House Weighs Bill to Make Gun Permits Valid Across State Lines

  • Thread starter Thread starter maryjk
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

maryjk

Guest
Lawmakers are considering a House bill that would give Americans who hold permits to carry firearms in their home states the right to carry their weapons across state lines.
Click to expand...
Although many states have entered into voluntary agreements, there is no nationwide framework for honoring permits and licenses uniformly. A bipartisan bill, co-authored by Reps. Cliff Stearns, R-Fla., and Heath Shuler, D-N.C., aims to change that.
Click to expand...
Read more: foxnews.com/politics/2011/09/13/house-weighs-bill-to-make-gun-permits-valid-across-state-lines/#ixzz1Xt1RCrUO
Click to expand...
 
While I am a supporter of gun rights, this law would be the opposite of what people would want (gun permits as a state issue). If you really support gun permit law to go across the nation, then I would be in favor of a federal gun permit that would supersede any state or territory boundaries
 
Scott_Lafrance said:
👍 👍 👍
Click to expand...
Wouldn’t this be against the constitutional libertarians best judgement? This may be the camels nose looking to regulate weapons even further. We have weapon manufacturers looking into making weapons that can only be sold within the state they are built in, I’d be worried this might lead to regulation of those weapons as well.
 
Raskolnikov said:
I thought gun permits were supposed to be a state affair, not a federal one? Looks like someone’s trying to eat his cake and have it too.
Click to expand...
Boy Oh Boy, I hope this gives Mayor Bloomberg agita and an acid stomach. If it passes, it will make his, and Chicago’s worst nightmare come true! Yippee!
 
bbarrick8383 said:
Wouldn’t this be against the constitutional libertarians best judgement? This may be the camels nose looking to regulate weapons even further. We have weapon manufacturers looking into making weapons that can only be sold within the state they are built in, I’d be worried this might lead to regulation of those weapons as well.
Click to expand...
I see this as a protection of 2nd amendment rights. Manufacturing guns in state has no relation to the right to concealed carry.
 
Raskolnikov said:
I thought gun permits were supposed to be a state affair, not a federal one? Looks like someone’s trying to eat his cake and have it too.
Click to expand...
I thought that the “right to have and bear arms shall not be infringed” was a American citizen right?
 
TMC said:
Yes. It seems the GOP is only committed to the 10th Amendment and Federalism when they like the choices the states are making. First DOMA, now this.
Click to expand...
Wasn’t DOMA signed by a democrat president? If I recall is passed with overwelming support from both parties.
 
SamH said:
Wasn’t DOMA signed by a democrat president? If I recall is passed with overwelming support from both parties.
Click to expand...
Yes, it was. But it is the GOP that wants to keep alive the portion of DOMA that federalizes marriage by refusing to recognize certain state approved marriages. The current administration supports allowing each state to decide. The GOP thinks the federal government should be telling states how to administer marriage, and now apparently thinks the feds should be dictating gun laws. I guess they have decided they want a large and intrusive federal government after all.
 
TMC said:
Yes, it was. But it is the GOP that wants to keep alive the portion of DOMA that federalizes marriage by refusing to recognize certain state approved marriages. The current administration supports allowing each state to decide. The GOP thinks the federal government should be telling states how to administer marriage, and now apparently thinks the feds should be dictating gun laws. I guess they have decided they want a large and intrusive federal government after all.
Click to expand...
I fail to see the problem. There is nothing in the bill that prevents the states from doing as they please.
 
SamH said:
I fail to see the problem. There is nothing in the bill that prevents the states from doing as they please.
Click to expand...
Unless what they please is to bar people from bringing in guns from other states. Or even to set reasonable restrictions on gun laws within their own borders. For example, if Missouri does not allow felons to carry guns, but Illinois does, should St. Louis be forced to allow felons from East St. Louis to carry guns in their town because Illinois thinks that’s OK? How would any state be able to enforce its own gun laws if they are forced to recognized permits issued by other states? Every state’s laws would be de facto reduced to being equal to whatever state has the most lax laws.
 
TMC said:
Unless what they please is to bar people from bringing in guns from other states. Or even to set reasonable restrictions on gun laws within their own borders. For example, if Missouri does not allow felons to carry guns, but Illinois does, should St. Louis be forced to allow felons from East St. Louis to carry guns in their town because Illinois thinks that’s OK? How would any state be able to enforce its own gun laws if they are forced to recognized permits issued by other states? Every state’s laws would be de facto reduced to being equal to whatever state has the most lax laws.
Click to expand...
This bill simply recognizes that if you qualify for a concealed carry permit in your home state, you should be able to carry that weapon anywhere. Nothing about this bill legalizes guns for criminals and felons.
 
TMC said:
Yes, it was. But it is the GOP that wants to keep alive the portion of DOMA that federalizes marriage by refusing to recognize certain state approved marriages. The current administration supports allowing each state to decide. The GOP thinks the federal government should be telling states how to administer marriage, and now apparently thinks the feds should be dictating gun laws. I guess they have decided they want a large and intrusive federal government after all.
Click to expand...
DOMA simply states that a state is not required to recognize a same sex marriage as valid within its borders if that marriage would be considered invalid in that state, but was performed in another. This was to prevent “venue shopping” by people who would obtain residence in a SS marriage legal state, then take their new so-called “marriage” back to their home state and demand that it be treated as legitimate.
 
Scott_Lafrance said:
This bill simply recognizes that if you qualify for a concealed carry permit in your home state, you should be able to carry that weapon anywhere. Nothing about this bill legalizes guns for criminals and felons.
Click to expand...
Exactly 👍
 
Scott_Lafrance said:
This bill simply recognizes that if you qualify for a concealed carry permit in your home state, you should be able to carry that weapon anywhere. Nothing about this bill legalizes guns for criminals and felons.
Click to expand...
Huh? By your own statement, you say that if you qualify to for a carry permit in your state you should be allowed to carry that gun anywhere. So if one state allows felons to carry guns, all states have to let those felons carry their guns in their states. How is my hypothetical about St. Louis and East St. Louis incorrect? This law would prevent Missouri, for example, from barring Illinois citizens with gun permits from carrying guns in Mo. So if Illinois allows felons to have guns, those Illinois felons can carry them into Missouri, right? So Missouri (and every state) loses its right to control who carries guns within its borders.
 
Scott_Lafrance said:
DOMA simply states that a state is not required to recognize a same sex marriage as valid within its borders if that marriage would be considered invalid in that state, but was performed in another. This was to prevent “venue shopping” by people who would obtain residence in a SS marriage legal state, then take their new so-called “marriage” back to their home state and demand that it be treated as legitimate.
Click to expand...
That is Section 2 of DOMA, and the Obama administration continues to defend that part of DOMA. The more important part of DOMA is Section 3, which says that the federal government will not recognize same sex marriages, even if they are valid in the state where the couple resides. That is the first time that the federal government has refused to recognize that states have the power to say which of its citizens are validly married. That is the portion of DOMA that conflicts with the 10th Amendment and the part that the administration has said is unconstitutional.
 
TMC said:
Huh? By your own statement, you say that if you qualify to for a carry permit in your state you should be allowed to carry that gun anywhere. So if one state allows felons to carry guns, all states have to let those felons carry their guns in their states. How is my hypothetical about St. Louis and East St. Louis incorrect? This law would prevent Missouri, for example, from barring Illinois citizens with gun permits from carrying guns in Mo. So if Illinois allows felons to have guns, those Illinois felons can carry them into Missouri, right? So Missouri (and every state) loses its right to control who carries guns within its borders.
Click to expand...
You name for me a state, give me the statute number, that gives felons the authority to carry a concealed weapon.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top