean. Local impact only, but it was still a good ruling. The Supreme Court exists to review cases (small and large) which might need to be overturned.
The Heller case affirmed a citizens right to own a gun. It did not cover the how and where, this case can do that. A ruling by SCOTUS could go beyond the scope of the now rescinded law and have wide ranging consequences for the how and where.
The Heller case affirmed a citizens right to own a gun. It did not cover the how and where, this case can do that. A ruling by SCOTUS could go beyond the scope of the now rescinded law and have wide ranging consequences for the how and where.
The Second Amendment is clear. It says the right or THE PEOPLE (NOT government) to keep and BEAR arms (meaning to carry) can NOT BE INFRINGED. The Court will finally start doing their job and enforce it.
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.
