Got a response from Congressman Reichert on National Reciprocity

[pokerace]

Personally, I don't want the Feds involved in anything that doesn't affect foreign policy or defense. They are only group that can consistently screwup an Iron ball with a wad of cotton.

agree If you think about it . It will end up a defacto gun reg. they will require you to list what gun you carry etc. etc. I can see the brady bunch loving this idea.

 

[chariot13]

The proposed reciprocity law violates the constitution big time. If it's passed it will be struck down on tenth amendment grounds the same way the brady bill was.

As much as I like the idea of national reciprocity, forcing states to do it is flat unconstitutional. The feds can't do this.

I agree, the Consitution doesn't require any special permit/licensing when it comes to firearms.

 

[Blitzkrieg]

agree If you think about it . It will end up a defacto gun reg. they will require you to list what gun you carry etc. etc. I can see the brady bunch loving this idea.

There is no such requirement in the proposed legislation.. of course anything can be added, later..

Let me ask you all a sincere question.. is it really better to have the current system that prohibits you from legally defending yourself in many if not most other states? What is your mom is in NJ? You are just another walking target. It would be a trade off, on that I agree. The fed does millions of things that are UnConstitutional already..

 

[Gunner3456]

Let me ask you all a sincere question.. is it really better to have the current system that prohibits you from legally defending yourself in many if not most other states? What is your mom is in NJ? You are just another walking target. It would be a trade off, on that I agree. The fed does millions of things that are UnConstitutional already..

Under no circumstances do I want the fed violating the constitution. The end does not justify the means.

 

[Gunner3456]

OH What about the health care bill????

Recently ruled unconstitutional. Headed for the SC.

 

[pokerace]

There is no such requirement in the proposed legislation.. of course anything can be added, later..

Let me ask you all a sincere question.. is it really better to have the current system that prohibits you from legally defending yourself in many if not most other states? What is your mom is in NJ? You are just another walking target. It would be a trade off, on that I agree. The fed does millions of things that are Unconstitutional already..

"The fed does millions of things that are Unconstitutional already" I can not condone any more.When we give up a little bit to be safe we always loose twice as much..

Let add a quote by Polsie when ask if the health care bill was constitutional "You got to be Kidding".

 

[civilian75]

If withholding the 10th means trumping the 2nd, I am for the 2nd any time, any day. It is the 2nd what makes possible we can ultimately protect the 10th and the rest.

 

[Misterbill]

OH What about the health care bill????

You mean the bill that the courts just struck down because it violates the 9th amendment? That one?

 

[joeroket]

The health care bill was only ruled partially unconstitutional in a couple of circuits and stood in another one. This is why it is headed to SCOTUS, not because the entire bill was ruled unconstitutional.

As far as federally mandated reciprocity goes there is no way it would pass muster as Mcdonald has already incorporated the 2nd. The problem is that SCOTUS incorporated it using the due process clause and not the privileges and immunity clause. Had it been incorporated that way then reciprocity across states would probably have stood a chance.

 

[Gunner3456]

The part of the health care bill which mandates that individuals buy health insurance was ruled unconstitutional by a circuit court, pretty much gutting the act, and it's being appealed to an appellate court. Then it will ultimately wind up in the SC.

Reciprocity across states, mandated by the feds is a clear violation of states' rights unless by some miracle the SC found a right to carry concealed in 2A. That's a stretch.

 

[Buddhalux]

Why don't they just rewrite the bill to include all citizens into the Congressional medical plan? It's only fair since they're our representatives in the government.

 

[civilian75]

Reciprocity across states, mandated by the feds is a clear violation of states' rights unless by some miracle the SC found a right to carry concealed in 2A. That's a stretch.

The SC should. The way I see it a right to carry, concealed or open, is protected by the 2A. Merriam-Webster dictionary defines "bear arms" as to "carry or possess arms". The feds should stay away of the state's business unless they infringe the citizens' constitutional rights.

What good is a gun if you can't carry it? What good is it if you have to unload and lock it out in you car trunk every time you cross the Oregon-КАЛИФОНИА border, for instance?

 

[Misterbill]

The SC should. The way I see it a right to carry, concealed or open, is protected by the 2A. Merriam-Webster dictionary defines "bear arms" as to "carry or possess arms". The feds should stay away of the state's business unless they infringe the citizens' constitutional rights.

What good is a gun if you can't carry it? What good is it if you have to unload and lock it out in you car trunk every time you cross the Oregon border, for instance?

What is it with people failing to grasp the difference between "the way things ought to be" and objective reality?

Heller is an extremely narrow ruling. The law now is that you must be allowed to have a handgun in your home for self-defense. That's it. All manner of licensing, regulation etc. were left untouched by that ruling.

Will we see some widening of the rights defined under Heller? Probably. But the SC ruling that all states must allow non-residents to carry concealed weapons in their states would be such a radical departure from current law I think it's a safe bet to say it's not going to happen in our lifetimes.