House Weighs Bill to Make Gun Permits Valid Across State Lines

[MikePapa1]

House Weighs Bill To Make Gun Permits Valid Across State Lines | Fox News

[Guest pfries]

I do not see the full validity in that it takes away States ’ Rights . If we were to travel in, to or through that state one would still be held liable for abiding by the States' laws.

I keep my fingers crossed (well I have done a bit more than that) that this works out and helps expand the laws toward the rights we already have been granted but have been trampled on.

[JAB]

To my mind, although I don't like how some states handle the issue, this is an issue for the states to handle and to hash out between themselves. It is not an issue that the Federal government needs (or should have the authority) to get involved in. After all, a fedgov with the power to tell states that they have to recognize other states' permits also has the authority to tell states that they have to meet other states' criteria for issuing permits, claiming that such a 'compromise' is necessary in order to be fair to the states with more stringent (as in draconian) requirements. Such would be a Pyrrhic victory. Sure, your permit would be recognized in other states if you could get a permit in the first place - which would be unlikely if all states had to meet (for instance) the New York requirement that the applicant have a 'valid reason' for having a permit.

After that, how long before the fedgov tells all states that they have to meet the criteria for purchasing a handgun that are used in New York, etc. requiring permits and waiting periods. After all, if someone might eventually be allowed to carry a firearm in New York shouldn't their purchase of said firearm be up to New York's purchasing standards? That sounds like a fair 'compromise', right?

Think about it - do you really want the federal government, headed by the Obama administration, to get a foot or even a toe in the door of what has traditionally been a states rights issue? I don't as I can't believe for one minute that they would do so with a view of actually expanding our rights. Instead, it would be a way to get us to go along with their gaining some control of rights over which they currently have no authority.

Edited September 13, 2011 by JAB

[DaveTN]

It’s just noise. The Feds don’t have the authority. It would never stand up in court.

The house has plenty that they should be worrying about without wasting time on something they know they can’t do.

[Guest bkelm18]

Don't like it. Don't want it. The feds need to keep out of this.

[Mike.357]

they got better things to worry about than this.

I am not sure how the Fed's can dictate this to states.

[Guest drv2fst]

I agree that they are wasting time that should be used on something more productive. However, the Constitution overrules states rights and 2A ends with "...shall not be infringed."

I wish the country really worked that way. As it is...they need to move on to something that might actually get done.

[Worriedman]

If you read the Bill, it states that it takes it's power from the commerce clause, not the 2nd Amendment. I do not like the slightest hint that the commerce clause has anything to do with firearms Rights.

[Guest RobThatsMe]

Thanks for posting the update on this.

Ya know.. I have a TN drivers license... And the funny thing is.. I can drive in every state, and THE FEDS are not overseeing this.

Kinda makes ya go Hmmmmmmm...

[Erik88]

Most of us here are opposed to this(including myself) or it at least makes us uneasy. However, on other forums most of the people are in huge support of it.

The reason is, in TN we are allowed to carry in almost every state(38 now I think) while most of the other states are limited to much less.

[Guest bkelm18]

Most of us here are opposed to this(including myself) or it at least makes us uneasy. However, on other forums most of the people are in huge support of it.

The reason is, in TN we are allowed to carry in almost every state(38 now I think) while most of the other states are limited to much less.

I'd rather have fewer states to carry in than allow the gov't to create some abomination under the auspices of the Commerce Clause. Anytime the Com. Clause is used for anything, you can take it as a sure sign the gov't is about to rape you with something.

[Guest cardcutter]

I'd rather have fewer states to carry in than allow the gov't to create some abomination under the auspices of the Commerce Clause. Anytime the Com. Clause is used for anything, you can take it as a sure sign the gov't is about to rape you with something.

This +1

[RobertNashville]

It’s just noise. The Feds don’t have the authority. It would never stand up in court.

The house has plenty that they should be worrying about without wasting time on something they know they can’t do.

The more scary scenario would be if it passed and did stand up in court...this bill could further open the door to even more intrusive federal government rules/requirements on states than we already have.

If the federal government is going to pass anything regarding firearms, it should be a plain language re-statement the the second amendment means what it says and neither the federal government nor any stat has the power to infringe on it...short of that (which of course will never pass); this is an issue best left to the states.

[Guest RobThatsMe]

I'd rather have fewer states to carry in than allow the gov't to create some abomination under the auspices of the Commerce Clause. Anytime the Com. Clause is used for anything, you can take it as a sure sign the gov't is about to rape you with something.

Do you do any traveling to states that do not honor your HCP on a regular basis?

I do... and it's not right. They honor my drivers license. And I'm pretty sure autos cause more accidents and deaths than guns.

Not saying the feds need to manage this... but something needs to be done to make our 2nd amendment right uniform.

IMHO

Rob

[Erik88]

Do you do any traveling to states that do not honor your HCP on a regular basis?

I do... and it's not right. They honor my drivers license. And I'm pretty sure autos cause more accidents and deaths than guns.

Not saying the feds need to manage this... but something needs to be done to make our 2nd amendment right uniform.

IMHO

Rob

I don't think anyone here will disagree with you but this is not the solution we need.

[Guest bkelm18]

Do you do any traveling to states that do not honor your HCP on a regular basis?

I do... and it's not right. They honor my drivers license. And I'm pretty sure autos cause more accidents and deaths than guns.

Not saying the feds need to manage this... but something needs to be done to make our 2nd amendment right uniform.

IMHO

Rob

I haven't been out of the state in 4 years. A federal law using the Commerce Clause is not the solution. A federal law isn't the solution period. We all would like the 2nd Amendment to be this and that, but we need to realize it is never going to be the end all be all firearms law/right we want it to be. It will always be regulated to some degree, and if it's going to be regulated, I'd rather that responsibility lie with the states and not the feds.

[DaveTN]

Ya know.. I have a TN drivers license... And the funny thing is.. I can drive in every state, and THE FEDS are not overseeing this.

Kinda makes ya go Hmmmmmmm...

You can drive in other states because of reciprocity; just like some state do with carry permits. It’s a decision made by the state because they want their driver’s license accepted in your state.

Some states do not want you carrying a gun in their state and they don’t ask to be allowed to carry in yours.

Having a Federal Vehicle Code has been kicked around for decades. We don’t have one because the states won’t agree on one and the Feds don't have the authority to do it.

[Erik88]

One thing I'm curious about, if this were to pass and we were allowed to carry in a state such as CA, would we have to leave our 15 round mags at home? I'm assuming the 10 round capacity would still apply to us.

On the other hand, in Michigan all guns must be registered(or at least handguns?) however they make an exception for people visiting from other states.

I don't see California making any exceptions though.

[Guest TresOsos]

I'm from the goverment and I'm here to help............yeah right.

They get the Camel's nose under the tent they will ruin CCW, just like they screw up everything else.

[Patrick Henry]

Is it really a "back door" way of implementing the original intent of the 2nd Amendment? i.e.....the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

[Oh Shoot]

The only action on firearm laws the fed needs to take is to repeal all of them.

- OS

[ttocswob]

I'm afraid it's a back door means of making "well regulated" mean what they want it to mean.

[Oh Shoot]

I'm afraid it's a back door means of making "well regulated" mean what they want it to mean.

Yes, would be a terrible precedent. The door can easily swing both ways. Now ya see it, now ya don't.

- OS

[wjh2657]

Uh oh, this is not a good thing. Check out the sheep, it has claws, fangs and piercing eyes!

[Jonnin]

It is not about states rights at all. Permits and the concept of them is infringement of the second. State laws about gun ownership is infringement of the second. The feds simply need to uphold the constitution and let people own and carry weapons, and let that stand. The states truly have no right to do anything to limit who can and cannot own a weapon, the same as they may not limit who can vote or any of the others. Of course, they get away with it because our government has been filled with idiots for over 75 years, but that is another story. This bill is weaksauce, a wimpy attempt to do the right thing but it is bad because it accepts gun control as legal, and by accepting that, the feds pull their own teeth.