National reciprocity passes 1st hurdle

[ArtBrownSr]

They have combined the two!! 4477 & 38 are being combined and voted on as one bill!
I've already called my congressman( Yesterday about 11:00 Washington DC time Don Young (R) AK)
to ask him to kill the 4477 and IF it was joined to kill them both as I'm wanting reciprocity but I'm willing to wait for, rather that allow the NICS FIX to progress.

I didn't see SKS post until I posted mine.
My prediction is that the Senate will take the Reciprocity apart and enhance the NICS FIX
and we'll have a real mess

 

[Diamondback]

It already passed, 231 to whatever. Just like how they rushed the Patriot Act through...

 

[tourproto]

My .02,

People who have a CHL in their home state and perhaps from conservative states like Utah; should think twice before letting their "other state CHL" expire.

Many policies in the USA run on election cycles; in the case of a Utah CHL, renewal is only $10.00.... so I've heard...

I have OR, UT and AZ and will keep all of them until the POTUS signs the National Reciprocity act. It was worth it to get all 3. A pain, but worth it to be able to CC in most of the western US, minus Kalifornia of course.

 

[tourproto]

Sounds like Washington is doing it right. I'll add, how do you know what training another person has? Maybe as much as the two cops in two separate videos shooting themselves. It will be wonderful if congress recognizes the fact the we the people have protection against government overreach to speak out freely against the government if we chose and to keep and bare arms.

Here is a link to an article by the Bloomberg anti-gun group: Concealed Carry Reciprocity (H.R. 38): Overriding State Public Safety Laws - EverytownResearch.org

While I am all for national reciprocity, this article brings up some interesting points such as that some states don't even require training or a license to CC. How will that apply for them if they go to a state that does require testing/education? Personally, there should be some "standard" level of testing done in every state just like with a driver's license. Not every state does testing the same way, heck some states don't even have parallel parking as part of the test anymore because it is "too hard". But there is some basic competency testing in every state in order to drive and all other states accept out-of-state licenses to driver/rent a car in their state. There should be a minimum bar for everyone to have a CCL.

Also there should be standardization for where you can't go with a concealed weapon. Too difficult if there is a mishmash of different places from state to state.

 

[tourproto]

Not withstanding the "rights" vs "privileges" argument, doesn't Oregon recognize Washington/California/etc. drivers licenses, without a requirement as to how much "training" a driver receives? No matter where you travel in the US you have to obey the local traffic laws. How would National reciprocity of CHL's be any different?

Yes, but there is testing done to get a DL. Not the same in every state but there is an actual "drivers test". If you see my other post with the complaints from the Bloomberg group, there is an issue that some states do not require ANY testing to get a CHL. Are these people allowed to carry in states that do require testing if a national reciprocity act passes? As much as I love the 2A, I'm not OK with that.

Everyone should have some basic training/testing to get a CHL. Heck to get into my gun club I had to pass a handgun/rifle proficiency test which is more than I needed to do to get an OR CHL. I would like to see a higher bar to get a CHL in every state. It's a big responsibility and a 4 hour classroom training really isn't enough IMHO.

 

[Koda]

I would like to see a higher bar to get a CHL in every state. It's a big responsibility and a 4 hour classroom training really isn't enough IMHO.

So your saying you should have to take a test in order to exercise your constitutional right, what happens to your constitutional right if you cant take the test or fail the test?

 

[SKN]

I'm in favor of standards but Koda raises a valid point. Not to mention 'training', 'testing', and the permit process comes with a monetary cost. OR legislators had recently been floating the idea of requiring live fire testing which some states do, so more costs. Then there are the elderly or folks with disabilities, conceivably the most vulnerable, who might not be able to pass such a requirement.

I have no idea how to balance a Constitutional right with what I believe is the practical requirement that one must be a educated and responsible armed citizen when in public, concealed or not.

 

[tourproto]

So your saying you should have to take a test in order to exercise your constitutional right, what happens to your constitutional right if you cant take the test or fail the test?

As crazy as it sounds, yes I do. There are limits on the entire Bill of Rights. You can't yell "Fire" in a crowded room and claim "freedom of speech". Cigarette makers cannot target ads at kids. Right to privacy doesn't hold if police believe their are exigent circumstances. 2A does not apply if you are a felon or dishonorably discharged etc.

I do feel that the right to concealed carry, NOT to own a gun/rifle, should have some testing. Sorry if we disagree on this point. I am fine if someone wants to horde 1000 guns and 1M rounds of ammo in his/her house and the govt has no right to interfere (assuming you aren't a felon etc.). But to concealed carry in public, they should undergo some basic testing.

 

[Koda]

I have no idea how to balance a Constitutional right with what I believe is the practical requirement that one must be a educated and responsible armed citizen when in public, concealed or not.

The balance is to let it work itself out on its own.

There is an old saying: "a fool and his money are soon parted". The same is true with guns.... There are already enough laws regulating how guns are used and use of lethal force laws. Anyone who straps on a gun and doesnt educate himself on the laws will soon find himself "parted" from his guns (and most likely in prison), problem solved.

Another fact of the matter is, in some states (like Wa. and all constitutional carry states....) there has never been a training requirement to carry... And there hasnt been a problem. Because gun owners know to get trained. Evidence, there is an entire section of this forum dedicated to training....

 

[11Charlie]

The balance is to let it work itself out on its own.

There is an old saying: "a fool and his money are soon parted". The same is true with guns.... There are already enough laws regulating how guns are used and use of lethal force laws. Anyone who straps on a gun and doesnt educate himself on the laws will soon find himself "parted" from his guns (and most likely in prison), problem solved.

Another fact of the matter is, in some states (like Wa. and all constitutional carry states....) there has never been a training requirement to carry... And there hasnt been a problem. Because gun owners know to get trained. Evidence, there is an entire section of this forum dedicated to training....

Very well put!

 

[Koda]

As crazy as it sounds, yes I do. There are limits on the entire Bill of Rights. You can't yell "Fire" in a crowded room and claim "freedom of speech". Cigarette makers cannot target ads at kids. Right to privacy doesn't hold if police believe their are exigent circumstances. 2A does not apply if you are a felon or dishonorably discharged etc.

I do feel that the right to concealed carry, NOT to own a gun/rifle, should have some testing. Sorry if we disagree on this point. I am fine if someone wants to horde 1000 guns and 1M rounds of ammo in his/her house and the govt has no right to interfere (assuming you aren't a felon etc.). But to concealed carry in public, they should undergo some basic testing.

And if you yell fire in a crowded room you wont be arrested for exercising your free speech....

The Second Amendment doesnt just say to only "keep arms" it says to "keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed".

Youd have to repeal and revise the Second Amendment befor you can argue making how one carries their arms a priveledge.

And yes, I disagree with that....

 

[slimmer13]

Yes, but there is testing done to get a DL. Not the same in every state but there is an actual "drivers test". If you see my other post with the complaints from the Bloomberg group, there is an issue that some states do not require ANY testing to get a CHL. Are these people allowed to carry in states that do require testing if a national reciprocity act passes? As much as I love the 2A, I'm not OK with that.

Everyone should have some basic training/testing to get a CHL. Heck to get into my gun club I had to pass a handgun/rifle proficiency test which is more than I needed to do to get an OR CHL. I would like to see a higher bar to get a CHL in every state. It's a big responsibility and a 4 hour classroom training really isn't enough IMHO.

Thanks for looking out, but I'll pass

 

[Diamondback]

You want mandatory training, how 'bout this?

"The State's Law Enforcement Agencies SHALL provide, at no cost other than reimbursement for ammunition and other consumed supplies, firearms training to any citizen requesting such training, including use of LEA training ranges on a Space Available basis."

 

[tourproto]

I'm in favor of standards but Koda raises a valid point. Not to mention 'training', 'testing', and the permit process comes with a monetary cost. OR legislators had recently been floating the idea of requiring live fire testing which some states do, so more costs. Then there are the elderly or folks with disabilities, conceivably the most vulnerable, who might not be able to pass such a requirement.

I have no idea how to balance a Constitutional right with what I believe is the practical requirement that one must be a educated and responsible armed citizen when in public, concealed or not.

The devil is always in the details. Think about the voter laws that require govt issued IDs and the people who can't get them/afford them. Its a problem there too. The right to vote is also a constitutional right. Are you for voter IDs? If you are, then you should also be OK with some form of licensing for CC. I don't have the answers for how to address that or the cost issues to get a license, but I feel that everyone should have some testing to concealed carry. NOT to own a gun but to CC.

I also get the argument that the bad guys will CC with an illegally purchased gun and have no qualms about it, and that why shouldn't lawful citizens be able to protect themselves from the bad guys, but this shouldn't become a lowest-common denominator situation. The "good guys" IMHO should be OK with some basic form of testing because CC is a big responsibility. I also get the point of "shall not be infringed" statement of the 2A that the proponents get all up in arms about (no pun intended). I just feel that testing is important for CC.

There was a moron recently in Portland who pulled his CC gun in a traffic altercation. OK, this numbskull should not have a CC permit and hopefully it was taken away after the incident. Same with the guy Quackenbush who "accidentally" dropped/left his gun at a Tillamook movie theatre and it was found by 7th grade kids. I know he lost his CC privileges.

Yes, we have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms, but we should have some prudent safeguards in place where appropriate and getting a CHL is one of them IMO. I don't want to "prevent" people from being able to CC, I just want there to be a "reasonable bar" in place to ensure that people who want to CC have some basic level of skill/training. Something backwards about my gun club requiring me to demonstrate gun and rifle proficiency before being allowed to join, and not having to do the same to get a CHL.

To be perfectly honest, not too keen on grandma going out an buying a .357 magnum revolver because she is concerned about getting mugged and never having fired the gun, but is carrying it around in her purse. This can happen in OR today. It isn't that she should not be able to protect herself, but she should be trained and know how to shoot it and maybe should consider something a little more practical? (big generalization about grandmas and not meant to be disparaging about who should/should not be shooting .357)

 

[Koda]

Take a look at what OFF has to say, very informative and quick to read...


Reciprocity Passes... With a Poison Pill - Oregon Firearms Federation

 

[Caveman Jim]

I'm watching the Concealed Carry Permits across state lines caucus on C-Span. I cannot believe the stupidity, ignorance and arrogance of those Democrats. All they're talking about is gun violence, gun violence and they actually believe that there needs to be more laws to stop it. ARGGHHHHHH!!!!!

And they want to put a rider on there to fix NICS, this is so dangerous to add anything. Leave the bill alone, run House Bill 38 as House Bill 38 not at all this other crap!!!

 

[Caveman Jim]

The devil is always in the details. Think about the voter laws that require govt issued IDs and the people who can't get them/afford them. Its a problem there too. The right to vote is also a constitutional right. Are you for voter IDs? If you are, then you should also be OK with some form of licensing for CC. I don't have the answers for how to address that or the cost issues to get a license, but I feel that everyone should have some testing to concealed carry. NOT to own a gun but to CC.

I also get the argument that the bad guys will CC with an illegally purchased gun and have no qualms about it, and that why shouldn't lawful citizens be able to protect themselves from the bad guys, but this shouldn't become a lowest-common denominator situation. The "good guys" IMHO should be OK with some basic form of testing because CC is a big responsibility. I also get the point of "shall not be infringed" statement of the 2A that the proponents get all up in arms about (no pun intended). I just feel that testing is important for CC.

There was a moron recently in Portland who pulled his CC gun in a traffic altercation. OK, this numbskull should not have a CC permit and hopefully it was taken away after the incident. Same with the guy Quackenbush who "accidentally" dropped/left his gun at a Tillamook movie theatre and it was found by 7th grade kids. I know he lost his CC privileges.

Yes, we have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms, but we should have some prudent safeguards in place where appropriate and getting a CHL is one of them IMO. I don't want to "prevent" people from being able to CC, I just want there to be a "reasonable bar" in place to ensure that people who want to CC have some basic level of skill/training. Something backwards about my gun club requiring me to demonstrate gun and rifle proficiency before being allowed to join, and not having to do the same to get a CHL.

To be perfectly honest, not too keen on grandma going out an buying a .357 magnum revolver because she is concerned about getting mugged and never having fired the gun, but is carrying it around in her purse. This can happen in OR today. It isn't that she should not be able to protect herself, but she should be trained and know how to shoot it and maybe should consider something a little more practical? (big generalization about grandmas and not meant to be disparaging about who should/should not be shooting .357)

The nations basic firearms training was taken away years ago, it used to be incorporated in schools . So now what we have is the demonization in the schools of guns and they don't want anybody to have them, even law abiding citizens.
Let's bring back basic gun safety in schools and let's get back on track with the way it was working so well before the socialist indoctrination of our public school system. What do you think about that?

 

[Diamondback]

The nations basic firearms training was taken away years ago, it used to be incorporated in schools . So now what we have is the demonization in the schools of guns and they don't want anybody to have them, even law abiding citizens.
Let's bring back basic gun safety in schools and let's get back on track with the way it was working so well before the socialist indoctrination of our public school system. What do you think about that?

YES! Let's make the final semester of high school Boot Camp, even... not saying everybody goes and serves, but everybody at least gets the Basic experience.

Weapons Safety one week in Health class every year too. If the Left is gonna teach kids "you shouldn't screw like minks but if you do use condoms etc.," why not "this is what you need to know and do if you see or are going to handle a gun"?

 

[Caveman Jim]

see your point; here's another to consider:
if We the People have the RIGHT to bear arms, how does putting it in our pocket instead of on our belt, negate that very RIGHT?

If We the People have the RIGHT to 'free speech' how does sticking our hands in our pockets reduce such RIGHT?

And IF each State has agreed to accept 'The Constitution' of the us.fed.gov, then just how does local modifications of RIGHTS pass the legal test? By being 'individual State Citizen' my RIGHTS are somehow lesser than as 'US Citizen'??? Please explain.

Well you see, these politicians do not care about your individual rights, all they care about is raising money, campaigning and getting elected. That's it, they then push an agenda that takes your rights away and to hell with their campaign promises.
It's just not the way life was intended by the framers of the Constitution.

The last paragraph remove by Caveman Jim
It was too straight to the point for some to get.

 

[Diamondback]

Progressive liberal socialist are the ruin of this country and world, it's a disease and it must be stopped.

QFT!