Well, let’s see how this goes
The Daily Caller: GOP Congressman Preps National Concealed Carry Bill For Next Congress
11 Responses to “Well, let’s see how this goes”
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
December 5th, 2016 at 9:13 pm
Does the bill mention the different ‘classes’ of weapons and which ones you are allowed to have if you pay for your permission slip?
Nowhere does the constitution hand authority over to fedgov surrendering my right to determine the manner by which I convey my body from point 1 to point 2 but here we are. Class C license anyone? Oh and driver-less cars on the way.
Will concealed carry be the same? Maybe not at first, but it will end up this way.
December 6th, 2016 at 1:55 am
“restrictions of that State” should read “time and place restrictions” and explicitly exclude “manner” restrictions. I would think manner would allow Colorado to seize a pistol with <10 capacity. Bad!
December 6th, 2016 at 10:43 am
This bill should have a F**k You New York clause, stating that any firearm or magazine that’s legal for the concealed carrier to carry in their home state is legal to carry in any other state, and a F**k You New Jersey clause, stating the same for ammunition. A F**k You Liberals clause invalidating Criminal Protection Zone signs’ penalties would be awesome as well.
December 6th, 2016 at 12:54 pm
I am not a supporter of this bill because of the two restrictive conditions in it that create 2nd class citizens.
1-You must live in a state that allows and permits concealed carry.
2-You must be traveling in a state that allows and permits concealed carry.
That still allows California, NY, NJ, MA & DC to restrict people from other states by continuing to restrict their own citizens. It also doesn’t allow those folks to carry concealed elsewhere because they can’t get a permit to carry at home.
I’m sticking with “What part of ‘shall not be infringed’ don’t you understand?”
December 6th, 2016 at 1:47 pm
MIchael – all 50 states and the District how have some sort of concealed carry permitting. In most, it is shall issue (42 states, IIRC); in others, it is discretionary, and in some discretionary means effectively no permits unless you’re rich and buy off the necessary officials, or you’re connected.
Applying reciprocity as written means, in effect, that I could carry in NY on my home state’s permit, granted shall issue, while NY citizens could not even get a permit from their own state. If they did, however, they could carry in my state.
What happens when a state ignores the law, and NYC prosecutes out of state citizens for carrying pursuant to the federal law? The prosecutions would be in state courts, not federal courts. How do we enforce it? Remember, NYC routinely ignores the FOPA now. . . . .
December 6th, 2016 at 2:11 pm
“2-You must be traveling in a state that allows and permits concealed carry. That still allows California, NY, NJ, MA & DC to restrict people from other states by continuing to restrict their own citizens.”
In other words, the usual carve-outs for the usual Bad Actors. See: “Firearm Owners Protection Act.”
December 6th, 2016 at 2:39 pm
All states now allow concealed carry. California, New York, et al would still have to honor those out of state permits, *OR* they would have to change their laws to “No Issue”, which would probably be a non-starter.
December 6th, 2016 at 3:23 pm
Clusterfuck micromanagement by the Feds, of a natural human right? What authoritarian could say no to that?
It’ll pass, we’ll celebrate it as a “victory”, the NRA will claim credit for it, and most likely it will bite us in the ass later.
December 6th, 2016 at 4:53 pm
I love how the anti-carry people phrase it as “states being forced to honor out-of-state carry permits.”
Like states are “forced” to honor out-of-state driver’s licenses, marriages (and more importantly divorces) and most recently gay couples marriages performed in another state.
December 6th, 2016 at 5:57 pm
You could make a strong federalism argument that the legislatures of the several states (plus DC) are in the best position to be aware of the general quality of the residents of their state, and the manifold moral and intellectual defects thereof as evidenced by their choices of representatives, and therefore are supremely qualified impose restrictions on the right to bear arms on their own constituency and ONLY their own constituency.
There is a further federalism argument to be made that even the state-level legislatures are too broad brush, and only the lowest level elected legislative offices, who themselves live in closest proximity to their constituents, should have the authority to detail arms and ammunition restrictions on residents of their district only.
Naturally, such restrictions would be subject to allegations of disparate effects and discrimination based on race, creed, national origin, gender, orientation and economic status, and should be investigated by dispassionate federal prosecutors on that basis.
I mean, if the elected officials of many cities, towns and counties of New Jersey, California, Illinois, New York, Massachusetts and the District of Columbia are willing to go on the record as saying their residents do not have the moral fiber and intellectual capacity that other Americans do, to not misuse arms, and they get re-elected having said so, I’m finding I have a problem refuting such as assertion from my comfortable distance to their beknighted hellholes.
As long as it is a federal felony to impose local arms restriction on non-residents of those locales, I suppose I can allow the residents of Trenton, NJ, to maintain the laws that have served them so well, so long as they do not presume to apply such to their moral and intellectual superiors. The standards of probably cause would also necessarily have to include affirmative knowledge of an individual’s local residency.
(The portions of the previous was written in the UTF-8 Irony font, which may not be properly rendered by your browser without the appropriate plugins.)
December 7th, 2016 at 10:47 am
The 14th amendment put a stake through the heart of Federalism as far as enumerated rights are concerned (correctly in my opinion).
And if NJ has a meaningful exercise of CC permitting outside of those making the correct political connections that is news to me. But then I left there in 2004 and now that Wawas are available in Virginia I haven’t looked back.
I think Lyle’s comment pretty much sums up my thoughts as well.