Lugar Co-Sponsors Thune's National Reciprocity Handgun Carry Bill

[melensdad]

Lugar WITHDRAWS SUPP ---UN---Sponsors Thune's National Reciprocity Carry Bill

[strike]GOA is reporting that Dick Lugar, the most anti-gun GOP Senator in Washington has signed on as a co-sponsor to the Thune carry bill.

That can only mean 1 thing . . . the bill will never be allowed to pass the Senate.

Lugar is such an anti-gun political tool that he would never support a bill that had the possibility of passing.[/strike]

>>> LUGAR HAS NOW WITHDRAWN SUPPORT OF THIS BILL <<<

SEE HERE ==> https://www.indianagunowners.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2731670#post2743247








.

 

[red_zr24x4]

He knows it wont pass and he's putting on a show for everyone back here in Ind. trying to get re-elected.

 

[Carmelbythecorn]

Regardless of whether he wants this passed or not, Lugar simply HAS to go! If he wants it passed, it probably is a bad thing for our 2nd amendment liberties...

 

[melensdad]

Exactly its ALL FOR SHOW to try to prove, at the last minute, that he is pro-gun. His record proves otherwise.

 

[semperfi211]

Or he has finally seen the light and changed.

 

[J_Wales]

Further evidence that the national reciprocity law is but an attempt at an expansion of the state.

See post 21

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...ght_to_carry_reciprocity_act_of_2012_a-3.html

 

[Jake46184]

The last thing any of us want is a National Reciprocity Handgun Carry law. It would be a disaster for residents of a state like Indiana.

 

[J_Wales]

The last thing any of us want is a National Reciprocity Handgun Carry law. It would be a disaster for residents of a state like Indiana.

Absolutely correct.

 

[JettaKnight]

The last thing any of us want is a National Reciprocity Handgun Carry law. It would be a disaster for residents of a state like Indiana.

Huh? Care to explain? From my viewpoint Hoosiers have a lot to gain. We enjoy easy access to a LTHC and are now excluded from enjoying that right in many states (e.g. Ohio). How exactly does this work against us? Please refrain from hypothetical future laws, stick to the bill as written.

 

[J_Wales]

Huh? Care to explain? From my viewpoint Hoosiers have a lot to gain. We enjoy easy access to a LTHC and are now excluded from enjoying that right in many states (e.g. Ohio). How exactly does this work against us? Please refrain from hypothetical future laws, stick to the bill as written.

See post 6 above.

I for one have little interest in the States ceding even more say to the central government.

I suspect I am not alone.

 

[J_Wales]

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...ght_to_carry_reciprocity_act_of_2012_a-3.html

Also see post 34

 

[dross]

I've been against this one all along.

If the law said that the 2nd Amendment applied to the States and therefore there can be no federal restrictions or state restrictions on firearms, I'd be for it.

Right now, individual states have preserved our rights, starting with Florida. One by one, states have passed concealed carry, until now I can travel all over the country and carry legally. The precedent is set that the feds can't ban concealed carry.

What if they pass this law? We're agreeing that states can't set their own rules for carry and reciprocity, but must follow other states' rules. We give up the high ground on this.

All you need is for the winds to shift a little, and now the feds repeal all concealed carry. We've already agreed in principle that the states must bow to the feds on this issue if we support reciprocity.

If it's a state by state issue, one incident or a fickle wind is only likely to change one or two states. If it's a fed issue, they can change it just because they get enough votes in Congress, or perhaps in a lame duck session when they've just gotten trounced in an election.

We've already won this one, folks. Let's not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

 

[J_Wales]

I've been against this one all along.

If the law said that the 2nd Amendment applied to the States and therefore there can be no federal restrictions or state restrictions on firearms, I'd be for it.

Right now, individual states have preserved our rights, starting with Florida. One by one, states have passed concealed carry, until now I can travel all over the country and carry legally. The precedent is set that the feds can't ban concealed carry.

What if they pass this law? We're agreeing that states can't set their own rules for carry and reciprocity, but must follow other states' rules. We give up the high ground on this.

All you need is for the winds to shift a little, and now the feds repeal all concealed carry. We've already agreed in principle that the states must bow to the feds on this issue if we support reciprocity.

If it's a state by state issue, one incident or a fickle wind is only likely to change one or two states. If it's a fed issue, they can change it just because they get enough votes in Congress, or perhaps in a lame duck session when they've just gotten trounced in an election.

We've already won this one, folks. Let's not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Well said, Sir.

This has been a good example of how the union of sovereign States with a limited central government was designed to work.

 

[JettaKnight]

See post 6 above.

I for one have little interest in the States ceding even more say to the central government.

I suspect I am not alone.

I know your reasoning, I want to know why Jake says it's bad.

 

[buckstopshere]

I've been against this one all along.

If the law said that the 2nd Amendment applied to the States and therefore there can be no federal restrictions or state restrictions on firearms, I'd be for it.

Right now, individual states have preserved our rights, starting with Florida. One by one, states have passed concealed carry, until now I can travel all over the country and carry legally. The precedent is set that the feds can't ban concealed carry.

What if they pass this law? We're agreeing that states can't set their own rules for carry and reciprocity, but must follow other states' rules. We give up the high ground on this.

All you need is for the winds to shift a little, and now the feds repeal all concealed carry. We've already agreed in principle that the states must bow to the feds on this issue if we support reciprocity.

If it's a state by state issue, one incident or a fickle wind is only likely to change one or two states. If it's a fed issue, they can change it just because they get enough votes in Congress, or perhaps in a lame duck session when they've just gotten trounced in an election.

We've already won this one, folks. Let's not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

This outlines my feelings exactly.

 

[rambone]

I suspect Lugar supports this wholeheartedly and wants it to pass.

 

[.45 Dave]

I've been against this one all along.

If the law said that the 2nd Amendment applied to the States and therefore there can be no federal restrictions or state restrictions on firearms, I'd be for it.

Right now, individual states have preserved our rights, starting with Florida. One by one, states have passed concealed carry, until now I can travel all over the country and carry legally. The precedent is set that the feds can't ban concealed carry.

What if they pass this law? We're agreeing that states can't set their own rules for carry and reciprocity, but must follow other states' rules. We give up the high ground on this.

All you need is for the winds to shift a little, and now the feds repeal all concealed carry. We've already agreed in principle that the states must bow to the feds on this issue if we support reciprocity.

If it's a state by state issue, one incident or a fickle wind is only likely to change one or two states. If it's a fed issue, they can change it just because they get enough votes in Congress, or perhaps in a lame duck session when they've just gotten trounced in an election.

We've already won this one, folks. Let's not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

I agree. State's rights trump federal law and this is like, if you'll excuse the mixed metaphor, putting all your eggs in one basket and then letting the fox guard it.

 

[traderdan]

An individual who frequently plays chess would refer to this move as a "Gambit". An offer to "give" you something thereby putting you in the position that they want you to be in....in order to take something more important away later on.

 

[Prometheus]

I've been against this one all along.

I've been arguing this on here since 2008. Few seem to get it.

If the law said that the 2nd Amendment applied to the States and therefore there can be no federal restrictions or state restrictions on firearms, I'd be for it.

Exactly.

Gun owners are, like virtually every other voting block in the country, ignorant and prone to throw the baby out with the bath water.

Lugar is only doing this for one reason. Lugar. It is either for a nefarious back stabbing in obamas second term OR simply because Mourdock is gaining momentum. Perhaps both.

I just got my Mourdock for Senate yard sign yesterday. I may even walk my neighborhood for him...

f' lugar.

 

[ghunter]

I've been against this one all along.

If the law said that the 2nd Amendment applied to the States and therefore there can be no federal restrictions or state restrictions on firearms, I'd be for it.

Right now, individual states have preserved our rights, starting with Florida. One by one, states have passed concealed carry, until now I can travel all over the country and carry legally. The precedent is set that the feds can't ban concealed carry.

What if they pass this law? We're agreeing that states can't set their own rules for carry and reciprocity, but must follow other states' rules. We give up the high ground on this.

All you need is for the winds to shift a little, and now the feds repeal all concealed carry. We've already agreed in principle that the states must bow to the feds on this issue if we support reciprocity.

If it's a state by state issue, one incident or a fickle wind is only likely to change one or two states. If it's a fed issue, they can change it just because they get enough votes in Congress, or perhaps in a lame duck session when they've just gotten trounced in an election.

We've already won this one, folks. Let's not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Agreed.