House Passes Concealed Carry Reciprocity

[bersaguy]

Well I am not sure if it would really make a whole lot of difference if the stats where kept. Between the anti-gun people and the bias News Medias they would get distorted or Muddy it up so bad it probably would not make a lot of difference anyway. The Left/Anti-Gun, bias news medias don't want anything to come out of legal gun ownership or legal carry in any shape of form to be a positive note. It would make their jobs much much harder if that happened...........JMHO

[SWCUMBERLAND]

On 12/6/2017 at 3:09 PM, Chucktshoes said:

This is not a positive long term development. 

An interesting assertion.

Even more interesting would be a timely recitation of the facts behind that assertion.

[SWCUMBERLAND]

On 12/9/2017 at 10:29 AM, bersaguy said:

the Gun Buster signs

Could you explain this?

 

In NV businesses can post "No Firearms on Premises" signage and even CCW is required to heed. But that was part and parcel of this states' open carry statute, and every 'reasonable entrance' has to display one of these. We had them for the longest time except over in the auto section, and instead of spending $6 to put a third one UP, they took the other two down.  Go figure.

 

[Omega]

5 hours ago, SWCUMBERLAND said:

Could you explain this?

 

In NV businesses can post "No Firearms on Premises" signage and even CCW is required to heed. But that was part and parcel of this states' open carry statute, and every 'reasonable entrance' has to display one of these. We had them for the longest time except over in the auto section, and instead of spending $6 to put a third one UP, they took the other two down.  Go figure.

 

I think he is referring to the fact that in TN, the signage has force of law.  If you go into a posted business, you can be arrested if you are carrying, the business does not have to trespass you.  In other states, the business has to ask you to leave, and you have to refuse before being arrested.

[Chucktshoes]

7 hours ago, SWCUMBERLAND said:

An interesting assertion.

Even more interesting would be a timely recitation of the facts behind that assertion.

If the federal government can tell states that they must recognize another state's permit using the Interstate Commerce Clause then they can tell states what the qualifications must be to get those permits in first place. Do you want a Democrat trifecta of house, senate, and President determining that you have to have "good cause" like in Cali or Maryland for a permit to be valid?

Unless the right to carry under the 2A is incorporated under the 14th, any meddling by the fed.gov is fraught with danger that will be exploited when the opportunity arises. 

[n0rlf]

41 minutes ago, Chucktshoes said:

If the federal government can tell states that they must recognize another state's permit using the Interstate Commerce Clause then they can tell states what the qualifications must be to get those permits in first place. Do you want a Democrat trifecta of house, senate, and President determining that you have to have "good cause" like in Cali or Maryland for a permit to be valid?

Unless the right to carry under the 2A is incorporated under the 14th, any meddling by the fed.gov is fraught with danger that will be exploited when the opportunity arises. 

They could also state that the 2nd amendment "Shall not be infringed" means there are no qualifications or restrictions beyond the usual felon, domestic abuse, standard disqualifications found on the current 4473 basically. 

Chances are we all know how that would turn out. A long protracted court battle to determine if the states have the right to hold higher standards than the feds.

Just because a bill can be said to go one way does not mean it is completely bad. A few tweaks to keep the gun grabbers at bay and settle the points of discussion and it would be good. I would be happy if they tabled it until those points are worked out as long as they do it and not stand around and talk about it all darn year. 

It will be an interesting fight once it gets to the court. Basically they get to decide if the US constitution can be overruled by the states.  Hah, let the head exploding on both sides commence now.

 

[SWCUMBERLAND]

6 hours ago, Omega said:

I think he is referring to the fact that in TN, the signage has force of law.  If you go into a posted business, you can be arrested if you are carrying, the business does not have to trespass you.  In other states, the business has to ask you to leave, and you have to refuse before being arrested.

I'd have to check on our statutes. I'm thinking that they are of the latter type.

My patch is in the back corner of the building, and the whiners have asked me if I'm not afraid of someone coming up on me with an open carried weapon. I am not. When I ask them if they can drop their magazines or show me a speedloader, it's to see what ammo they are carrying and how best to meet their needs. Some won't, and ask me why, and I tell them... and most of the time I get a nod and a magazine. If  someone was to open carry in order to cause trouble, rest assured I have solutions for them... and they do not entail running away screaming like a little girl.

[SWCUMBERLAND]

Chucktshoes:"If the federal government can tell states that they must recognize another state's permit using the Interstate Commerce Clause then they can tell states what the qualifications must be to get those permits in first place."

Please justify on how one necessarily follows the other. And please use small words, I am a citizen, not a politician.

C:"Do you want a Democrat trifecta of house, senate, and President determining that you have to have "good cause" like in Cali or Maryland for a permit to be valid?"

Statist, not Democrat., And no, I don't.

C:"Unless the right to carry under the 2A is incorporated under the 14th, any meddling by the fed.gov is fraught with danger that will be exploited when the opportunity arises."

Any meddling with any rights by the feds is fraught with danger. Especially so with the statists embedded under Fat Bill and Barry.

 

[tnhawk]

While waiting for the background check for a purchase to clear, a gun store employee make a remark in favor the reciprocity bill.  After I asked is he had a problem with Boston, Chicago or LA making the decision on what and how he could carry, he began to see the future danger of national laws on concealed carry.

Carry of my purchase or the purchase itself wouldn't have been legal in some parts of our Country.

Edited December 22, 2017 by tnhawk