National Reciprocity Fails

[torpedoman]

It would help if more of us contacted their senators and reminded them they are suppose to represent their voters not their party.

 

[Sawdust]

they are suppose to represent their voters not their party.

Seriously,

You are right that they need to know that their jobs are not always guaranteed for life.

 

[Trlsmn]

Look at Arlen Specter the ultimate traitor to his voters, his party and the country, he ought to be hung up by his nads for that borderline Treasonous act!

 

[Jamie6.5]

Look at Arlen Specter the ultimate traitor to his voters, his party and the country, he ought to be hung up by his nads for that borderline Treasonous act!

Nah, I rather see a real conservative get elected there than keep Benedict Arlen!

 

[Stomper]

Awww... couldn't we just do both?

 

[Ian1816]

Did anyone else feel that this was a very poorly written piece of legislation and that was the reason that it didn't pass?

 

[Trlsmn]

Did anyone else feel that this was a very poorly written piece of legislation and that was the reason that it didn't pass?

I do think that the next version should be written in a way that appeases the states rights crowd so that we don't end up doing the Anti-gunners work for them.

 

[Visceral]

I do think that the next version should be written in a way that appeases the states rights crowd so that we don't end up doing the Anti-gunners work for them.

Voila.

 

[glockguy]

What was the National Reciprocity Bill all about?

 

[Ian1816]

Well said Trlsmn! Between the pro states rights groups and the anti gun groups this bill was dead from the begining!

I do think that the next version should be written in a way that appeases the states rights crowd so that we don't end up doing the Anti-gunners work for them.

 

[Stomper]

Well said Trlsmn! Between the pro states rights groups and the anti gun groups this bill was dead from the begining!

Hence, why I stated earlier that I STRONGLY suspected that this was nothing more than politcal theater for our entertainment.

 

[Ian1816]

I agree. With how poorly this bill was put together, I dont blame Merkley and Wyden for voting against it.

 

[tionico]

As I understood it, this bill would merely require each state to accept the CWP of any other state while the bearer were within the borders of that state. It did nothing to require one state to recognise the laws of another. While in Washington, ALL cc persons would still be required to observe Washington law..... which prohibits firearms possession by those having been convicted of a felony or certain other violent crimes.... anywhere, any time. Thus, if North Dakota decided convicted rapists could get a CC permit in that state, Washington's law would still govern and prohibit such a person from possessing a firearm while in Washington.

I fail to see how this ever was a states' rights issue. On the other hand, the Constitution prohibits any interference in interstate commerce. I as a business person and having a CPL in Washington, now legally am required to stop before I leave Washington and cross the Columbia River into Oregon and unload my pistol, which Oregon law forbids me to have in my vehicle while loaded. If this is not a restriction on interstate commerce, I can't imagine what else might be. I must remain unprotected, denied my Constitutional right to keep and bear arms while in Oregon.... for the lack of a piece of paper.

now, extend that to a cross country road trip.... how many states will require I forgo that right to keep and bear because THEY do not recognise the piece of paper my local SHeriff has mailed me> THIS is a restriction on both interstate commerce, and my Second Ammendment right to be armed.

The tenth ammendment, I believe it is, prohibits the states from restricting any right granted by the Constitution... my 2nd ammendment right to keep and bear would be one such right... this bill would merely have ended an unconstitutional restriction imposed by several states. It would not extend any federal control over any of the several states.

Bottom line anyway is that concealed carry permits are an unconstitutional restriction of my second ammendment rights anyway. Forcing nationwide reciprocity merely lessens the effect of such unconstitutional restrictions. SO how would this be the federal government meddling in states' affairs? We're only talking here about the federal government slightlly limiting an already illegal infringement upon a national right.


Hey, isn't Miss Murray standing for re-election as Washington's second most wretched senator come November 2010? Perhaps she could use some help in managing her defeat.... and replacement by someone who would have a brain between their ears.

 

[gunnoob75]

I carry all the time. Rivers never bothered me.

 

[Jamie6.5]

10th Amendment:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

I'm afraid no matter how a reciprocity bill is worded or written there is always going to be interpretation issues.
You see, the founding fathers wrote the constitution as a guideline for limiting the fed's power. The constitution isn't about what the fed can do, it's about what it can't do. Or at least shouldn't. All other rights are god given and inalienable!
What we need first is a SCOTUS, that when it hears a 2nd amendment case, addresses the issue of state laws infringing on the right to bear arms. (this is my issue with Sotomayor)
That then will open the door for a reciprocity law that expressly tells NY and Illinois etc. that they can no longer infringe on our right to carry. It will probably have to be tied to interstate commerce in some way, but who knows.

The real reciprocity problem we have at the moment is between our lawmakers and ourselves. They tell us to trust them, but time and time again they prove that they don't trust us.
Again, it's about what a government entity can't do!

 

[tionico]

To expand a tad on what Jamie just said: the Constitution doesn't JUST limit federal power, it clearly defines the balance between state and federal power. It specifically says that powers not expressly given to the federal government, AND not expressly prohibited the states, REMAIN WITH THE STATES.

The Second Ammendment expressly prohibits any infringement on the right to arms by the states, by clearly reserving that right to THE PEOPLE. ALL the people, all the time. (except, as mantioned elsewhere, criminals.. but that is an after the fact surrender of that right based upon one's conduct). Thus, RTKBA is reserved to, and protected by, federal government.

Interstate commerce is also reserved to the federal level by the ammendment that prohibits any restrictions on that, from anywhere. It thus falls to the federal level to prese3rve that freedom of exchange. And New York, Illinois, Massachussetts, California, New Jersey, all restrict interstate commerce by their undue restriction of firearms being "kept and borne" by anyone travelling into their state (never mind they also restrict their own citizens, last I checked part of "the people").

Thus it certainly IS a federal issue, and not a state's rights issue.

I do believe the REAL root issue is, again as Jamie said, the SCOTUS.... when we get a panel of justices (I do NOT like that name for those black-robed exalted poohbahs) who can, and will READ the document they all swear to uphold, then find the guts/balls/moxie to actually APPLY that document, we'd be well on our way out of the present mess pervading every sector of society. But, given the present political climate, what are the chances of THAT any time soon? Not sure where its all going, but any way you shake it, it ain't a pretty pickle.

 

[CEF1959]

I totally agree that there should be a national CHL with national requirements. That would fit 2A.