Texas senator proposes bill for nationwide concealed carry reciprocity

[JohnC]

Texas senator proposes bill for nationwide concealed carry reciprocity.

 

http://www.guns.com/2014/01/13/texas-senator-proposes-bill-nationwide-concealed-carry-reciprocity-video/

[Jonnin]

this is the wrong approach.  We need nation wide constitutional carry.

 

Two big problems with this bill:

1) it accepts the idea that permits are OK, when they are a tax on the right.

2) it will be watered down (assuming it got any traction at all) such that the left would try to ensure that all states had to use the most restrictive set of laws... effectively forcing all states to use the NY template or something worse (NY + CA perhaps?)

 

I think I will send him a note on that, though I do not like to bother out of state guys much this is worth it. 

[RobertNashville]

I'm just not sure I see a need for this...it may not hurt anything but is it truly needed?  There is hardly a state I travel to or ever want to travel to/through that doesn't already my TN HCP and while we have it better than other States, that seems to be a "State" issue to me; not one that the federal government should solve.

If the federal government wants to make things better than how about getting rid of 99% of all federal gun laws! ;)

[Guest PapaB]

Be careful of what you ask for. Any legislation that expands the feds control over firearms and/or states rights will not end well. However good they make it sound at first, they'll turn it into raw sewage and the only thing we'll get from it is the stink.

[Guest TresOsos]

Well,I believe Cornyn is up for re-election and is getting challenged by the Tea party Conservatives, same folks that got Cruz elected.

He's been under fire for siding with the RINO's on budget and Obamacare matters.

I sure this is just a move to appease the Texas voters and doesn't stand a chance in Hades.

Edited January 14, 2014 by TresOsos

[Guest TresOsos]

Be careful of what you ask for. Any legislation that expands the feds control over firearms and/or states rights will not end well. However good they make it sound at first, they'll turn it into raw sewage and the only thing we'll get from it is the stink.

Yep do we really want to give the FEDs a door into "Regulating" (which is what they do) concealed carry, I think not.

[Chucktshoes]

This is a big case of not just no, but hell no.

[Oh Shoot]

This is a big case of not just no, but hell no.

 

Yeah, this almost passed some years ago. Was scary.

 

It would of course have been appealed by any number of states. I assure you Kali and NY and CT and etc do NOT want you to be able to carry heat in their states. If SCOTUS allowed it, it would indeed be a huge precedent for federal control over a states right issue not to mention a 2nd Amendment one. And it's a small step from allowing carry in every state to allowing carry only in one's resident state, and hence as precedent to carry in no states.

 

- OS

[TMF]

The federal govt getting control of who can and can't carry and where they can carry it is a scary thought and it would end badly. We whine about gunbuster signs and having to pay for a permit. If the Feds got control of this we'd be in a lot worse shape. One can not even fathom how bad it would be for us.

[Erik88]

I'm just as skeptical of our government as anyone else here but I'm hoping somone can explain how this might hurt us. LEOSA comes to mind which I know has been a huge benefit to LEO's across the country.

 

Let's say this passes and we're able to carry in every state. What exactly could they do later that would potentially screw us over?

Edited January 14, 2014 by Erik88

[Oh Shoot]

I'm just as skeptical of our government as anyone else here but I'm hoping somone can explain how this might hurt us. LEOSA comes to mind which I know has been a huge benefit to LEO's across the country.

 

Let's say this passes and we're able to carry in every state. What exactly could they do later that would potentially screw us over?

 

I repeat:

 

Yeah, this almost passed some years ago. Was scary.

 

It would of course have been appealed by any number of states. I assure you Kali and NY and CT and etc do NOT want you to be able to carry heat in their states. If SCOTUS allowed it, it would indeed be a huge precedent for federal control over a states right issue not to mention a 2nd Amendment one. And it's a small step from allowing carry in every state to allowing carry only in one's resident state, and hence as precedent to carry in no states.

 

Anything the fed can set a precedent for control of, they can control completely. Just takes a different Congress to change a previous decision 180 degrees the other way. Absolutely best to keep their damn mitts off what is purely a state's right issue.

 

- OS

Edited January 14, 2014 by Oh Shoot

[bersaguy]

I say no to this in so many ways I can't list them all. I think it is much better to let each state say who's carry permits they accept and deny. Keep the Feds out of state business.  I don't see it going very far at present since the only elected people backing the bill are all Republicans and Dirty Harry will never let it get to the floor for a vote.................................jmho

[RobertNashville]

I'm just as skeptical of our government as anyone else here but I'm hoping somone can explain how this might hurt us. LEOSA comes to mind which I know has been a huge benefit to LEO's across the country.

 

Let's say this passes and we're able to carry in every state. What exactly could they do later that would potentially screw us over?

I haven't see the actual bill so I may be way off base here but I suspect that this bill has nothing to do with being able to carry in every State but rather, would make the need for reciprocity agreements between individual States unnecessary. In other words, any state that does not already issue carry permits would not suddenly be required to do so, only that states that do allow carry would have to accept all other State's permits just as they now must accept other State's driver licenses.

 

That said, I'm not in any way in favor of this approach...it's sounds nice from a distance but I do not want the federal government deciding whether I can or can't carry a firearm in Tennessee - only Tennessee should make that decision if there is going to be a decision (i.e. permit process).

[Oh Shoot]

In other words, any state that does not already issue carry permits would not suddenly be required to do so, ....

 

Fact is that all 50 states do indeed now issue permits, however limited some of them are in that regard. Hawaii is apparently the most limited of all, btw.

 

You can bet that at least 10 states would join in lawsuit, maybe even half or more -- definitely would be decided by SCOTUS eventually. And if SCOTUS grants the fed that power, would surely be a Bad Thing.

 

- OS

[TMF]

I'm just as skeptical of our government as anyone else here but I'm hoping somone can explain how this might hurt us. LEOSA comes to mind which I know has been a huge benefit to LEO's across the country.
 
Let's say this passes and we're able to carry in every state. What exactly could they do later that would potentially screw us over?

Well, let's start by acknowledging that there will be congresscritters in other parts of the country dictating when, where and how you can carry in your own state. Don't think for a second that just because they would mandate legal carry in every state translates to the ability to actually carry that firearm freely. No, think NFA. Think all the restrictions in there. Think how long it would take to get your permit. Think about the requirements they'll make to get one. Think limits on round capacity. Think about places they'll make off limits... pretty much anywhere there are kids, large crowds, spotted owls or red cockaded woodpeckers.

The people who would be constructing this and bartering its passing would be fighting tooth and nail to neuter it and the guys on the Rep side of the aisle would accept that for the sake of getting it passed. It would be messy. Plus, they'll be able to tack on more restrictions as they go, which means the next time an Adam Lanza goes postal with a democrat POTUS and Congress, they'll be able to do REAL damage. The end result of them passing it would be all of us carrying 7 round capacity pistols to and from the range because that would be the only legal place you could take them.

[DaveTN]

It’s a non-starter; the states will never agree to it and neither will the Feds.

[TMF]

It’s a non-starter; the states will never agree to it and neither will the Feds.

And there's that. Unless the Dem anti-gunner strategists figure out the possibilities here.

[Guest TresOsos]

I'm just as skeptical of our government as anyone else here but I'm hoping somone can explain how this might hurt us. LEOSA comes to mind which I know has been a huge benefit to LEO's across the country.

 

Let's say this passes and we're able to carry in every state. What exactly could they do later that would potentially screw us over?

For starters, how about a mandatory training class that could cost hundreds of dollars and take years to get into.

You really think if the Feds got invloved they wouldn't take control from the states, no they would have to make everythig uniform

and equally miserable.

[Jamie Jackson]

I feel it's a State's Rights issue completely.

 

Every time we "Federalize" anything, and we've "given" way too much to the bloated and inefficient creature the Federal Government has evolved into,we lose a piece of our soul.

Our Constitution is met to protect our God Given Rights and is ignored more and more each day by the Feds. I think it would be the beginning on the end of meaningful concealed carry.

The Rule of Unintended Consequences is always standing close at hand...

 

I think TMF and others have summed up my concerns quite well.

[Dolomite_supafly]

I'm just as skeptical of our government as anyone else here but I'm hoping somone can explain how this might hurt us. LEOSA comes to mind which I know has been a huge benefit to LEO's across the country.

 

Let's say this passes and we're able to carry in every state. What exactly could they do later that would potentially screw us over?

Once the Fed actually makes it law then they can change the wording of that law without the need of any legislative legwork. Right now, as it has been for a very long time, NFA stuff on a trust doesn't need backgrounds on trustees. Without passing a law they have changed the regulations requiring a background on trustees. This is going to cause a lot of problems, and costs, for people that weren't there before. And this was done with very little input. They asked for people to comment on it but we, as citizens, can't hold their feet to the fire like we can our representatives because we can't vote out those who are making the changes to the NFA.

 

Look at the EPA. There have been very few laws passed over time but they opine or rewrite regulations to further encroach on people.

 

It is not the law you have to worry about, it is the rules and regulations that will be implemented after it has been made a law. Look at the monster that ObamaCare has become. It was passed on a ~1,100 page document that has not reached well beyond 20K pages as they make up the regulations for it. Same thing would happen with a federal HCP mandate. It would go from a simple law that was passed to something that you would need to hire a lawyer to decipher. This is what would happen with anything related to firearms on a federal level.

 

If the Fed did pass this then the Fed would make some sort of regulatory agency that is responsible for figuring out what should be and shouldn't be legal. And no doubt that the head of the regulatory agency responsible for determining what is legal would be appointed, like most others, by the president. And just because we might start out with a decent person in charge, a few election cycles later we might end up with a Pelosi or Feinstein as the head of the regulatory agency responsible for deciding who can, how they can and where they can carry. And what might be legal today could be changed with the stroke of a pen rather than by congress just like the NFA trust issue. And those changes would not be something we would hear about until after it has been changed like most things done by the Fed. And in the beginning, by default, they would likely use the most restrictive laws as a template to hopefully avoid a lawsuit by those restrictive states and then from there is would only get more restrictive. The Fed does not have a habit of loosening restrictions.